Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 13, 2018, 12:30 PM
Randall,

I agree with Animal's comment above that you need the advice of an attorney with experience in such matters. I am not one. However, you'll be interested in a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that a convicted sex offender in a post-conviction polygraph program cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sexual history that could tend to incriminate him:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/05/15/federal-appeals-court-rules-certain-mandatory-sex-offender-polygraph-questions-unconstitutional/

This ruling is not binding in Texas, which is under the 5th Circuit, but the facts and arguments that led to this ruling will no doubt be of relevance for others in similar situations.
Posted by Animal
 - Nov 13, 2018, 11:58 AM
You need the advice of an attorney with experience in these types of cases. Treatment providers claim that recovery cannot occur unless all past deviant behaviors have been illuminated. But others would be more in favor of your incarceration. Absent some kind of legal agreement with prosecutors, you could be in jeopardy for any admissions of crimes. Even if the criminal statute of limitations have passed, there could be civil litigation. Your other alternative is try to beat the test; the ethic of this strategy I'll leave to others to hash over.
Posted by Randall Collins
 - Nov 13, 2018, 08:39 AM
I am currently on parole for two convictions of Aggravated Sexual Assault, child under 14. In the state of Texas. One occurred in 1986, the other in 1987. I am not guilty of the alleged offense of 1987. However, I recently failed a instant case polygraph regarding this allegation. After serving 22yr's, I was released under mandatory supervision in 2009. Since that time I have taken and passed several maintenance polygraphs. And underwent counselling. Was released from counselling (Dallas County) approx. 2012. And was placed on yearly maintenance. In 2016 I moved from Dallas Co. To Henderson Co. Texas. In 2017 I was required to take my yearly Maintenance polygraph. This examine consisted solely of questions concerning Alcohol/Drug use. No questions concerning my sexual conduct since my previous polygraph. Which I find unusual because that's the purpose of the maintenance polygraph. I failed this polygraph due to alcohol use. ( Drinking wine to help me sleep nights). Because of this I was placed back into sex offender treatment. Which I strongly opposed, to no avail. Due to the conduct of SOTP provider I was placed under. I filed a grievance against her with the Counsel of Sex Offender Treatment. Due to this grievance I was removed from her class in 2017. Am currently attending a weekly class under a second SOTP. Time for my yearly maintenance polygraph is at hand. However, I am currently being forced to take a sexual history polygraph. Which has never been required. I fear this polygraph because I am being forced to disclose information concerning my previous sexual conduct during my entire life span and I am 59yr's old. My fear is that some of my previous sexual history, if disclosed, could be used against me even though statue of limitations has expired and no other complaints have occurred. My question, at this point is, is this legal? Is it legal to be forced to disclose information concerning my past offences that were never brought to light. And in my opinion, should stay way.
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 28, 2016, 05:36 PM
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 28, 2016, 12:15 PMIf there is ever to be any movement on the CQT, establishing confident levels of ground truth in field studies is paramount--anything short of that is to continue the dance that has been going on for a half a century.

Ironically, it is this state of perpetual stagnation that enables the polygraph indu$try to keep riding the gravy train. As long as there are ample believers in pro-polygraph dogma, the cult-like attraction will continue. For the polygraph indu$try, ignorance is bli$$.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
 - Nov 28, 2016, 04:24 PM
Has Ray done something to wrong you in a past life?
Posted by Ex Member
 - Nov 28, 2016, 12:15 PM
Dan, research is a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is that we are reaching the asymptote on CQT laboratory research. University research, while sporting firm ground truth, totally lacks ecological validity. Most of the participants are airhead undergrads whose only real concern in life is why so many people unfriended them on Facebook. Juxtaposed with someone facing prison time, the ecological validity of laboratory research is sanguine at best. I suppose it's theoretically possible to enhance ecological validity in the lab (imposing imprisonment on participants), but you would then become a villain from a Batman movie.

On the flip side, establishing ground truth in the field is severely challenging; depending on confessions or convictions does not cut it, especially since one cannot know of the false negative examinees who were never subjected to post test interrogation.

If there is ever to be any movement on the CQT, establishing confident levels of ground truth in field studies is paramount--anything short of that is to continue the dance that has been going on for a half a century.

CIT research is very rich and ongoing and has expanded to Event Related Potentials, especially the P300 wave and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging work with neural imaging. Although still relatively nascent, the only field data thus far is from Japan and fragments from Israel, so the same challenges lie ahead.
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 28, 2016, 08:41 AM
Evidently, Joe, one needs exactly that.

Here's a line item from the APA web site's description of member benefits:

Access to the Research Center, its progressive research, and its publications in areas of techniques, validity, scientific issues, current practices, assessments, surveys of attitudes and problems facing the polygraph profession, where its publications and papers have been presented at APA seminars as well as at other criminal justice and related conferences

Research Center? Really? Does the APA let just any member analyze the research data, look at the sourcing of same, and study their proprietary cookbooks?

Somehow I doubt it, but I'll ask for unfettered access anyway.

Hey, I wonder where the APA's "Research Center" is.... Is it at the headquarters in Chattanooga? Does it exist in the cloud? Is it on Ray Nelson's laptop? Hmmmm....

Maybe an APA researcher will chime in. They follow this forum like bored housewives follow soap operas.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
 - Nov 28, 2016, 03:13 AM
I didn't get the memo on the"super secret facility."  What gives?  Do I need a special ring and grip for this information?
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 27, 2016, 11:23 PM
Thanks, Ark.

Sounds like a-priori probability research findings ginned up by like-minded polygraph advocates -- the same cabal that  programs the indu$try's magical Monte Carlo modeling centrifuge in their super secret statistical alchemy facility -- is just another SWAG: a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble...
Posted by Ex Member
 - Nov 27, 2016, 10:45 PM
Sorry for the late reply Dan, I'm traveling a lot these days. I do not think the article would have much utility for the practitioner. For the practitioner/researcher, a-priori probability can influence a researcher's beliefs about something before looking at any data. For example, you could procure data from a 'scientist' who is 90% sure that a parameter lies between a certain interval and gradually narrow the interval to form a prior distribution as is oft employed in Bayesian statistics, where the posterior distribution is a weighted sum of the likelihood and the prior. Assuming you have good reason to believe your 'scientist', you can then assign heavier weights to the prior.
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 18, 2016, 09:30 AM
Ark, I'm not asking for a detailed write-up -- just a realty check.

Here's a siimple question for you: Does the aforementioned article advance the case for polygraph "testing" in a significantly meaningful way?

A simple yes or no will do.
Posted by Ex Member
 - Nov 16, 2016, 11:29 PM
Sorry, but I am a little too busy to write detailed comments about simple a-priori certainty estimations. I would suggest reading up on Jacob Bernoulli.
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 16, 2016, 09:43 PM
Sure, Ark, whatever you say.

In other news, have you seen the latest APA magazine? I'd like to know what you think of the article "Five Minute Science Lesson:
Prior Probabilities and the Algebra To Calculate 'Em", authored by Ray Nelson.

We (the polygraph community) look forward to your observations and commentary.
Posted by Ex Member
 - Nov 15, 2016, 11:03 PM
Poor fellow has so many "shades of gray everywhere"; I thought a dichotomy would provide some relief.
Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Nov 15, 2016, 10:49 PM
Ark, it's been a while. 

Please explain your most recent comment:

"If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies."

Are you describing a so-called honor killing? People are wondering.