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.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 12:18am:


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?

SP,

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

Quote:


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?

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 12:47pm:


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

Sancho Panza

nonombre wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 7:24pm:


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...

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.

orolan wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 2:44am:




Quote:



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!

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