- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 05, 2008, 11:26 AMDelving through your old posts took about five minutes to find the quotes that were used in my post. It wasn't a matter of hoping they would be there because based on the nature of your arguments I was pretty confident as to what I would find.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I would humbly offer that you are mistaken as to what the phrases "false positive rate" and accuracy rate mean. To put it very simply, accuracy rate means that which remains after the error rate is removed. In other words accuracy rate is the converse of error rate. [Accuracy rate plus error rate equals 100%] You have confused the term accuracy with validity, which is the term given to describe whether or not a process actually measures what it purports to measure.
If your most recent comments concerning the intent of your XYZ analogy are correct then you shouldn't have used the phrase "However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero." in your post. Your subsequent posts were certainly ample proof that you were attempting to hold polygraph to an illogical and unreasonable standard of "Zero false positive or worthless"
When I quoted your posts, I wasn't responding to your opinion at all, I was responding to your declarative statement "I have never said that since polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate." If I had just used the words "yes you did say that" you would have responded with something along the lines of "No I didn't" and we could have proceeded with point/counterpoint ad nauseum. By responding to you with your own words that contradict your declarative statement we don't have to be bothered by whether or not you said something, we can move on. You can restate your point of view as often as you like. You can change it if you like, but you shouldn't deny it when proof exists to the contrary. Pointing out that you make contradictory statements is not argumentum ad hominum. You always seem to fall back on that accusation whenever someone is critical of your logic. You accused me of using a straw man argument which means that I misrepresented your position. I simply pointed out that #1. I did not misrepresent your position and #2. Your position uses flawed logic by the use of analogy. In order for the "straw man" accusation to succeed I would have to fail in my argument that a zero false positive rate is an illogical and unreasonable standard and that you have taken the position that "polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate". I submit that the TB skin test analogy establishes my argument that zero false positive is illogical and unreasonable and that your own words establish that my comments regarding your position are accurate.
Of course I respond to you differently than I do sex-offenders. If you went to a call at a mental health facility would you interact with the patients the same way you would with the doctors, I expect Sex-Offenders to act like the broken toys they are. When they show some signs that they are moving along with repairs, I think it is important to acknowledge and recognize their progress. Think about the first time one of your kids colored a whole page "inside the lines" did you make a big deal out of it? Did you hang it on the refrigerator? If you didn't you should have. But if you had a college student home for the weekend and they colored a whole page "inside the lines" I don't think you would or should show the same reaction.
Now if you would care to point out some discourteous statement that I have made to you, I will certainly look at it. If I have committed some social faux pax, I am a big enough boy to acknowledge and apologize if it is called for. But before you wave your 10 years of dedicated respected law enforcement experience (which I have already respectfully acknowledged) in my face one more time, I feel the need to inform you that I have roughly three times the years in law enforcement you claim to have and at my retirement ceremony, the only uniform gear I wore that didn't have seniority on you was my boots and trousers. Now if you want to swap war stories and "been there done that's" we should probably find another forum because I would bet that we have both seen things that would make the majority of the people on this forum lose their lunch and that is not what this board is about.
Sancho Panza
At the risk of sounding condescending, I would humbly offer that you are mistaken as to what the phrases "false positive rate" and accuracy rate mean. To put it very simply, accuracy rate means that which remains after the error rate is removed. In other words accuracy rate is the converse of error rate. [Accuracy rate plus error rate equals 100%] You have confused the term accuracy with validity, which is the term given to describe whether or not a process actually measures what it purports to measure.
If your most recent comments concerning the intent of your XYZ analogy are correct then you shouldn't have used the phrase "However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero." in your post. Your subsequent posts were certainly ample proof that you were attempting to hold polygraph to an illogical and unreasonable standard of "Zero false positive or worthless"
When I quoted your posts, I wasn't responding to your opinion at all, I was responding to your declarative statement "I have never said that since polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate." If I had just used the words "yes you did say that" you would have responded with something along the lines of "No I didn't" and we could have proceeded with point/counterpoint ad nauseum. By responding to you with your own words that contradict your declarative statement we don't have to be bothered by whether or not you said something, we can move on. You can restate your point of view as often as you like. You can change it if you like, but you shouldn't deny it when proof exists to the contrary. Pointing out that you make contradictory statements is not argumentum ad hominum. You always seem to fall back on that accusation whenever someone is critical of your logic. You accused me of using a straw man argument which means that I misrepresented your position. I simply pointed out that #1. I did not misrepresent your position and #2. Your position uses flawed logic by the use of analogy. In order for the "straw man" accusation to succeed I would have to fail in my argument that a zero false positive rate is an illogical and unreasonable standard and that you have taken the position that "polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate". I submit that the TB skin test analogy establishes my argument that zero false positive is illogical and unreasonable and that your own words establish that my comments regarding your position are accurate.
Of course I respond to you differently than I do sex-offenders. If you went to a call at a mental health facility would you interact with the patients the same way you would with the doctors, I expect Sex-Offenders to act like the broken toys they are. When they show some signs that they are moving along with repairs, I think it is important to acknowledge and recognize their progress. Think about the first time one of your kids colored a whole page "inside the lines" did you make a big deal out of it? Did you hang it on the refrigerator? If you didn't you should have. But if you had a college student home for the weekend and they colored a whole page "inside the lines" I don't think you would or should show the same reaction.
Now if you would care to point out some discourteous statement that I have made to you, I will certainly look at it. If I have committed some social faux pax, I am a big enough boy to acknowledge and apologize if it is called for. But before you wave your 10 years of dedicated respected law enforcement experience (which I have already respectfully acknowledged) in my face one more time, I feel the need to inform you that I have roughly three times the years in law enforcement you claim to have and at my retirement ceremony, the only uniform gear I wore that didn't have seniority on you was my boots and trousers. Now if you want to swap war stories and "been there done that's" we should probably find another forum because I would bet that we have both seen things that would make the majority of the people on this forum lose their lunch and that is not what this board is about.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 05, 2008, 12:51 AMWell, you certainly seemed to find the motivation to go back through my old posts.
In my opinion, the false positive rate is a separate issue from the accuracy rate. Accuracy involves accurately recognizing deception or truth. A false positive not only involves failing to accurately recognize truth or deception (which is inaccurate), but also goes a step further (beyond mere inaccuracy) and wrongly labels one as the other.
Mea culpa for not remembering my post from August 2005. I'm amazed you were willing to go through 2.5 years of my old postings on this board in order to try to prove your point. I did not recall ever stating that, and you have proven me wrong. Allow me to congratulate you on your dilligence, and then to humbly ask that I be allowed to restate my point of view every two and a half years or so.
The example you presented from July 2007, regarding an analogy to the "XYZ" disease, was meant to show that even in the vernacular used by polygraph examiners (i.e., no test is perfect but that doesn't mean the polygraph isn't very good) the polygraph does not measure up as a valid test. If you care to go back to that post and read the next two posts after the one you cited you can see that for yourself.
I can assure you that you have not hurt my feelings. As I have pointed out to others, recognizing the presence of discourtesy and sarcasm does not mean that I am offended by it. I merely pointed out that you have been more conciliatory and gracious to a convicted sex offender than you have been to a veteran law enforcement officer who happens to have a different point of view than you. Why is that? I believe it is because many pro-polygraph people have an easier time believing that anti-polygraph folks are sex offenders, liars, and cheats who don't like the polygraph because it catches them when they lie. The idea of a respected, decorated, honorable, and honest law enforcement officer speaking out against the polygraph, with a very solid and reasonable foundation for his beliefs, is more difficult to deal with. It might even make you question how many other people who failed their polygraphs despite protestations of innocence were actually telling the truth...
It is telling, in my opinion, that instead of responding with a reasonable counterpoint to my opinion you choose instead to delve through years worth of old posts in the hope of finding an example of contradicting posts. I believe that is just another example of the argumentum ad hominem (attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's position), for which many polygraph supporters on this web site have become well known.
Along the same lines, am I to believe that the following paragraph is sincere, and is without sarcasm and condescension?
In my opinion, the false positive rate is a separate issue from the accuracy rate. Accuracy involves accurately recognizing deception or truth. A false positive not only involves failing to accurately recognize truth or deception (which is inaccurate), but also goes a step further (beyond mere inaccuracy) and wrongly labels one as the other.
Mea culpa for not remembering my post from August 2005. I'm amazed you were willing to go through 2.5 years of my old postings on this board in order to try to prove your point. I did not recall ever stating that, and you have proven me wrong. Allow me to congratulate you on your dilligence, and then to humbly ask that I be allowed to restate my point of view every two and a half years or so.
The example you presented from July 2007, regarding an analogy to the "XYZ" disease, was meant to show that even in the vernacular used by polygraph examiners (i.e., no test is perfect but that doesn't mean the polygraph isn't very good) the polygraph does not measure up as a valid test. If you care to go back to that post and read the next two posts after the one you cited you can see that for yourself.
I can assure you that you have not hurt my feelings. As I have pointed out to others, recognizing the presence of discourtesy and sarcasm does not mean that I am offended by it. I merely pointed out that you have been more conciliatory and gracious to a convicted sex offender than you have been to a veteran law enforcement officer who happens to have a different point of view than you. Why is that? I believe it is because many pro-polygraph people have an easier time believing that anti-polygraph folks are sex offenders, liars, and cheats who don't like the polygraph because it catches them when they lie. The idea of a respected, decorated, honorable, and honest law enforcement officer speaking out against the polygraph, with a very solid and reasonable foundation for his beliefs, is more difficult to deal with. It might even make you question how many other people who failed their polygraphs despite protestations of innocence were actually telling the truth...
It is telling, in my opinion, that instead of responding with a reasonable counterpoint to my opinion you choose instead to delve through years worth of old posts in the hope of finding an example of contradicting posts. I believe that is just another example of the argumentum ad hominem (attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's position), for which many polygraph supporters on this web site have become well known.
Along the same lines, am I to believe that the following paragraph is sincere, and is without sarcasm and condescension?
QuoteAs to your concern that you aren't receiving sufficient respect and civility, that is certainly my error. In my defense, I would like to say that in my experience most police officers are self actualizing and thick skinned. In fact, most mature, stable people are. I have respectfully acknowledged your position and your commitment to service. What else should I do to salve your injured feelings?That does not seem to be the case. And, just to be clear, recognition that the paragraph contains sarcasm and condescension does not equate to a complaint of being harmed by that sarcasm and condescension.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 04, 2008, 11:52 PMExcuse me, but this is what you have said regarding the error rate of polygraph
This means it is logical to conclude that there is a chance (however small or large you believe it to be) that a truthful person could be deemed deceptive on their polygraph exam. This is the crucial point that renders the polygraph worthless. ...
Polygraph supporters would have you believe that their admission of less-than-complete accuracy subsumes false positives along with false negatives, and that there is no substantive difference between the two. That is simply not true. Just as with the fictional medical test for the XYZ disease, once the possibility of a false positive exists, the ability to draw any conclusions from a positive or a negative test result no longer exists. July 31st 2007
However, when you add in the false-positive rate the polygraph, as you have discovered, becomes worthless. April 27 2007
The false-positive rate for polygraphs is disputed, of course. Supporters of the polygraph say it is very low, while people like me believe it is very high. I know of no one who asserts that it doesn't exist. And the false-positive rate is what, in my opinion, renders the polygraph worthless as a scientific test April 25 2006.
Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless. This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph. ....
However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.
April 1 2006
In my opinion, what renders the polygraph utterly worthless is not that it and its operator fail to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects. What renders the polygraph worthless is that in addition to failing to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects, it also erroneously "fails" or labels as deceptive a certain percentage of truthful subjects. October 25 2005
However, the actual accuracy of the polygraph, which includes an unknown false-positive rate, renders it worthless. Oct 23 2005
Anything less than 100% accuracy in the truthful vs. deceptive assessment is worthless August 3 2005
But as soon as you allow for even the most remote possibility that a subject can tell the absolute truth and still be judged to have "failed" the test, in my opinion the entire test process instantly becomes virtually worthless. Actually, it's worse than worthless, because people and governmental agencies will still rely on it even though it generates data which can only be considered useless....
If polygraph "tests" were fifty percent accurate at detecting actual falsehoods (not just at measuring physiological changes in one's body, but at actually detecting deception) and also had a ZERO percent chance of rendering a false positive, then I would be more willing to support it. June 17, 2005
Now that we have established that you think that polygraph is worthless if it has a false positive rate. Let's talk about error rate. Error rate is a combination of 2 types of errors Type I errors, False Positive Error, and Type II, False Negative Error. Both exist in any scientific process. You statisticians correct me if I have this backwards I haven't had a statistics class in over 30 years. Now let's look at your example from July of 2007,
You Wrote "Let's assume that a medical test exists for the XYZ disease, but this test is only successful at detecting the presence of the disease about 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time, the test will not be positive, even if the subject does in fact have the XYZ disease. Some people would conclude that the test is useful, even though it is not 100% accurate.
However, there is some crucial data missing. In order to determine if the test for the XYZ disease is actually useful, we would have to know if it ever showed a positive test result for a person that did not have the XYZ disease.
If the test never showed a positive result for a subject that did not have the XYZ disease, then it is indeed a useful test. It is useful because after the test is completed the doctor (and the patient) may draw a definite conclusion at least part of the time. If the test result is positive the doctor could conclude with 100% accuracy that the patient is suffering from the XYZ disease. Negative test results would be less conclusive, since the doctor would not be able to rule out the presence of the disease.
However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero. It wouldn't matter if this occurred in 1% of the tests or in 99% of the tests; the mere possibility of a false positive is sufficient. It would be a useless test because no matter what the result, there would be no legitimate conclusions that could be drawn from the test data. A positive result would mean that the person has the XYZ disease or that the test is a false positive. A negative result means that the person doesn't have the disease or that this is part of the percentage of cases where the result will be negative even though the disease is present."
I decided to use this example because your flawed reasoning conflicts with what most people know about the TB skin test. This particular test has a false positive rate that fluctuates between 10% and 70% depending on the exposure and vaccination history. If you were to go tomorrow and take this test and come back a few days later with a positive result. NO ONE would assume you have TB, They would just ask you to take a more specific test.
In screening tests whether they are TB or Pre-employment polygraph there are certainly steps that you can take to reduce the false positive rate, but the unavoidable truth is that if you decrease the false positive rate, you increase the false negative rate. In the TB skin test in order to reduce the number of false positives you run a significant risk of failure to diagnose someone that really has the disease. So the consequences of a False Positive you have to take another test. Consequence of a False Negative, you die a horrible death. Where exactly would you place the error rate if you had to choose?
Requiring that polygraphers construct a test that would reduce the false positive rate to 1% would significantly increase the false negative rate allowing unacceptable candidates to pass through.
I would submit that the consequences of your alleged false positives are that you had to apply a couple of more places for a job. Conversely if your polygraph had been a False Negative and you were actually an undesirable person for Law Enforcement, the consequences would involve pinning a badge and gun on the wrong guy. If you are the guy doing the hiring you would probably be willing to miss a few good candidates in order to protect your agency from letting a bad apple make it through. Face it. Those pre-employment tests you took weren't for you. They were for your agency.
As to your concern that you aren't receiving sufficient respect and civility, that is certainly my error. In my defense, I would like to say that in my experience most police officers are self actualizing and thick skinned. In fact, most mature, stable people are. I have respectfully acknowledged your position and your commitment to service. What else should I do to salve your injured feelings?
Sancho Panza
PS Assuming you actually told the truth on all 4 tests and even if you were a "false positive" on three out of 4 times you took the test, I don't think that is statistically sufficient to claim a 75% false positive rate due to uncontrolled variables. I think all you have done is claimed/cited 3 examples of an unquantified false positive rate. Once again Statisticians correct me if I am wrong, it's been a long time since high school.
SP
This means it is logical to conclude that there is a chance (however small or large you believe it to be) that a truthful person could be deemed deceptive on their polygraph exam. This is the crucial point that renders the polygraph worthless. ...
Polygraph supporters would have you believe that their admission of less-than-complete accuracy subsumes false positives along with false negatives, and that there is no substantive difference between the two. That is simply not true. Just as with the fictional medical test for the XYZ disease, once the possibility of a false positive exists, the ability to draw any conclusions from a positive or a negative test result no longer exists. July 31st 2007
However, when you add in the false-positive rate the polygraph, as you have discovered, becomes worthless. April 27 2007
The false-positive rate for polygraphs is disputed, of course. Supporters of the polygraph say it is very low, while people like me believe it is very high. I know of no one who asserts that it doesn't exist. And the false-positive rate is what, in my opinion, renders the polygraph worthless as a scientific test April 25 2006.
Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless. This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph. ....
However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.
April 1 2006
In my opinion, what renders the polygraph utterly worthless is not that it and its operator fail to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects. What renders the polygraph worthless is that in addition to failing to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects, it also erroneously "fails" or labels as deceptive a certain percentage of truthful subjects. October 25 2005
However, the actual accuracy of the polygraph, which includes an unknown false-positive rate, renders it worthless. Oct 23 2005
Anything less than 100% accuracy in the truthful vs. deceptive assessment is worthless August 3 2005
But as soon as you allow for even the most remote possibility that a subject can tell the absolute truth and still be judged to have "failed" the test, in my opinion the entire test process instantly becomes virtually worthless. Actually, it's worse than worthless, because people and governmental agencies will still rely on it even though it generates data which can only be considered useless....
If polygraph "tests" were fifty percent accurate at detecting actual falsehoods (not just at measuring physiological changes in one's body, but at actually detecting deception) and also had a ZERO percent chance of rendering a false positive, then I would be more willing to support it. June 17, 2005
Now that we have established that you think that polygraph is worthless if it has a false positive rate. Let's talk about error rate. Error rate is a combination of 2 types of errors Type I errors, False Positive Error, and Type II, False Negative Error. Both exist in any scientific process. You statisticians correct me if I have this backwards I haven't had a statistics class in over 30 years. Now let's look at your example from July of 2007,
You Wrote "Let's assume that a medical test exists for the XYZ disease, but this test is only successful at detecting the presence of the disease about 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time, the test will not be positive, even if the subject does in fact have the XYZ disease. Some people would conclude that the test is useful, even though it is not 100% accurate.
However, there is some crucial data missing. In order to determine if the test for the XYZ disease is actually useful, we would have to know if it ever showed a positive test result for a person that did not have the XYZ disease.
If the test never showed a positive result for a subject that did not have the XYZ disease, then it is indeed a useful test. It is useful because after the test is completed the doctor (and the patient) may draw a definite conclusion at least part of the time. If the test result is positive the doctor could conclude with 100% accuracy that the patient is suffering from the XYZ disease. Negative test results would be less conclusive, since the doctor would not be able to rule out the presence of the disease.
However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero. It wouldn't matter if this occurred in 1% of the tests or in 99% of the tests; the mere possibility of a false positive is sufficient. It would be a useless test because no matter what the result, there would be no legitimate conclusions that could be drawn from the test data. A positive result would mean that the person has the XYZ disease or that the test is a false positive. A negative result means that the person doesn't have the disease or that this is part of the percentage of cases where the result will be negative even though the disease is present."
I decided to use this example because your flawed reasoning conflicts with what most people know about the TB skin test. This particular test has a false positive rate that fluctuates between 10% and 70% depending on the exposure and vaccination history. If you were to go tomorrow and take this test and come back a few days later with a positive result. NO ONE would assume you have TB, They would just ask you to take a more specific test.
In screening tests whether they are TB or Pre-employment polygraph there are certainly steps that you can take to reduce the false positive rate, but the unavoidable truth is that if you decrease the false positive rate, you increase the false negative rate. In the TB skin test in order to reduce the number of false positives you run a significant risk of failure to diagnose someone that really has the disease. So the consequences of a False Positive you have to take another test. Consequence of a False Negative, you die a horrible death. Where exactly would you place the error rate if you had to choose?
Requiring that polygraphers construct a test that would reduce the false positive rate to 1% would significantly increase the false negative rate allowing unacceptable candidates to pass through.
I would submit that the consequences of your alleged false positives are that you had to apply a couple of more places for a job. Conversely if your polygraph had been a False Negative and you were actually an undesirable person for Law Enforcement, the consequences would involve pinning a badge and gun on the wrong guy. If you are the guy doing the hiring you would probably be willing to miss a few good candidates in order to protect your agency from letting a bad apple make it through. Face it. Those pre-employment tests you took weren't for you. They were for your agency.
As to your concern that you aren't receiving sufficient respect and civility, that is certainly my error. In my defense, I would like to say that in my experience most police officers are self actualizing and thick skinned. In fact, most mature, stable people are. I have respectfully acknowledged your position and your commitment to service. What else should I do to salve your injured feelings?
Sancho Panza
PS Assuming you actually told the truth on all 4 tests and even if you were a "false positive" on three out of 4 times you took the test, I don't think that is statistically sufficient to claim a 75% false positive rate due to uncontrolled variables. I think all you have done is claimed/cited 3 examples of an unquantified false positive rate. Once again Statisticians correct me if I am wrong, it's been a long time since high school.
SP
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 04, 2008, 09:54 PMQuote from: Jester on Jan 04, 2008, 12:45 PMUntil your latest post I had yet to read anything from you or about you other than you said you are a police officer, I think in Connecticut and your position on Polygraph which I believe is somewhat skewed by a bad experience. 10 years puts you well past the "I'm gonna be a cop until I can find a job" group. Law Enforcement is a respectable profession and I think that anyone who is willing to strap on a gun and a badge and place themselves physically between Society and those that seek to do it harm is worthy of respect. Would you agree?
You are rigid and unreasonable in your contention that polygraph is worthless because it has an error rate. Have you ever had or seen a misfire on the range? Was the misfire caused by the error rate of the ammunition manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the firearm manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the operator who failed to perform some necessary function to reduce the error rate? Are you following your standard of it's worthless unless it's 100%? Have you stopped carrying a sidearm? Have you ever junked a car because the battery's error rate reared it's ugly head or routinely toss all 4 tires because 1 had a flat? Do you have children? Do you disown them if they get a C on their report card? After all a C approximates 70% accuracy or conversely a 30% error rate. Are you aware of anyone who ever took a TB screen that indicated positive and had to go take a more specific test only to find out the did not have TB? Should we ban TB screening?
Do some of these analogies seem silly to you? No more silly than your contention that polygraph has to be 100% or worthless. Any research scientist would laugh at that position or at least shake his head and chuckle to himself.
If you want to argue that polygraph accuracy rates need to improve, I'll agree with you. There is always room for improvement. If you want to take an opposing position as to whether polygraph should be used, we can do that. But if you want to be respected, you need to reconsider your 100% or worthless position. It doesn't pass the silly test.
You may not have bothered to read any of my prior posts and known that I am a police officer, but you certainly have not responded to my posts with the same civility and lack of condescending sarcasm you found in those posts.
I have never said that since polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate. I have said that the polygraph is worthless because it does not detect deception – there's a difference.
If you handed me 100 rounds of brand "X" ammunition and I fired it all, and 75 of those rounds failed to fire because of a bad primer, I would certainly doubt the quality of brand "X" ammunition. I failed three out of four polygraphs while telling the truth; how rigid and unreasonable is it of me to believe that telling the truth has little or nothing to do with passing a polygraph?
Claiming that my position on the polygraph is based on the mere existence of an error rate is an example of a straw man argument, a common logical fallacy. By making my position out to be an illogical extreme it is far easier to refute. The fallacy lies in the fact that the original position has not been refuted – only the straw man of your own construction has been torn down.
My actual position is that, in my experience, I told the truth on four polygraphs, did not withhold any information, and failed the first three. I also failed for three different reasons, which is even more disturbing. If I had some sort of reaction to questions about drugs, it would be logical for me to show a reaction to drug-related questions on all four tests. But after failing my first test for drug-related questions, I never again showed a reaction to any questions about drugs, even though it would stand to reason that, having failed a polygraph for supposedly lying about drug use, I would be even more likely to show a reaction in subsequent polygraphs.
It would also make sense that if I had some sort of reason for reacting to questions about fighting, or about stealing, that I would have those reactions in all of my tests. But that didn't happen, either. As far as I can tell, the polygraph examiner in each of my first three tests picked a random subject, questioned me about it, and then took a wild guess as to whether I was being truthful or not.
If the polygraph worked I would have passed all four of my tests. There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that for most other people in most other situations the polygraph has a high degree of accuracy, even though neither the instrument nor the examiner could tell the difference between truth and deception on any of my first three polygraphs. I don't even believe the polygraph examiner could tell the difference in my fourth polygraph, even though I told the truth on that one as well. I figured it was just my turn for the coin toss to land on "pass" that time.
Regarding my experience, I don't see how anyone could legitimately expect a high degree of accuracy from the polygraph. Even if you believe I was lying, then you would have to believe that I managed to successfully lie about fighting and stealing on my first polygraph, I managed to lie successfully lie about using/selling cocaine and stealing on my second polygraph, I managed to successfully lie about using/selling cocaine and fighting on my third polygraph, and I managed to successfully lie about everything on my fourth polygraph. Alternately, if you believe I was telling the truth, then I failed three out of four polygraphs for no reason whatsoever. Either way, the polygraph is a miserable failure and is clearly unable to detect truth or deception. Not because it is unable to claim 100% accuracy, but because it is unable to credibly claim any sort of reliable accuracy whatsoever.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 04, 2008, 12:45 PMQuote from: Jester on Jan 04, 2008, 12:42 AM
You have showed more respect and consideration to a convicted sex offender than you have to me, a law enforcement officer who has always been civil and respectful in all of my posts, simply because you don't agree with my point of view.
.
Until your latest post I had yet to read anything from you or about you other than you said you are a police officer, I think in Connecticut and your position on Polygraph which I believe is somewhat skewed by a bad experience. 10 years puts you well past the "I'm gonna be a cop until I can find a job" group. Law Enforcement is a respectable profession and I think that anyone who is willing to strap on a gun and a badge and place themselves physically between Society and those that seek to do it harm is worthy of respect. Would you agree?
You are rigid and unreasonable in your contention that polygraph is worthless because it has an error rate. Have you ever had or seen a misfire on the range? Was the misfire caused by the error rate of the ammunition manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the firearm manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the operator who failed to perform some necessary function to reduce the error rate? Are you following your standard of it's worthless unless it's 100%? Have you stopped carrying a sidearm? Have you ever junked a car because the battery's error rate reared it's ugly head or routinely toss all 4 tires because 1 had a flat? Do you have children? Do you disown them if they get a C on their report card? After all a C approximates 70% accuracy or conversely a 30% error rate. Are you aware of anyone who ever took a TB screen that indicated positive and had to go take a more specific test only to find out the did not have TB? Should we ban TB screening?
Do some of these analogies seem silly to you? No more silly than your contention that polygraph has to be 100% or worthless. Any research scientist would laugh at that position or at least shake his head and chuckle to himself.
If you want to argue that polygraph accuracy rates need to improve, I'll agree with you. There is always room for improvement. If you want to take an opposing position as to whether polygraph should be used, we can do that. But if you want to be respected, you need to reconsider your 100% or worthless position. It doesn't pass the silly test.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 04, 2008, 12:42 AMQuote from: Jester on Jan 03, 2008, 11:57 PMSomething you may wish to consider...
Mr. Truth you wrote "Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry,"
You will notice that I did not relate any specifics regarding your crime and I applauded you "owning" your behavior.
If you can genuinely empathize with your victim you have progressed beyond what many convicted sex offenders ever achieve. You must admit that the consequences you listed in your post were definitely focused toward their effect on you rather than your victim.
I do not agree with your attacks on polygraph but I recognize and appreciate your accomplishments in treatment.
Sancho Panza
You have showed more respect and consideration to a convicted sex offender than you have to me, a law enforcement officer who has always been civil and respectful in all of my posts, simply because you don't agree with my point of view.
As with others who support the polygraph, I understand it must be difficult for you to accept that not all antipolygraph people can be pigeonholed into the category of "liars who got caught lying and are now bitter about it." The fact is that I am a veteran of more than eight years in the army and army reserve, and more than ten years on the police department. I am respected by peers, supervisors, and subordinates, and my integrity is beyond question. I told the complete truth on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs and didn't withhold any information. I failed the first three for three different reasons and was called a liar each time.
My perfectly reasonable conclusion after those experiences? That the polygraph does not detect deception or honesty with any reliable rate of accuracy. I don't see how any reasonable person could go through similar experiences and come to any other conclusion.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 03, 2008, 11:57 PMMr. Truth you wrote "Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry,"
You will notice that I did not relate any specifics regarding your crime and I applauded you "owning" your behavior.
If you can genuinely empathize with your victim you have progressed beyond what many convicted sex offenders ever achieve. You must admit that the consequences you listed in your post were definitely focused toward their effect on you rather than your victim.
I do not agree with your attacks on polygraph but I recognize and appreciate your accomplishments in treatment.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jan 03, 2008, 09:42 PMQuote from: Jester on Jan 03, 2008, 08:01 AMMr. Truth Just to see where you are coming from I went back and read your original post i this forum. The one where you discuss and freely admit your crime. I have a certain amount of respect for someone who is prepared to "own" his behavior.
The one thing that really stood out in this reading is that way that you focus the negative consequences of this crime towards what it cost you rather than what it cost your victim to wit: " I can assure you there is nothing you can say to make me feel worse than what I've done to myself in that regard. What a colossal blunder. It cost me a military career and over a million dollars in lifetime retirement benefits."
You stated that you successfully completed your jail time and probation but you didn't express much empathy for the real victim. You may have failedyour program in that regard.
Sancho Panza
Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry, but for what it's worth: victim was/is my daughter. After she graduated from college, she moved in with me and my (new) wife, lived with us for about 18 months. Numerous talks with her, believe me when I say I have owned up to her and aired things out to her content. She felt bad for me because she could see the pain it caused me to dredge this up again, and I always told her not to worry about how I feel about this. Her mother has practically disowned her for having contact with me.
The analogy I like to use in describing the anger many SOs feel towards the polygraph is based on a science fiction book by Larry Niven. Footfall is about an alien race that attacks Earth. The aliens look like elephants, they have a warrior creed and herd mentality, part of which is that when they surrender, the lie down and go belly up. Once a warrior has made that conciliation towards his attacker, the battle between them is over, and the warrior now belongs to the attacker.
Humans, who were more than pissed off about being viciously attacked, did not recognize the surrender gesture, and kept attacking the vanquished aliens. That was a breach of etiquette to the aliens, and being attacked after they had surrendered sent them into a rage/killing frenzy.
To wit: I went belly up and surrendered all, but was still "attacked" by failed polygraphs. Thank you, polygraphers, for motivating me to find out why I could not crack the code on passing the polygraph. I left no details uncovered, I lived like a hermit for weeks on end to limit any and all contact. And for what? To be scored NDI on having any sexual contact with anyone other than my wife, and on the same exam, being scored DI for having sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18. The test is bullshit, that is the best technical description I can offer, based on a PhD in math and a couple of other graduate degrees (engineering and science, we don't really need to go down the design of experiments/reliability models road now do we?). And thank you, taxpayers, for paying my way through West Point. So there, I didn't lie about what I did, I took responsibility for what I was allowed to do, I own my crime, did the time, and have made peace with my victim (who had forgiven me). I'm a threat to society? Being splattered on the Internet (SO registry) escapes me too.
I know what I did deeply affected my daughter. And many others. There is no amount of sorry that can ever repay or make amends for that. There are still consequences to be dealt with down the road (meeting her future husband, grandchildren, funerals for other family members, etc.). I got the message the loud and clear. End of personal laundry airing.
Posted by Jester
- Jan 03, 2008, 02:23 PMLieing is lieing. Be it a letter to the court, a phone call, in person or all of the above. Substantially altering the facts, minimizing the details, casting blame on others are all variations of a lie. I've offered to many details all ready and won't add to that. You can believe, or not, I don't care.
In the matter of the polygrapher the Judge chose to believe his 'testimony' while rejecting the probation officer. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with the Judge, in the end that is the only person that matters. One HUGE requirement of 'therapy' is that you acknowledge your mistake, admit it, if you don't, you may not be released, ever! I have steadfastly refused to change my testimony in this matter. To do so when be would mean I have to lie, which then sets me up for failing a polygraph, grounds for termination. And yet, the State will not accept a polygraph concerning the specific issue as to if I am lieing or not as it concerns this matter. Polygraphs, as used by the State, are primarily for their prosecution of a case. If along the way they become helpful for therapy, well, thats OK too.
In the matter of the polygrapher the Judge chose to believe his 'testimony' while rejecting the probation officer. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with the Judge, in the end that is the only person that matters. One HUGE requirement of 'therapy' is that you acknowledge your mistake, admit it, if you don't, you may not be released, ever! I have steadfastly refused to change my testimony in this matter. To do so when be would mean I have to lie, which then sets me up for failing a polygraph, grounds for termination. And yet, the State will not accept a polygraph concerning the specific issue as to if I am lieing or not as it concerns this matter. Polygraphs, as used by the State, are primarily for their prosecution of a case. If along the way they become helpful for therapy, well, thats OK too.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 03, 2008, 08:01 AMMr. Truth Just to see where you are coming from I went back and read your original post i this forum. The one where you discuss and freely admit your crime. I have a certain amount of respect for someone who is prepared to "own" his behavior.
The one thing that really stood out in this reading is that way that you focus the negative consequences of this crime towards what it cost you rather than what it cost your victim to wit: " I can assure you there is nothing you can say to make me feel worse than what I've done to myself in that regard. What a colossal blunder. It cost me a military career and over a million dollars in lifetime retirement benefits."
You stated that you successfully completed your jail time and probation but you didn't express much empathy for the real victim. You may have failedyour program in that regard.
Sancho Panza
The one thing that really stood out in this reading is that way that you focus the negative consequences of this crime towards what it cost you rather than what it cost your victim to wit: " I can assure you there is nothing you can say to make me feel worse than what I've done to myself in that regard. What a colossal blunder. It cost me a military career and over a million dollars in lifetime retirement benefits."
You stated that you successfully completed your jail time and probation but you didn't express much empathy for the real victim. You may have failedyour program in that regard.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 03, 2008, 07:39 AMJester, you stated that the polygrapher lied in a letter to the court.
This is the first time you have mentioned this "Fact" in any of your posts. You seem to have a habit of adding more of these supposed "facts" as time goes by.
You're really just making this up as you go aren't you?
Prejudice implies an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. Hostility towards convicted sex offenders is not irrational at all.
Society is hostile those who commit acts injurious to society. The existence of laws and legal punishments is evidence of that hostility. I don't particularly like criminals. I will admit a certain dislike of convicted sex offenders. I especially don't like convicted criminals who portray themselves as victims while ignoring the trauma they cause the REAL victims of their crimes.
As a consequence of their voluntary criminal acts, convicted sex offenders are punished. Some are given the opportunity to remain outside of prison while they try to alter the behavior and/or thought patterns that somehow allowed them to justify the crimes they committed.
These are given a set of rules to go by. They are told follow ALL of these rules or go back to jail. They are given the opportunity to consider whether or not they can follow all of the rules and must promise that they will follow ALL of them.
Many do follow all of the rules and do fine, but some, like you, begin to look for excuses and justifications for not following the rules. Some try to manipulate their therapists and failing that they create a minor conflict trying to get bounced to another program in search of a therapist they think they can manipulate. Some try to create mountains out of mole hills to shift focus away from their aberrant behavior and towards the system.
The main problem that I have with all that is that is that NO ONE forced them to make the promises they made to get out of jail, but once they hit the street they try to figure a way to both break the promise and avoid going back to jail.
You in my opinion are trying to do exactly that. If your word is NO GOOD on the contract you signed, why would you expect to be believed here?
Once again, If you don't think you can follow all of the rules you promised you would follow, tell you P.O. you want to revoke your contract and go back to jail. Show the world you have the courage of your convictions.
Sancho Panza
This is the first time you have mentioned this "Fact" in any of your posts. You seem to have a habit of adding more of these supposed "facts" as time goes by.
You're really just making this up as you go aren't you?
Prejudice implies an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. Hostility towards convicted sex offenders is not irrational at all.
Society is hostile those who commit acts injurious to society. The existence of laws and legal punishments is evidence of that hostility. I don't particularly like criminals. I will admit a certain dislike of convicted sex offenders. I especially don't like convicted criminals who portray themselves as victims while ignoring the trauma they cause the REAL victims of their crimes.
As a consequence of their voluntary criminal acts, convicted sex offenders are punished. Some are given the opportunity to remain outside of prison while they try to alter the behavior and/or thought patterns that somehow allowed them to justify the crimes they committed.
These are given a set of rules to go by. They are told follow ALL of these rules or go back to jail. They are given the opportunity to consider whether or not they can follow all of the rules and must promise that they will follow ALL of them.
Many do follow all of the rules and do fine, but some, like you, begin to look for excuses and justifications for not following the rules. Some try to manipulate their therapists and failing that they create a minor conflict trying to get bounced to another program in search of a therapist they think they can manipulate. Some try to create mountains out of mole hills to shift focus away from their aberrant behavior and towards the system.
The main problem that I have with all that is that is that NO ONE forced them to make the promises they made to get out of jail, but once they hit the street they try to figure a way to both break the promise and avoid going back to jail.
You in my opinion are trying to do exactly that. If your word is NO GOOD on the contract you signed, why would you expect to be believed here?
Once again, If you don't think you can follow all of the rules you promised you would follow, tell you P.O. you want to revoke your contract and go back to jail. Show the world you have the courage of your convictions.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Jester
- Jan 02, 2008, 11:58 PMProbation officer lied under oath, thats a fact.
Polygrapher lied in a letter to the court, thats a fact.
You can argue the point till the cows come home, just assume for a moment I'm right, they DID in fact LIE. Just can't handle it can you? Blows your mind, quick, point out the flaws in the one bearing the message you detest.
They both apologized, but nothing has changed. How many other polygraphers lie? To the court? To the probation dept.? To therapists? It's fair game to lie to a client, not sure where to draw the line there. THAT fact needs to be understood by anyone taking a polygraph, the polygrapher will lie to you without hesitation. So will cops. And then they simply 'turn off the lie' and suddenly start telling the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' when it's time to do so?
I submit it is not that easy, when you spend a good part of your day lieing for a living, it has to be difficult to simply 'turn that off'.
Of course, this part of the subject matter is routinely dismissed in this discussion. It's far more politically correct to point fingers at a sex offender, talk about taking responsibility. Yeah, lets talk about 'taking responsibility'? It's OK for an officer of the court to lie under oath? Is that the general response here?
OK, back to finger pointing, the truth is to difficult to deal with, sweep it under the rug... I did my time, the time I'm doing now is a direct result of corruption within the system, you just can't handle the truth.
Fact is, a LOT of sex offenders go to jail or back to jail for failing a polygraph. They are removed from treatment and revoked for 'failure to complete treatment', not for 'failing a polygraph', merely semantics at work here. In my case for 'failing to complete a polygraph'. So many of you just don't get it, your prejudice against sex offenders is SO high you've lost your ability to be subjective, logical, rational. Not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts I suspect, perhaps in time, society will see that.
The ignorance expressed here by some is remarkable. You assume all sex offender victims are children. You assume all sex offenders are banned from the internet. You assume all sex offenders get what they deserve, no matter what the circumstances. Your assumptions are based on hysteria, media hype and flawed 'studies' that appear to uphold the highest level of legal reality and constitutional rights. Right, like the courst NEVER make a mistake and EVERYONE ever sent to jail deserves to be there. Simply put, some of you are severely deluded.
Polygrapher lied in a letter to the court, thats a fact.
You can argue the point till the cows come home, just assume for a moment I'm right, they DID in fact LIE. Just can't handle it can you? Blows your mind, quick, point out the flaws in the one bearing the message you detest.
They both apologized, but nothing has changed. How many other polygraphers lie? To the court? To the probation dept.? To therapists? It's fair game to lie to a client, not sure where to draw the line there. THAT fact needs to be understood by anyone taking a polygraph, the polygrapher will lie to you without hesitation. So will cops. And then they simply 'turn off the lie' and suddenly start telling the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' when it's time to do so?
I submit it is not that easy, when you spend a good part of your day lieing for a living, it has to be difficult to simply 'turn that off'.
Of course, this part of the subject matter is routinely dismissed in this discussion. It's far more politically correct to point fingers at a sex offender, talk about taking responsibility. Yeah, lets talk about 'taking responsibility'? It's OK for an officer of the court to lie under oath? Is that the general response here?
OK, back to finger pointing, the truth is to difficult to deal with, sweep it under the rug... I did my time, the time I'm doing now is a direct result of corruption within the system, you just can't handle the truth.
Fact is, a LOT of sex offenders go to jail or back to jail for failing a polygraph. They are removed from treatment and revoked for 'failure to complete treatment', not for 'failing a polygraph', merely semantics at work here. In my case for 'failing to complete a polygraph'. So many of you just don't get it, your prejudice against sex offenders is SO high you've lost your ability to be subjective, logical, rational. Not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts I suspect, perhaps in time, society will see that.
The ignorance expressed here by some is remarkable. You assume all sex offender victims are children. You assume all sex offenders are banned from the internet. You assume all sex offenders get what they deserve, no matter what the circumstances. Your assumptions are based on hysteria, media hype and flawed 'studies' that appear to uphold the highest level of legal reality and constitutional rights. Right, like the courst NEVER make a mistake and EVERYONE ever sent to jail deserves to be there. Simply put, some of you are severely deluded.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jan 02, 2008, 11:46 PMDonna.Taylor:
Just like there are good probation officers and bad ones, please be precise enough in your commentary to give the impression you know the difference between SOs under court supervision and those who are not. I, for one, am not, ergo, I have no limitations with respect to being here. And yes, my email address is registered as well. Just like I am. Feel safer because of that?
Others:
In the beginning, I feared the polygraph, not for it "detecting" any lies I may have been tempted to try, but for the work I had to put into it beforehand, that is, divulging everything I could think of with respect to sex. That is a humbling and humiliating experience. What alienated me from this part of the treatment program? As I have said in numerous other posts, it was for being consequenced for being scored deceptive on things I was telling the truth about. The fakery behind the process, specifically, being punished for what I didn't do, is what royally pissed me off and opened my eyes to the charade know as polygraphy.
I believe it is the height of stupidity for anyone to think that the polygraph is reliable enough to catch spies or determine if anyone, sex offenders included, is being deceptive or truthful. If you, as the test subject, believe it works, then it is effective, just as if you believe that tarot cards work, then that method is also effective. But, we all know it is BS behind the "science."
I always like the state-sponsored DOC studies that claim some rate, count or average can be used as a broad brush for all offenders. Wasn't there another study (if Orolan reads this, from sexcriminals.com, the woman who is a PO in Florida) that claimed something around 800 victims per offender? The math makes these studies look stupid (along with those citing them), when the extrapolated victim count starts to exceed the total population of potential victims.
Jester:
I understand where you are coming from, and my recommendation to you is based on having been there, done that as far as the rules, process, and people are concerned. The reality is that you have very little control over your situation. What you can control is how well you follow the rules and not get hung up on paperwork. Pass the polygraphs and move on.
Just like there are good probation officers and bad ones, please be precise enough in your commentary to give the impression you know the difference between SOs under court supervision and those who are not. I, for one, am not, ergo, I have no limitations with respect to being here. And yes, my email address is registered as well. Just like I am. Feel safer because of that?
Others:
In the beginning, I feared the polygraph, not for it "detecting" any lies I may have been tempted to try, but for the work I had to put into it beforehand, that is, divulging everything I could think of with respect to sex. That is a humbling and humiliating experience. What alienated me from this part of the treatment program? As I have said in numerous other posts, it was for being consequenced for being scored deceptive on things I was telling the truth about. The fakery behind the process, specifically, being punished for what I didn't do, is what royally pissed me off and opened my eyes to the charade know as polygraphy.
I believe it is the height of stupidity for anyone to think that the polygraph is reliable enough to catch spies or determine if anyone, sex offenders included, is being deceptive or truthful. If you, as the test subject, believe it works, then it is effective, just as if you believe that tarot cards work, then that method is also effective. But, we all know it is BS behind the "science."
I always like the state-sponsored DOC studies that claim some rate, count or average can be used as a broad brush for all offenders. Wasn't there another study (if Orolan reads this, from sexcriminals.com, the woman who is a PO in Florida) that claimed something around 800 victims per offender? The math makes these studies look stupid (along with those citing them), when the extrapolated victim count starts to exceed the total population of potential victims.
Jester:
I understand where you are coming from, and my recommendation to you is based on having been there, done that as far as the rules, process, and people are concerned. The reality is that you have very little control over your situation. What you can control is how well you follow the rules and not get hung up on paperwork. Pass the polygraphs and move on.
Posted by Donna.Taylor
- Jan 02, 2008, 11:44 AMQuote from: Donna.Taylor on Jan 01, 2008, 09:44 PMQuoteSancho PanzaNice nic. Do you happen to fit the character? A squire who serves his master faithfully? Are you greedy but kind? Faithful but cowardly? You started out good on this thread and I agree with your early words. But somewhere along the line you strayed into the rhetoric and BS.QuoteFor example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003)LOL. A rehash of a study actually conducted in 2000. Never understood why the Academy published it and charges for access, since the Colorado DOJ released it to the public domain when it was completed.
The 180 offenders studied are hardly a representative sampling of the average sex offender. All 180 were men with boy victims that were between 6 and 9 years old. Only a polygraph supporter would take a narrow study like that and assume it applies to all 700,000 convicted sex offenders in this countryQuoteResults of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior.Right. Since we're assuming these 180 offenders are the 'same' as all sex offenders that means there are some 114 million victimized children we don't know about? That would constitute EVERY child in the USA. So what's the catch? It's what they call a "victim". Every time an offender saw a photo of a child and had a sexual thought, that was a victim. If they looked at the same photo several times, that was several different "offenses". Even masturbation to an erotic fantasy constituted a "victim" and an "offense".QuoteSex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph.Nope. They go back to prison for getting kicked out of therapy...because they failed the polygraph. Kind of like saying people don't die from the bullet, they die from the tissue damage and loss of blood.QuoteCONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.Runs counter to the general perception of more than a few around here that George's board has become a haven for all sex offenders, doesn't it? I doubt they're here because the support that voodoo. Besides, if an offender lies his a** off denying all manner of vile deeds and fantasies and scores NDI on all of it, do you honestly think he'll then say he lied about it all? Of course he wouldn'tHe would extol the virtues of the machine and then laugh about the utter ignorance of not only the polygrapher but the person who asked him if it 'helped'.
QuoteIn conclusion Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.Care to give us a citation? I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.QuotenonombreI guess if i was you I would use "no name" for a nic. Want to explain to the rest of the members here just how you happen to know what other sites the NAMBLA site has links to? What, you go there but promise that you only read the articles?QuoteDonna.TaylorA pleasure Ms. Taylor. I don't recall seeing too many women getting involved in discussions here.QuoteOtherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months leftCourts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.
QuoteAnd GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!What culpability? Here's the deal. If Jester is inclined to commit a new offense, it makes no difference if this site exists or not. No amount of polygraphing is going to stop him, whether he knows it's pseudoscience or not. True therapy will help him identify the precursors to a re-offense and help him deal with them. But only if he wants it that way.QuoteEJohnsonQuite the fanclub, EJQuoteAs someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound.Whoooo. An expert
I spent 10 years sitting in on group therapy sessions as an "informed observer". A veritible revolving door of new faces every month. And I have a very close friend who has spent the last 15 years supervising sex offenders on probation and parole for the DOC of a large state. Can't say that Jester's overall behavior is indicative of those offenders, and neither does my PO friend. Yes some exhibit a combative attitude towards "the system", but such is the nature of all criminals with all crimes. Likewise a sense that it's "not my fault". And I can't say I ever met a car thief remorseful about the fact his victim had to take a cab for two weeks while the insurance company worked out the details. You see, this behavior you talk about isn't reserved for sex offenders. It's prevalent for all offenders.QuoteA talking moron can repeat mantras of therapyFreudian slip, EJ?You talk the talk pretty good, but have you ever walked the walk? Sex offender therapy is all things and no things. A true therapist will not have an outline for all offenders. Something that works for one offender may have little if any value for another. And even if something works for 'most' offenders that doesn't mean it works for all. The polygraph is such a therapy "tool". It will scare the bejeezus out of some to the point they'll tell all. Not really a bad thing. But that has to be weighed against the utterly arbitrary nature of the exam and the people giving them. A greater number are scored deceptive simply because if the examiner scored everybody NDI and there were no new offenses or violations being 'fessed up to somebody high up might wonder why they even need the poly. No poly, no food for the polygrapher. Face it. As an examiner it's in your best interest to produce results that insure your continued usefulness to the therapy system.
QuoteMr. TruthGlad to see you still hang around here
I agree with your statement to Jester. After the initial screwup it was as much his own fault as the others. A simple phone call. Having had the same antagonistic attitude against "the system" I know exactly what his thoughts were. But I learned quickly that the system holds all the cards, even when they're wrong.
QuoteDon't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.
Orolan - You are a narcissistic SO trying to justify your existence. As for my experience with the judicial system: I retired from Adult Probation and Parole; during this time (5+ years) I was a supervisor at a Community Correctional Center that housed adult male sex offenders (Like you and Jester). So as for experience with SO's and the judicial system – yeah I have been there and done that. The difference is your view is one sided from the 'poor me' stance.
If a SEX OFFENDER reoffends in a different arena – say selling cocaine, they usually do not redo sex offense therapy. However, if during the investigation the officers find pornography or other deviant items they could request that the Board of Pardons or the Judge to add SO therapy. Also, if the offender did not SUCCESSFULLY complete sex offender therapy and his sentence expired - and in a short timeframe he reoffended then I can also see them requiring SO therapy.
If SO therapy is required there has to be a specific reason. Maybe on the situation your related the Judge felt that the individuals 'altered state' because of the drugs puts him in a position to reoffend (you know the term 'cycle')
Regardless of if you like or dislike polygraphs, this site promotes not telling the truth – tell only what you want them to know. Any SO (and there are many) that visits AP is encouraged to not be open and honest in their dealings. This issue is the biggest threat. This means hiding behaviors which puts a SO in cycle to reoffend. That is where culpability on AP comes into play.
There were two other things you mentioned that I will address: 1) Polygraph examiners don't care if a person is returned to prison or not. We are there to complete an unbiased examination. Your PO makes life decisions for you. We have no interest regarding sending you back to prison or in keeping you out to 'MAKE MORE MONEY' from you. It is a sad fact, but when you go away, there always is another SO that is released. 2) OROLAN: I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me. Orolan, How can a therapist treat a sex offender in denial? ...enter the polygraph. Reduction of recidivism is a fine balance of the containment approach (Judicial, PO, TX, and Polygraph)
Now for Orolan, I have no more time for your words of wisdom. Best of luck and please stay away from children!
BTW: this is a chat room/message board (and violation for most SO's)!
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 02, 2008, 08:34 AMOrolan
Nice Nic. Do you happen to fit the character? Do you consider yourself the Lord High Wizard of Summer? Do you cast spells? Do you command a dragon? Do you use your Enchantica collection to entice adolescents with esteem issues into your sphere of influence?
After reading your feeble attempts at sarcastic one-liners I believe you are most certainly more akin to a windmill than a dragon.
I suspect you may be just another one of those convicted sex offenders who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay school taxes because you aren't allowed on the playground.
Sancho Panza- perhaps the voice of reason in the face of insanity or perhaps a fine cigar.
Nice Nic. Do you happen to fit the character? Do you consider yourself the Lord High Wizard of Summer? Do you cast spells? Do you command a dragon? Do you use your Enchantica collection to entice adolescents with esteem issues into your sphere of influence?
After reading your feeble attempts at sarcastic one-liners I believe you are most certainly more akin to a windmill than a dragon.
I suspect you may be just another one of those convicted sex offenders who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay school taxes because you aren't allowed on the playground.
Sancho Panza- perhaps the voice of reason in the face of insanity or perhaps a fine cigar.