- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 08, 2019, 02:19 AMQuoteI go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck
Good luck! I would be interested to know how it goes.
Posted by Bobby hill
- May 08, 2019, 01:42 AMI go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck
Posted by Bobby hill
- Apr 24, 2019, 03:42 PMI faild my so ploygraph. I suffer from PTSD, from my childhood. I tryed looking for research about PTSD and polygraph, and only found polygraphs being use to confirm PTSD. Can anyone help me?
Thank you for you time
Email me: worstjerk7@gmail.com
Thank you for you time
Email me: worstjerk7@gmail.com
Posted by abusedbygov
- Feb 07, 2012, 04:23 PMQuote from: abusedbygov on Feb 07, 2012, 04:17 PMOne plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release.
Oh yeah, P.S. No, you fucking DON'T. You sign NOTHING as a condition of release. At least, I didn't. The judge set the conditions, and I was sent to treatment. It was IN TREATMENT that I signed the "voluntary contract". If I didn't, I would not be allowed in treatment, thus violating the judge's order. This would be construed as a PV and I would, indeed, be transported back to the penitentiary post haste and forthwith.
Posted by abusedbygov
- Feb 07, 2012, 04:17 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 11, 2007, 02:56 PMOne plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release.
Oh jeez, ya gotta LOVE this attitude. Talk about "cognitive distortions" *sigh*. Yeah, it's "voluntary". If you don't sign it, you don't get released. That's like saying "Here, I'll give you a choice. Sign this waiver VOLUNTARILY, or I will kick you in the huts for about a month. Oh, you'll sign? How nice of you." Yeah, like I volunteered for all of this.Posted by abusedbygov
- Feb 07, 2012, 04:10 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Dec 10, 2007, 09:50 AMWhat occurs to a SO who fails a polygraph which he is compelled to take as a condition of his treatment?For purposes of this discussion, lets not go into any confessions induced as a result of the polygraph test, but instead simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.
Back to top
Depends on both your "treatment provider" and your PO. In my case, my treatment group has a procedure where they "hot seat" you if you fail, and ask a whole bunch of questions about what you could have done so that you passed the test. They, of course, assume if you failed, you simply MUST be doing terrible stuff and lying about it. If you fail too many, they will probably kick you out of treatment. When that happens, you will then be in violation of the judge's order to go to treatment, and you will be sanctioned--possibly sent back to prison or, at least, some time in county jail. Again, depends on your relationship with your PO.
Posted by mr. man
- Jan 07, 2012, 12:44 PMif youre found not physically able to take a polygraph and have taken one previously and they say you failed while being under heavy perscription drugs can it be use agaist you
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 02, 2008, 12:09 AMQuoteThe examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.
I have NEVER met a Clinical Examiner who claimed infallibility of their or ANY test. Perhaps you are making the Freudian slip. What states do you speak of? Where do you get this data? It seems you are making things up in order to distract or gain favor from others. Sound familiar?
QuoteAnd if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).
You are accusing hundreds of good people of felonious theft. George doesn't need a sarcasm emoticon for you, he needs an animated steaming pile of HS for me to attach next to your thinking errors and blather.
QuoteYou act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).
You really need to review your data. The national DJ numbers for sexual recitivism are hovered around 6%. The national numbers for criminal (felony) recidivism is over half. Newer research yet unpublished is rumored to show higher numbers of sexual recitivism over 9 yrs after release----data that is slow in coming as the study is long term yet of a more contemporary offender population.
QuoteActually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".
whoa trigger. Why the sudden subject change....man you are all over the board here. I will cut and paste your extremely insightful commentary on Daubert's error rate criteria and send it to the highest courts-------you may have stumbled on to something there! C'mon. Let's come back down from the manic phase orolan.
QuoteWho is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."
I would read that one. The US DOD doesn't debunk scientific reviews (not study) whilly nilly.
I have been told that this man's website of legal child erotica and mappings of little girl events has a link to Antipolygraph.org.----as well as several other websites which help child predators do what they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_EMmbfUU30&feature=related
This is merely a brutally honest man who is brave enough to reveal his true interests, damn the critics. Remorseless, loveless, selfish and angry about his treatment by society. "Disengaged."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eNDIioyx8
Posted by orolan
- Jan 01, 2008, 10:45 PMQuotesimply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.The examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.
QuoteWhat creates the danger is when sex offenders withdraw from treatmentAnd if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).
QuoteSay an Offender has his next polygraph test in 6 monthsYou act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).
QuoteOne of these "Daubert criteria" is that techniques must have a known rate of error.Actually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".
QuotePolygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment.Who is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."
QuoteSir,Works for me....if it's the examiner hooked up to the machine
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp...
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 14, 2007, 02:08 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 13, 2007, 12:52 PMHey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? :-?
Sir,
My distant ancestors were Celts. If you wish to pidgin hole me, you may refer to me as an Aryan.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by EJohnson
- Dec 13, 2007, 12:52 PMHey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? :-?
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? :-?
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 13, 2007, 07:36 AMQuote
Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Sir,
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp
response to a detected lie, via the fingertip senzors, that might well
increase the efficiency of the technology, even if only by means of an increase in confessions made during the test.
That physical torture would complement the mental torture.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:39 PMQuotePolygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.
Notice the word "extremely." They didn't say it wasn't accurate.
QuoteFuture Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Well, they found the median lab accuracy at 86%, and they found field median accuracy even higher, so I'd say we're getting close to hitting the ceiling for a psychometric test. How much better can you get? Don't forget that was median accuracy. The Utah studies found their methods to be about 95% accurate.
QuoteTheoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
There has been some recent attempts to address this valid criticism.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 12, 2007, 09:09 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 12, 2007, 08:51 AM
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research. We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.
That is good news, as long as the studies are reasonably scientific in nature, and be reasonably replicated for validation purposes.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 08:51 AMSergeant, I dispute your statement that "The rate of errors or potential errors must be known, certainly, but it also must be zero or close to zero. The error rate of polygraphy has never been proven to be anything close to zero."
I see that others have pursuaded you to retrtact that part of your statement. For everyones sake it would be helpful on occasions that you intend to attempt to cite scientific standards, court rulings, or others opinions that you do your research before making the pronouncement.
I would also like to point out that the NAS study is now over five years old and they did not research the polygraph, they only reviewed research that existed at the time of their study. Critics of polygraph seem to pound the NAS findings on the table as though it constutes the end of polygraph, when in fact it may just be a turning point. By the way, the NAS study titled "The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence" criticised DNA research studies because they failed to evaluate the probability of finding" a false positive. New research was cducted to deal with that criticism.
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research. We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.
Sancho Panza
I see that others have pursuaded you to retrtact that part of your statement. For everyones sake it would be helpful on occasions that you intend to attempt to cite scientific standards, court rulings, or others opinions that you do your research before making the pronouncement.
I would also like to point out that the NAS study is now over five years old and they did not research the polygraph, they only reviewed research that existed at the time of their study. Critics of polygraph seem to pound the NAS findings on the table as though it constutes the end of polygraph, when in fact it may just be a turning point. By the way, the NAS study titled "The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence" criticised DNA research studies because they failed to evaluate the probability of finding" a false positive. New research was cducted to deal with that criticism.
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research. We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.
Sancho Panza