Hi DigitHead,

  Thank You for clarifying your specialty and interest in this area in PCSOT testing.  My understanding is that the polygraph has helped both probation officers and treatment providers in the containment model of treatment.  It seems that nobody claims they can cure these sex offenders, but that they have a good shot statistically of keeping them from acting out again given that they know they will be caught.  That is, unless the moderator could in fact assist them in some way.  Anyway, the goals of the triangle of treatment are honorable, and it takes a very special person to even want to work with sex offenders in the first place.  Most people would want them put away altogether. 

  In regard to research, I would stipulate that if you can recognize the NAS report as coming from a group that does not like the idea of being monitored at it's core, then I would equally stipulate that DACA may not be the necessary place where actual peer review research be done.  I would further ask you to recognize that not all people working at DACA are polygraph examiners, and that many of the research folks come at this from peer related field backgrounds (psycology / psychophysiology).   

  I believe that a group of such professionals could be found, who are not dependant on employment in the scientific community wherein testing is a requirement for security clearance maintanence.  I would further stipulate that it should be both a national and international body derived from those countries who have a current interest in using polygraph so that the study serves to either affirm or detract from that investment.  After all, more countries than ever are using the polygraph now.   

  When you say the futility outweighs the utility, don't you recognized that in the validation of the sex offender's sex crime history that new victims are discovered who derive the benefit of social services to deal with their victimization ?   

  In regard to your advocating the guilty knowlege test, it certainly has it's place.  I can not however be used in all cases, and particularly where the information has been compromised by media or former police questioning.  It is a great method, but limited in opportunity to apply it. 

  Thank you for your acknowledgement of Meta-Analysis in this case; which does not by that method rise to the level of what the moderator has claimed it to be as true Peer review.  It would seem that from whatever angle one looks at this issue, all parties agree that more research by the proper unbiased researchers is welcomed.