Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Revoked, failure to take a polygraph (Read 46267 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #30 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 12:52am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Jester wrote on Dec 29th, 2007 at 5:43pm:
I have served my time, therapy was of great benefit to myself. The time I'm serving now is not related to my original offense, in my opinion.

I think at some point you have to weigh time served against the crime committed and come to the conclusion enough is enough.  I also understand some people need to be monitored for life, there are indeed some scary people within my group.  As the Judge noted, I was told to apply for early release.  Probation had no intention of allowing that to happen from the beginning.  They have in effect over ruled the Judge.  Solution?  Let the Judge know through filing a motion.  File a motion and piss off the therapy team, justice is difficult to find.

You cannot paint all sex offenders with the same brush.  Not all victims are minors, as has been suggested.  I hesitate to talk about the details of my offense because I DON'T want to leave the impression that some how it was justified, it was not.

It is not justified being revoked essentially because of clerical errors due to the therapy team.  For revocation to take place you need two things:
1.  An inexcusable offense.
2.  A substantial offense.

While failing to take a polygraph is substantial, the circumstances in my case were hardly inexcusable.  Digusting?  OK, I'll give you that.  Provoked by errors?  Most certainly.  Assaulted by the polygrapher?  Not justified, as he acknowledged and apologized for.

As a polygrapher at what point would you assault a client?  I was doing what I learned to do in therapy, walk away.


Jester, did you reoffend ????- sexually assault another individual?  Otherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy. 

I think at some point you have to weigh time served against the crime committed and come to the conclusion enough is enough

Jester - What about the victim?  Just because you said you are sorry - do you think your victim(S) don't relive that offense every day of their life? Cry

And GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

Bravo Eric!  Your comments are real and hopefully some of the AP folks will think twice about what they are doing here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #31 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 3:35am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This is an interesting discussion.  Someone just reading this site for the first time would likely come away with the impression that George Maschke is helping Sex Offenders escape detection from their crimes.  But, in other threads, the same poly examiners crying the blues about this site say that all reading TLBLD  and following it's advice will do is create the chance for false positives, which of course, doesn't help the Sex Offerder at all.

Too bad there isn't a little Smiliy for a two faced individual, because that is exactly what I am seeing here.

Boys, (and girl) you can't have it both ways.  This site can't help sex offenders escape detection and at the same time have the information regarding the use of counter measures be false.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #32 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 4:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nopolycop wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 3:35am:
This is an interesting discussion.  Someone just reading this site for the first time would likely come away with the impression that George Maschke is helping Sex Offenders escape detection from their crimes.  But, in other threads, the same poly examiners crying the blues about this site say that all reading TLBLD  and following it's advice will do is create the chance for false positives, which of course, doesn't help the Sex Offerder at all.

Too bad there isn't a little Smiliy for a two faced individual, because that is exactly what I am seeing here.

Boys, (and girl) you can't have it both ways.  This site can't help sex offenders escape detection and at the same time have the information regarding the use of counter measures be false.



Did you read Eric Johnsons post?  Not only are we talking about the polygraph but the entire containment approach on sex offenders.  Because of this site which contains a Post Conviction Polygraph Program thread, a narcissistic sex offender (JESTER!!!!) may believe he can beat the polygraph and re-offend.  WTH NP4M tries to slam the polygraph examiners while encouraging a sex offender to DENY everything!  If he re-offends and has a polygraph he will be caught but guess what - THERE IS ANOTHER VICTIM!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #33 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 7:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 12:18am:
Eric, nonombre,

Rather than bemoaning the existence of this website and the public availability of information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures, those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees should re-consider their misplaced reliance on the lie detector.


I see, hmmm...

and if there is in fact a hot link to this website from the pedophile "North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website, this is okay with you? Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #34 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 9:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The misconceptions about polygraph regarding convicted sex-offenders by sex offenders the founder of this site and his anti polygraph crowd used to be mildly entertaining but in my opinion you are starting to do some serious damage and put the public at risk by your coddling of convicted sex offenders.

Psssst Mr. Mashke, Sergeant, Jester, triple X, I’m going to tell you a secret that probably all of the polygraphers that post on this site and almost all the therapists engaged in Sex Offender treatment already know.

Come a little closer, I don’t want everyone to hear this. Polygraphing Sex Offenders is not about detecting lies. If it was, every time some child molestorfailed an exam he’d find himself back in jail. That just doesn’t happ en.  Post conviction polygraph testing for sex offenders is really about facilitating the truth and monitoring progress. People have a natural tendency against admitting to things that portray themselves in a negative light. That reluctance is magnified when their behavior is vehemently condemned by society. In order for treatment to be effective the therapist must explore the full spectrum of fantasies and behaviors to best determine how to focus their treatment efforts. Polygraph provides both an avenue of discovery and a deterrent to behavior that might violate the probation contract or the therapy contract.

Polygraph helps provide access to problem areas that might otherwise go undiscovered. It is not unusual for a sex offender to be convicted for a crime unrelated to his primary Paraphilia. If for instance, a subject was convicted of flashing a woman at Wal Mart and the therapist treated him for that problem, he might completely miss the fact that the offender was attempting to expose himself to a young boy a couple of aisles away rather than the woman who reported him.   If polygraph helps reveal this Paraphilia, who benefits? Society and the subject both benefit because it increases the probability of his successful treatment.

For example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003) “This study of data collected on disclosures made by 180 convicted sexual offenders (most were convicted of crimes against children) during the course of four different treatment/polygraph programs found that 39% had a history of sexually assaulting adults, 31% had sexually assaulted both male and female victims, 36% had engaged in bestiality, and two-thirds of the incest offenders had assaulted victims outside the family. Complete information is necessary for treatment providers and supervising officers to develop meaningful and relevant treatment and supervision plans, and for imminent, situational risk factors to be managed and contained.”

A Colorado DOC position paper cites their statistics thusly:
“The Department of Corrections (DOC) Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program (SOTMP) now utilizes polygraph assessment of sex offenders to determine the extent of their deviant history. Results of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior. This is new information which is not contained in the offender's criminal justice records.”
Hmm seems like there is some indication that treating a sex-offender based only on his conviction offense might just miss the boat.

Once again, because some people have trouble with simple details, Sex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph. The polygraph examiner does not decide who goes back to jail. Any issues that arise out of a polygraph examination are reviewed by the therapist who makes his decisions based on the subject’s progress in treatment.

Here is another secret, c’mon scoot in close guys. If a subject fails a polygraph for probation or parole, he does not automatically go back to jail. For example a subject indicated deception on a question about drug use, that information would be reported to the P.O. who would then increase surveillance, call for a surprise UA, or conduct a search of the subject’s residence. If there is some corroborating evidence a subject might be revoked. Once again this is not the polygrapher’s decision. The revocation would be based on the subject’s activities not the polygraph. The knowledge of pending polygraph examination provides a deterrent to engaging in activities that could lead to revocation or failure in therapy.

And the last big secret for today…..wait for it…. This is gonna knock your socks off…

CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

A study entitled Post-conviction Sex Offender Polygraph Examination: Client-Reported Perceptions of Utility and Accuracy
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
Issue Volume 17, Number 2 / April, 2005

“Post-conviction polygraph testing of adult sex offenders in treatment has been a somewhat controversial subject. This study (n = 95 participants who took 333 polygraph tests) explored how sexual offenders enrolled in outpatient treatment programs perceived their polygraph experience. Participants reported a relatively low incidence of false indications of both deception (22 of 333 tests) and truthfulness (11 of 333) tests, suggesting that clients agreed with examiners  opinions 90% of the time. The majority of clients reported that polygraph testing was a helpful part of treatment. Finally, about 5% of participants reported that they responded to allegedly inaccurate accusations of deception by admitting to things they had not done.”

Don’t forget Convicted Sex Offenders who are subject to post conviction polygraph tests have voluntarily entered into a contract to obey and cooperate with ALL of the terms set out in their release and therapy contracts. ANY TIME THEY DECIDE THEY ARE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY THEY ARE FREE TO REVOKE THEIR CONTRACT AND RETURN TO JAIL.

They are not entitled to any relief from the individual terms of their contract just because they don’t agree.   Yes they can get revoked for failure to cooperate with the polygrapher just like they can get revoked for failure to attend treatment or refusal to provide a sample for U.A. and none of that has anything to do at all with whether or not you or they agree with the value of polygraph, treatment, or drug analysis.

In conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

There is considerably more evidence that Post Conviction Polygraph for Sex Offenders provides more benefits to the treatment program, the offender, and society than any statements to the contrary on this site.

Your stated position that you do not support sex offenders lying to polygraphers conflicts with the words in your book and the existence of a forum for sex offenders on your site to whine about the mean old polygrapher. This conflict is just another example of “The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector”


Sancho Panza.
« Last Edit: Dec 31st, 2007 at 1:40am by SanchoPanza »  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #35 - Dec 31st, 2007 at 10:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SP,

I don’t think your condescendingly sarcastic “revelation”, quoted below, was truly news to anyone. I know it was not to me.

Quote:
Come a little closer, I don’t want everyone to hear this. Polygraphing Sex Offenders is not about detecting lies. If it was, every time some child molestorfailed an exam he’d find himself back in jail. That just doesn’t happ en.  Post conviction polygraph testing for sex offenders is really about facilitating the truth and monitoring progress.


I am somewhat surprised you were willing to admit that polygraphs are used as interrogation intimidators and not as lie detectors.  It hardly speaks for the accuracy of the polygraph as a detector of deception that even polygraph examiners don’t use them for that purpose when dealing with the scum of the earth, i.e., sex offenders.  Using the same logic that allows you to claim George is a supporter of sex offenders by providing information on the polygraph, it could be argued that by admitting to any sex offender reading your post that the polygraph is not used to detect lies, but is instead used simply to intimidate sex offenders into being honest during their interviews, you have reduced the efficacy of the polygraph and therefore must likewise be a supporter of child molesters.  I do not agree with your logic, and I am not saying you are a supporter of child molesters, but it is hard to avoid the irony.

It seems clear to me you are admitting that the polygraph is not the proper tool for detecting deception, but it can be effective at scaring people into making admissions, provided they believe that polygraph can detect deception.  I don’t think many people on this site would disagree; I certainly would not.  That being the case, I can certainly see why you and other pro-polygraph people are upset about the existence of polygraph and countermeasure information in general, and the existence of this site in particular.  If it becomes widely known that the polygraph does not actually detect deception its utility as an interrogation intimidator will be greatly reduced.  However, I think it is unfair to place the blame for that eventuality with anyone or anything other than lack of scientific basis of the polygraph and its lack of accuracy in detecting deception.

If an agency or a person is using an instrument or a process that purports to detect deception but is actually incapable of doing so, it stands to reason that the truth regarding that instrument or process will eventually become known.  Attempting to keep that truth a secret by working to vilify anyone who publicly provides that information is misleading, because you have to be aware that a person can believe that the polygraph is not useful as a detector of deception without that person being a supporter of terrorists, or sex offenders, or whatever other despicable criminals you attempt to link to anyone who speaks out against the polygraph.

I think that you and other pro-polygraph people are intentionally guilty of the logical fallacy of bifurcation in that you work quite diligently to promote the idea that a person is either in favor of the polygraph and therefore pro-law and order and against such things as sex offenders and terrorists; or a person is against the polygraph and therefore a supporter of such terrible things as sex offenders and terrorists.  I think it is clear that there can be and is at least one other option; that a person can believe the polygraph is not an accurate detector of deception and as such it should not be used for any process as important as pre-employment screening for government and LEO jobs.

If anyone is interested in understanding this point of view rather than simply being content to belittle anyone with whom they do not agree I can certainly try to explain it, at least from my point of view.

In my experience, the polygraph is not an accurate detector of deception.  I told the truth and was called a liar by three different polygraph examiners, for three different reasons.  I am aware that for people who believe in the accuracy of the polygraph, it can function quite well as an interrogation intimidator.  To me, that has nothing to do with its utility as a detector of deception.  In my point of view, the polygraph is no different than Tarot cards, or crystal balls, or the classic urban legend about a suspect being hooked up to a colander and a photocopier.  Any of those things may produce a confession or a damaging admission if the subject believes they are capable of accurately detecting deception, but none of them are actually capable of detecting deception.

If Tarot cards were being used to screen sex offenders because for some reason sex offenders believed Tarot cards were able to accurately detect deception, and for that reason the sex offenders tended to not only abide by the conditions of their release, but also to answer truthfully during their interviews, I would probably be skeptical of the utility of such a program.  Since the Tarot cards cannot, in fact, detect deception, I’m sure I would wonder how anyone could possibly know if the sex offenders were actually telling the truth.  If I were to post my doubts about the ability of the Tarot cards to detect deception, I’m sure there would be people who wouldn’t hesitate to claim I must be a supporter of sex offenders.  I think it is clear how unreasonable that argument would be.  I think it is equally unreasonable for anyone to opine that I am somehow a supporter of sex offenders because I post my belief that the polygraph is not capable of detecting deception and therefore should not be used in that capacity.

The polygraph is not simply used as an interrogation intimidator – it is also regularly used as a detector of deception.  As already stated, I do not believe it is capable of detecting deception.  Using it in that manner is simply wrong.  How many outstanding police applicants are disqualified for no reason other than a failed polygraph?  How many security threats, traitors, and spies are allowed to continue undermining our national security because their deception goes unchecked by the polygraph?  How many sex offenders are allowed to continue offending because they lie on their polygraph exams and are not caught in doing so?  I don’t know the answers and neither does anyone else, because the accuracy of the polygraph as a detector of deception is so variable as to be virtually worthless.

To many people, the polygraph is an interrogation prop and nothing more.  Using it in that capacity is not objectionable, at least not to me.  Unfortunately it is only useful in that capacity if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception, which I have already stated is something I do not believe it is capable of doing.  

If you wanted to use Tarot cards to screen sex offenders, and I or someone else wrote that Tarot cards are not capable of detecting deception, would you be able to reasonably conclude that I must be a supporter of sex offenders?  Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that I must not believe Tarot cards are capable of detecting deception, and as such should certainly not be relied upon for such an important process as screening sex offenders to make sure they are not violating the conditions of their release?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #36 - Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant,

The vastness of your misunderstanding of my words is understandable based on your previous posts. Your colossal mischaracterization of my statements was expected based on your limited view of the subject matter under discussion.

Thank you for reminding us all once again that the main problem that you and Mr. Mashke have with polygraph actually stems from your inability to pass one. (or three)

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #37 - Dec 31st, 2007 at 6:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:47pm:
Thank you for reminding us all once again that the main problem that you and Mr. Mashke have with polygraph actually stems from your inability to pass one. (or three)

Sancho Panza


I guess that would qualify as the TRUTH Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6122
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #38 - Dec 31st, 2007 at 10:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
When those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees resort to such pseudoscientific nonsense as polygraph "testing" to help ensure compliance with terms of probation or parole, it sends a clear message to the probationer or parolee that those responsible for his supervision aren't taking their responsibilities seriously. The probationer or parolee might well ask, if the government doesn't take my supervision seriously, why should I?

It is not the availability of information about polygraphy on AntiPolygraph.org, or this site's inclusion of a forum for open discussion of post-conviction polygraph programs, that sets the stage for the "disengagement" of which Eric Johnson has complained, but rather the through-the-looking-glass policy of relying on such bogus methods as lie detectors for determining whether probationers and parolees are complying with the terms of their release.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #39 - Jan 2nd, 2008 at 2:38am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 7:24pm:
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 12:18am:
Eric, nonombre,

Rather than bemoaning the existence of this website and the public availability of information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures, those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees should re-consider their misplaced reliance on the lie detector.


I see, hmmm...

and if there is in fact a hot link to this website from the pedophile "North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website, this is okay with you? Wink


Mr. Maschke,

Your failure to answer my question has in itself provided an clear and unmitigated answer.

Either your hate for polygraphers has TRULY blinded you to all reason or you have a deep connection to NAMBLA and the other child molesters who peruse this website you would rather not speak of...

I feel so sorry for you... Cry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #40 - Jan 2nd, 2008 at 2:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Sancho Panza

Nice nic. Do you happen to fit the character? A squire who serves his master faithfully? Are you greedy but kind? Faithful but cowardly? You started out good on this thread and I agree with your early words. But somewhere along the line you strayed into the rhetoric and BS. 
Quote:
For example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003)

LOL. A rehash of a study actually conducted in 2000. Never understood why the Academy published it and charges for access, since the Colorado DOJ released it to the public domain when it was completed.
The 180 offenders studied are hardly a representative sampling of the average sex offender. All 180 were men with boy victims that were between 6 and 9 years old. Only a polygraph supporter would take a narrow study like that and assume it applies to all 700,000 convicted sex offenders in this country Roll Eyes
Quote:
Results of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior.

Right. Since we're assuming these 180 offenders are the 'same' as all sex offenders that means there are some 114 million victimized children we don't know about? That would constitute EVERY child in the USA. So what's the catch? It's what they call a "victim". Every time an offender saw a photo of a child and had a sexual thought, that was a victim. If they looked at the same photo several times, that was several different "offenses". Even masturbation to an erotic fantasy constituted a "victim" and an "offense".
Quote:
Sex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph.

Nope. They go back to prison for getting kicked out of therapy...because they failed the polygraph. Kind of like saying people don't die from the bullet, they die from the tissue damage and loss of blood.
Quote:
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

Runs counter to the general perception of more than a few around here that George's board has become a haven for all sex offenders, doesn't it? I doubt they're here because the support that voodoo. Besides, if an offender lies his a** off denying all manner of vile deeds and fantasies and scores NDI on all of it, do you honestly think he'll then say he lied about it all? Of course he wouldn't Roll Eyes He would extol the virtues of the machine and then laugh about the utter ignorance of not only the polygrapher but the person who asked him if it 'helped'.
Quote:
In conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

Care to give us a citation? I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.
Quote:
nonombre

I guess if i was you I would use "no name" for a nic. Want to explain to the rest of the members here just how you happen to know what other sites the NAMBLA site has links to? What, you go there but promise that you only read the articles? Grin
Quote:
Donna.Taylor

A pleasure Ms. Taylor. I don't recall seeing too many women getting involved in discussions here.
Quote:
Otherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.

Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left Smiley Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.
Quote:
And GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

What culpability? Here's the deal. If Jester is inclined to commit a new offense, it makes no difference if this site exists or not. No amount of polygraphing is going to stop him, whether he knows it's pseudoscience or not. True therapy will help him identify the precursors to a re-offense and help him deal with them. But only if he wants it that way.
Quote:
EJohnson

Quite the fanclub, EJ Wink
Quote:
As someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound.

Whoooo. An expert Shocked
I spent 10 years sitting in on group therapy sessions as an "informed observer". A veritible revolving door of new faces every month. And I have a very close friend who has spent the last 15 years supervising sex offenders on probation and parole for the DOC of a large state. Can't say that Jester's overall behavior is indicative of those offenders, and neither does my PO friend. Yes some exhibit a combative attitude towards "the system", but such is the nature of all criminals with all crimes. Likewise a sense that it's "not my fault". And I can't say I ever met a car thief remorseful about the fact his victim had to take a cab for two weeks while the insurance company worked out the details. You see, this behavior you talk about isn't reserved for sex offenders. It's prevalent for all offenders.
Quote:
A talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy

Freudian slip, EJ? Grin You talk the talk pretty good, but have you ever walked the walk? Sex offender therapy is all things and no things. A true therapist will not have an outline for all offenders. Something that works for one offender may have little if any value for another. And even if something works for 'most' offenders that doesn't mean it works for all. The polygraph is such a therapy "tool". It will scare the bejeezus out of some to the point they'll tell all. Not really a bad thing. But that has to be weighed against the utterly arbitrary nature of the exam and the people giving them. A greater number are scored deceptive simply because if the examiner scored everybody NDI and there were no new offenses or violations being 'fessed up to somebody high up might wonder why they even need the poly. No poly, no food for the polygrapher. Face it. As an examiner it's in your best interest to produce results that insure your continued usefulness to the therapy system.
Quote:
Mr. Truth

Glad to see you still hang around here Cheesy
I agree with your statement to Jester. After the initial screwup it was as  much his own fault as the others. A simple phone call. Having had the same antagonistic attitude against "the system" I know exactly what his thoughts were. But I learned quickly that the system holds all the cards, even when they're wrong.
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #41 - Jan 2nd, 2008 at 3:52am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Hi orolan. How's it goin? I see you are your usual sarcastic self. Are you still on papers for a sexual offense? Are you still engaging in such embarrassing things as comparing sexual offenses with car theft---as you did in a prior post---STILL MINIMIZING AFTER 10 YRS? Are you still running wild while dodging and manipulating the system? Sweet. You are kind of like a Duke of Hazard....er..that is if they molested children...er...whatever, bad comparison.

I noticed you credited nonombre with stating there is a NAMBLA link to this site, but it was a lawman friend of mine who told me such, not nonombre. My detective buddy is  an interesting fellow with a grueling beat. He probes the internet for people who , rather than having sexual relations with a consenting adult, would rather have sexual activity with a coerced, pre-pubescent girl or boy. In other words, he pursues those individuals who typically have a severe social or physical disability and feel so out of control by the speeding bus of society, that they resort to trying to control the weak will of a "little one" in order for pure selfish satisfaction. Can you relate? Sure. I probably was a little verbose there, you get the picture----heck, you have even stated that you know sex offenders intimately having been in long term treatment for committing sexually illegal act(s.)

Where was I...oh yes. I agree with you that persons who are arrested for a non sex crime but have long distant sex crimes for which they did not undergo treatment but were convicted for is extreme. I am not a fan of such retro-activated treatment in many cases. There are some exceptions in my opinion though.

Suprise! Another person proclaiming the riches of the greedy and robber baronesque polygraph examiners. I know school teachers that made far better livings than examiners. You remind me of my 6 year old who thinks daddy is rich 'cause he saw me with some twenty dollar bills in my pocket. As far as being "useful"....one need only look at your track record as a paroled/probationary offender---on the post some months ago where you taunt your pursuers as being online chatting, and doing whatever strikes your fancy despite your rules of supervision-------and somehow you seemed to justify such dangerous behavior as being owed you for "being forced" to undergo strictures that sex offenders commonly undergo. You further boasted (unproven mind you) claims of beating your tests----and that your examiner "must not be very talented." I am sorry that it is very difficult to give a rule breaking, admitted manipulator/child molester the benefit of the doubt. I am afraid your brag will have to be given the same weight as Elvis' black belt.

No one can argue your fair penmanship, and your talent for sarcasm. But your posts speak far more about your mental state as a convicted sexual predator than as a person who seeks to entertain. I hope your victim(s) do not read your posts and recognize your trademark chattering. Perhaps you have done enough hurting people, yourself included.

« Last Edit: Jan 2nd, 2008 at 4:14am by EJohnson »  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #42 - Jan 2nd, 2008 at 1:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Orolan
Nice Nic. Do you happen to fit the character? Do you consider yourself the Lord High Wizard of Summer? Do you cast spells? Do you command a dragon? Do you use your Enchantica collection to entice adolescents with esteem issues into your sphere of influence?

After reading your feeble attempts at sarcastic one-liners I believe you are most certainly more akin to a windmill than a dragon.

I suspect you may be just another one of those convicted sex offenders who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay school taxes because you aren't allowed on the playground.

Sancho Panza- perhaps the voice of reason in the face of insanity or perhaps a fine cigar.
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #43 - Jan 2nd, 2008 at 4:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
orolan wrote on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 2:44am:
Quote:
Sancho Panza

Nice nic. Do you happen to fit the character? A squire who serves his master faithfully? Are you greedy but kind? Faithful but cowardly? You started out good on this thread and I agree with your early words. But somewhere along the line you strayed into the rhetoric and BS.  
Quote:
For example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003)

LOL. A rehash of a study actually conducted in 2000. Never understood why the Academy published it and charges for access, since the Colorado DOJ released it to the public domain when it was completed.
The 180 offenders studied are hardly a representative sampling of the average sex offender. All 180 were men with boy victims that were between 6 and 9 years old. Only a polygraph supporter would take a narrow study like that and assume it applies to all 700,000 convicted sex offenders in this country Roll Eyes
Quote:
Results of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior.

Right. Since we're assuming these 180 offenders are the 'same' as all sex offenders that means there are some 114 million victimized children we don't know about? That would constitute EVERY child in the USA. So what's the catch? It's what they call a "victim". Every time an offender saw a photo of a child and had a sexual thought, that was a victim. If they looked at the same photo several times, that was several different "offenses". Even masturbation to an erotic fantasy constituted a "victim" and an "offense".
Quote:
Sex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph.

Nope. They go back to prison for getting kicked out of therapy...because they failed the polygraph. Kind of like saying people don't die from the bullet, they die from the tissue damage and loss of blood.
Quote:
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

Runs counter to the general perception of more than a few around here that George's board has become a haven for all sex offenders, doesn't it? I doubt they're here because the support that voodoo. Besides, if an offender lies his a** off denying all manner of vile deeds and fantasies and scores NDI on all of it, do you honestly think he'll then say he lied about it all? Of course he wouldn't Roll Eyes He would extol the virtues of the machine and then laugh about the utter ignorance of not only the polygrapher but the person who asked him if it 'helped'.
Quote:
In conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

Care to give us a citation? I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.
Quote:
nonombre

I guess if i was you I would use "no name" for a nic. Want to explain to the rest of the members here just how you happen to know what other sites the NAMBLA site has links to? What, you go there but promise that you only read the articles? Grin
Quote:
Donna.Taylor

A pleasure Ms. Taylor. I don't recall seeing too many women getting involved in discussions here.
Quote:
Otherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.

Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left Smiley Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.
Quote:
And GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

What culpability? Here's the deal. If Jester is inclined to commit a new offense, it makes no difference if this site exists or not. No amount of polygraphing is going to stop him, whether he knows it's pseudoscience or not. True therapy will help him identify the precursors to a re-offense and help him deal with them. But only if he wants it that way.
Quote:
EJohnson

Quite the fanclub, EJ Wink
Quote:
As someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound.

Whoooo. An expert Shocked
I spent 10 years sitting in on group therapy sessions as an "informed observer". A veritible revolving door of new faces every month. And I have a very close friend who has spent the last 15 years supervising sex offenders on probation and parole for the DOC of a large state. Can't say that Jester's overall behavior is indicative of those offenders, and neither does my PO friend. Yes some exhibit a combative attitude towards "the system", but such is the nature of all criminals with all crimes. Likewise a sense that it's "not my fault". And I can't say I ever met a car thief remorseful about the fact his victim had to take a cab for two weeks while the insurance company worked out the details. You see, this behavior you talk about isn't reserved for sex offenders. It's prevalent for all offenders.
Quote:
A talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy

Freudian slip, EJ? Grin You talk the talk pretty good, but have you ever walked the walk? Sex offender therapy is all things and no things. A true therapist will not have an outline for all offenders. Something that works for one offender may have little if any value for another. And even if something works for 'most' offenders that doesn't mean it works for all. The polygraph is such a therapy "tool". It will scare the bejeezus out of some to the point they'll tell all. Not really a bad thing. But that has to be weighed against the utterly arbitrary nature of the exam and the people giving them. A greater number are scored deceptive simply because if the examiner scored everybody NDI and there were no new offenses or violations being 'fessed up to somebody high up might wonder why they even need the poly. No poly, no food for the polygrapher. Face it. As an examiner it's in your best interest to produce results that insure your continued usefulness to the therapy system.
Quote:
Mr. Truth

Glad to see you still hang around here Cheesy
I agree with your statement to Jester. After the initial screwup it was as  much his own fault as the others. A simple phone call. Having had the same antagonistic attitude against "the system" I know exactly what his thoughts were. But I learned quickly that the system holds all the cards, even when they're wrong.




Quote:
Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left  Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.



Orolan - You are a narcissistic SO trying to justify your existence.  As for my experience with the judicial system: I retired from Adult Probation and Parole; during this time (5+ years) I was a supervisor at a Community Correctional Center that housed adult male sex offenders (Like you and Jester).  So as for experience with SO’s and the judicial system – yeah I have been there and done that.  The difference is your view is one sided from the ‘poor me’ stance.

If a SEX OFFENDER reoffends in a different arena – say selling cocaine, they usually do not redo sex offense therapy.  However, if during the investigation the officers find pornography or other deviant items they could request that the Board of Pardons or the Judge to add SO therapy.  Also, if the offender did not SUCCESSFULLY complete sex offender therapy and his sentence expired - and in a short timeframe he reoffended then I can also see them requiring SO therapy.

If SO therapy is required there has to be a specific reason.  Maybe on the situation your related the Judge felt that the individuals ‘altered state’ because of the drugs puts him in a position to reoffend (you know the term ‘cycle’)

Regardless of if you like or dislike polygraphs, this site promotes not telling the truth – tell only what you want them to know.  Any SO (and there are many) that visits AP is encouraged to not be open and honest in their dealings.  This issue is the biggest threat.  This means hiding behaviors which puts a SO in cycle to reoffend.  That is where culpability on AP comes into play.

There were two other things you mentioned that I will address: 1) Polygraph examiners don’t care if a person is returned to prison or not.  We are there to complete an unbiased examination.  Your PO makes life decisions for you.  We have no interest regarding sending you back to prison or in keeping you out to ‘MAKE MORE MONEY’ from you.  It is a sad fact, but when you go away, there always is another SO that is released. 2) OROLAN: I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.  Orolan, How can a therapist treat a sex offender in denial?  ...enter the polygraph.  Reduction of recidivism is a fine balance of the containment approach (Judicial, PO, TX, and Polygraph)

Now for Orolan, I have no more time for your words of wisdom.  Best of luck and please stay away from children! Wink

BTW: this is a chat room/message board (and violation for most SO's)!

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mr. Truth
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 4th, 2003
Re: Revoked, failure to take a polygraph
Reply #44 - Jan 3rd, 2008 at 4:46am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Donna.Taylor:

Just like there are good probation officers and bad ones, please be precise enough in your commentary to give the impression you know the difference between SOs under court supervision and those who are not. I, for one, am not, ergo, I have no limitations with respect to being here. And yes, my email address is registered as well. Just like I am. Feel safer because of that?

Others:

In the beginning, I feared the polygraph, not for it "detecting" any lies I may have been tempted to try, but for the work I had to put into it beforehand, that is, divulging everything I could think of with respect to sex. That is a humbling and humiliating experience. What alienated me from this part of the treatment program? As I have said in numerous other posts, it was for being consequenced for being scored deceptive on things I was telling the truth about. The fakery behind the process, specifically, being punished for what I didn't do, is what royally pissed me off and opened my eyes to the charade know as polygraphy.

I believe it is the height of stupidity for anyone to think that the polygraph is reliable enough to catch spies or determine if anyone, sex offenders included, is being deceptive or truthful. If you, as the test subject, believe it works, then it is effective, just as if you believe that tarot cards work, then that method is also effective. But, we all know it is BS behind the "science."

I always like the state-sponsored DOC studies that claim some rate, count or average can be used as a broad brush for all offenders. Wasn't there another study (if Orolan reads this, from sexcriminals.com, the woman who is a PO in Florida) that claimed something around 800 victims per offender? The math makes these studies look stupid (along with those citing them), when the extrapolated victim count starts to exceed the total population of potential victims.

Jester:

I understand where you are coming from, and my recommendation to you is based on having been there, done that as far as the rules, process, and people are concerned. The reality is that you have very little control over your situation. What you can control is how well you follow the rules and not get hung up on paperwork. Pass the polygraphs and move on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Revoked, failure to take a polygraph

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X