Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) What happened to all the references to Jack Trimarco ? (Read 26858 times)
yankeedog
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 68
Joined: Jul 25th, 2002
Re: What happened to all the references to Jack Trimarco ?
Reply #45 - Mar 16th, 2008 at 10:49pm
Print Post  
Quote:

There is a better test, it's call the guilty knowledge test. Why don't you guys use it instead?


The Concealed Information Test (CIT)/Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) should be used in place of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) whenever possible.  D'head, your comment would seem to suggest that it is not used even though it is as readily available and permits its use as frequently as the CQT.  I wish that were the case.  That certainly is not the case and should not be portrayed as such.  I suspect most examiners would prefer the CIT over the CQT for a number of reasons. Ease in administration, time, and mathematical calculations of probability of error are three that come to mind.  The fact of the matter is that we live in a free and open society.  As such, we (law enforcement) have this asinine belief that we should report specific and known details to the public.  Once that information, a great deal of which could have been used for a very effective CIT, is released to the public, or in any other way not kept from disclosure, it can not be effectively used in a CIT.  I would much prefer we simply tell the public that a death investigation is underway and no other information will be made available to the public.  But, that is not going to happen.  CITs can be great if used early on during an investigation before information is made public.  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TheNoLieGuy4U
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 7th, 2004
Re: What happened to all the references to Jack Trimarco ?
Reply #46 - Mar 17th, 2008 at 6:46am
Print Post  
     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. 



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 
Send TopicPrint