Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 19, 2007, 10:20 AMGood discussion Mr. Johnson. We need more straight talk and explanation like this. I have a question for you, though, (I suspect you figured that one out already).
In a sex offender maintenance polygraph, what typically happens if the person "fails" the poly? And, when I say "fail" I mean the examiner draws the conclusion that the subject is lying, not the polygraph exam actually showing or proving that the subject is lying.
Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 19, 2007, 12:26 AMYeah, the test is so accurate that it (the polygrapher) can conclude that 1) I was truthful about not having sex with anyone other than my wife and 2) I was being deceptive about having sex with someone under the age of 18. Given that my wife was well over 30 at the time, the stupidity of being "consequenced" for having failed that maintenance exam is beyond words. The polygraph is a fraud, it is used to suit whatever conclusions examiners wish to draw, and anyone subject to conditions where taking a polygraph is a requirement and who chooses to remain ignorant of the fraud being perpetrated on them deserves whatever else he or she gets.
React more to control questions than to relevant questions and you will pass. It is that simple.Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 15, 2007, 08:09 PMPerhaps your question should be addressed in the post conviction section of this board, as it seems evident that you are a sex offender in treatment and on supervision. Once more, it appears that you are at this site in order to sidestep your treatment---as a sexual history test is a treatment exam. Your presence here signifies your desire to manipulate (yet more) people who actually want to help you.
To George;
You haven't the slightest clue as to the possible consequences of your encouragement that sexual offenders manipulate treatment providers by disengaging from treatment----and providing the empiricaly proven effective treatment notions of (ATSA) "full responsibility and engagement/disclosure". Your advice puts kids and women at risk. "Say Nothing" means danger for all---including the offenders themselves. I have little doubt that the poster will tank his tests provided that he lingers around here----but his focus will continue to be self serving, manipulative, and narcissistic----the same damn behaviors/cognitions that got him in trouble to begin with.
Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 15, 2007, 08:09 PMPerhaps your question should be addressed in the post conviction section of this board, as it seems evident that you are a sex offender in treatment and on supervision. Once more, it appears that you are at this site in order to sidestep your treatment---as a sexual history test is a treatment exam. Your presence here signifies your desire to manipulate (yet more) people who actually want to help you.
To George;
You haven't the slightest clue as to the possible consequences of your encouragement that sexual offenders manipulate treatment providers by disengaging from treatment----and providing the empiricaly proven effective treatment notions of (ATSA) "full responsibility and engagement/disclosure". Your advice puts kids and women at risk. "Say Nothing" means danger for all---including the offenders themselves. I have little doubt that the poster will tank his tests provided that he lingers around here----but his focus will continue to be self serving, manipulative, and narcissistic----the same damn behaviors/cognitions that got him in trouble to begin with.
Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 15, 2007, 07:51 PM
Do you plan to harm yourself in the future?
Do you plan to commit a sex offense?
Do you plan to engage in deviant sex in the future?
Do you plan on being honest with your parole officer?
Have you had contact with potential victims?
Quote from: jeffsaunders on Nov 14, 2007, 04:02 PMI'm being poly'd for an investigation into an allegation. I'm not here to debate my innocence or guilt.
The poly is about my sex history. It seems they have TWO relevant q's, one irrelivent, and tons of control q's. Does that make sense?
Do they often times only do two rel. q's instead of say 4 or 5?