I have addressed or answered everything you have put to me
You haven't answered how it is that the polygraph allows you TO KNOW whether somebody is "withholding information".
You also never answered the question regarding cases in which a person is persistently showing a an unacceptable "response" to a relevant question, yet will not produce an admission to account for it. Presumably, because untruthfulness is only one possiblity for such a response (versus anger, fear, embarassment...etc.)
On a personal note, polygraph is an investigative tool. I never said it was the be all or end all of fact finding.
Again, then why did you claim you KNOW when somebody is withholding information?
In many jurisdicitons, polygraph IS admissable in court. Further, regarding sex offenders, MANY judicial orders include periodic polygraph examination as a maintenance program requirement. Not admissable? Not judicially noted? In MOST juristictions it is not allowed. In the case of sex offenders, you are talking about "post-conviction supervision".. IOW, the guy has already been found GUILTY. The polygraph was not used to FIND GUILT.
So as you can see Larry, once again you are incorrect in your presentation of misinformation. A common theme, I think... Wikipedia states my position precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs. Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. Personally, I do not believe in the (blind) admissability of polygraph evidence. The reason is simple. Some examiners do not perform in the manner in which they were taught. Then do you believe it should be used blindly to eliminate a candidate for employment, and smear their reputation?
Most of the polygraphers on this board seem to think we're just a bunch of "cry babies". And you claimed that false positives really don't happen that often, yet the NAS report stated that for every "bad guy" failing a test, there is likey to be hundreds if not thousands of innocent people falsely accused.
Is the NAS presenting misinformation?
I, like most of the public and "crybabies" on thise board, I used to believe in the reliability of the test. It's only after we actually FAIL THE TEST DESPITE BEING TRUTHFUL, and have our reputation smeared, do we start to question the reliability of the test. Then people start reading the literature, and their suspicion of the test are confirmed.
In fact, that is why our Canadian friend (remember him?) started this thread!