- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by youbuffoon
- Jul 03, 2021, 12:42 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 16, 2016, 11:17 AMgetrealalreadyHe's been convicted, he's repaying his debt to society, I'm sure he's following all the rules...and then suddenly he watched jurrasic park and he might go back to jail for it? Do you not see the injustice here? A punished man does not need to be perpetually phished over and over til they finally find something they nail him with. If its truly about the classes, the treatment etc...then the polygraph is antithetical to the entire process. It's like saying "here you're doing great in every possible regard...but we want to use a scam psuedoscience to find some reason to send you back to prison". This isn't conducive with rehabilitiation. In fact it probably promotes rebellion, obsconding and going against probation even moreso. Becasue if you fail once or twice while telling the truth... then people might say FUCK IT I can't win even tho I'm doing everything right I still cant win so they get a case of the fuck its and do more illegal shit.
You need to get real. If waldenrefuge, an admitted, convicted, sexual offender, doesn't like his parole officer, his quack treatment provider, bs polygraph examiner and the probation restrictions that he agreed to, how is he going to like the restrictions at a Texas Department of Corrections facility?
Posted by xenonman
- Sep 01, 2016, 10:03 AMQuote from: xenonman on Aug 16, 2016, 10:46 AMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 08, 2016, 11:08 AMArk, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
True, one can not sink too much lower than being a polygrapher!
It's about one step below being a necrophile
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Aug 31, 2016, 10:34 PMPolygraphs are only effective if the person being tested believes in their validity. Going in with that mindset, and after several iterations of no deception indicated/inconclusive/deception indicated on mutually exclusive scenarios over most of a year, it became quite obvious to me that the polygraph is complete bullshit. It is a money making scam for a parasitic cottage industry. I know the test can be beaten, and quite easily at that. As a test, I viewed some porn and then lied about it on an exam. I lied to beat the lie, so to speak. I did not lie about anything else, nor did I lie about what I did. Of course, admitting that I lied opens the door to impugning everything else I say, but whatever. If you've been in my shoes, you know what I'm talking about.
But, having to do community service while on probation for not having passed a maintenance exam (have you had sex with anyone else other than your wife during date to date, NDI, and on the same "exam" getting inconclusive on have you had sex with anyone under the age of 18 during the same date window - really, how do you "pass" a question that covers the one question and fail the other question?) exposed the complete lunacy of the polygraph. Being accused of lying when you know you are telling the truth - how do you think a person is going to respond after being "consequenced" for not having passed the exam? You know, I surrendered, went belly up, totally submitted, and then you continue to kick me after that? So yeah, that is how I came to find out about antipolygraph.org a long time ago (and I've been out of the system for over a decade now, minus the exception of quarterly registration because what I did is such a friggin' danger to society? hardly).
With that said, for the OP, you fucked up for a stupid reason. Why put yourself into a situation like this? If your T&Cs are do not watch a particular type of movie, then don't fucking watch them. What is so hard to follow/understand about that? It's not like you got bent over for not passing an exam when you were telling the truth. In this case, you were stupid for not following a simple rule.
Here is a little tip: your best defense/survival strategy is not to give them (i.e., your containment team) any ammunition to use against you. I wasn't allowed to consume alcohol. Alcohol didn't have jack to do with my offense, in fact, I hardly drank in the first place. But being told I couldn't have a simple glass of beer, WTF is the point of that? But, why drink and run the test of being caught on a UA? Grow up and follow the rules. The sooner you realize you are not in charge of your life (while you are under supervision), and be mature enough to follow the rules, regardless of how stupid they seem, the better off you'll be. You really can't fight city hall on this one. The system is heavily stacked against you. Choose your battles wisely. This is not one of them. Trust me.
But, having to do community service while on probation for not having passed a maintenance exam (have you had sex with anyone else other than your wife during date to date, NDI, and on the same "exam" getting inconclusive on have you had sex with anyone under the age of 18 during the same date window - really, how do you "pass" a question that covers the one question and fail the other question?) exposed the complete lunacy of the polygraph. Being accused of lying when you know you are telling the truth - how do you think a person is going to respond after being "consequenced" for not having passed the exam? You know, I surrendered, went belly up, totally submitted, and then you continue to kick me after that? So yeah, that is how I came to find out about antipolygraph.org a long time ago (and I've been out of the system for over a decade now, minus the exception of quarterly registration because what I did is such a friggin' danger to society? hardly).
With that said, for the OP, you fucked up for a stupid reason. Why put yourself into a situation like this? If your T&Cs are do not watch a particular type of movie, then don't fucking watch them. What is so hard to follow/understand about that? It's not like you got bent over for not passing an exam when you were telling the truth. In this case, you were stupid for not following a simple rule.
Here is a little tip: your best defense/survival strategy is not to give them (i.e., your containment team) any ammunition to use against you. I wasn't allowed to consume alcohol. Alcohol didn't have jack to do with my offense, in fact, I hardly drank in the first place. But being told I couldn't have a simple glass of beer, WTF is the point of that? But, why drink and run the test of being caught on a UA? Grow up and follow the rules. The sooner you realize you are not in charge of your life (while you are under supervision), and be mature enough to follow the rules, regardless of how stupid they seem, the better off you'll be. You really can't fight city hall on this one. The system is heavily stacked against you. Choose your battles wisely. This is not one of them. Trust me.
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 16, 2016, 10:54 AMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMI do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Well, "Jurassic Park" DID include frank discussion of the reproductive habits of some dinosaurs!
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 16, 2016, 10:51 AMQuoten assumption on your part. 'He watched a pg-13 movie... therefore, he doesn't take his treatment seriously'. You have what sot therapists call 'all or nothing' or 'Black and white' thi
A movie that would be rated "PG-13" would not have achieved that rating for sexual depictions!
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 16, 2016, 10:46 AMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 08, 2016, 11:08 AMArk, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
True, one can not get too much lower than being a polygrapher!
Posted by PersecutedInWisconsin
- Aug 08, 2016, 01:31 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 08, 2016, 10:44 AMQuoteFor the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.So sex offender treatment is all a total waste of time and society should just treat them the same as all law breakers?
I like would like to hear the viewpoints of others.
SOT is not a waste of time insofar as it placates an ignorant public. In Wisconsin, SOT is mandatory after prison even when an individual has successfully completed treatment in prison and is recommended for aftercare. As long as the public feels safe, it doesn't matter if it works or not. That is another reason why so's have stupid rules that only apply to the most hardcore pedos. Just like Dr. Abel says about his visual response tests in court when judges deride him for their use - 'it's better than nothing'. If the public knew that about 94 percent of sex offenders never reoffend, ALOT of people would lose money or be out of business. Polygraph examiners, for one.
In any event, YES, they should be treated similar to other criminals - on a case by case basis. That is the way it is supposed to work, but it does not. I bet waldenrefugee hasn't been out of jail/prison long, or else his p.o. wouldn't be so gung-ho about pg-13 movies... or, he hasn't behaved so they havnt lifted restrictions. That is the modus operandi in WI.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Aug 08, 2016, 11:08 AMArk, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 08, 2016, 10:47 AMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 07, 2016, 09:20 PM
Hey Ark, let's get real.
Dan you sure are a snarky little knot head. Instead of sharing some of your experience to further the conversation, you in act like a bratty little Eddy Haskell. This is why few of your peers take you seriously. It seems to be especially annoying to you that someone who has never been to polygraph school knows more about the subject than you do.
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 08, 2016, 10:44 AMQuoteFor the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.So sex offender treatment is all a total waste of time and society should just treat them the same as all law breakers?
I like would like to hear the viewpoints of others.
Posted by PersecutedInWisconsin
- Aug 08, 2016, 08:39 AMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMI do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Fast fact: on the questionnaire that is given to SO'S before they take the sexual history polygraph for the Wisconsin DOC, it asks if the test-taker has had any sexual contact with minors as an adult... but then says 'if the person was within three years of age of you at the time, do not list this person'. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections doesn't seem to think this is exploitive or a crime worth reporting, even for a stupid screening polygraph... even for an 18 year old to sleep with a 15 year old. Think about that.
Aaaaannnd.... who says waldenrefugee doesn't take his treatment seriously? Once again, an assumption on your part. 'He watched a pg-13 movie... therefore, he doesn't take his treatment seriously'. You have what sot therapists call 'all or nothing' or 'Black and white' thinking... which is a pretty serious cognitive distortion. Shades of grey everywhere, ark. Do you even know what therapy entails? Every single aspect of therapy is specifically geared towards the worst of the worst, despite the fact that there are guys like waldenrefugee in every group, right along with serial offenders/pedophiles. A lot of that stuff doesn't even apply to everyone... hence the treatment motto 'if it doesn't apply, let it fly'. Ammonia sniffing to condition yourself to not think of kids inappropriately is not for everyone, for instance... nor are thought logs/masturbation logs. There is a term they use, SUDS: Seemingly Unimportant Decisions, and an example they use; they say 'going outside to smoke a cigarette can lead to reoffense'. How, you ask? 'You go outside to smoke a cigarette, you see a cute girl walk by, you get horny, you follow her and rape her'. This is an example used by a certain therapist I know... do you think this applies to a very young man who stuck his dingus in a girl with permission who is factually legal to sleep with in more than half the states in our country, and who the Wisconsin DOC discounts as a victim for treatment purposes? Of course not. But, you refuse to see shades of grey, and have no clue what therapy entails or who it is even geared for specifically. I agree that you may not be biased, but you certainly do not have enough facts - either about waldenrefugee or SO'S in general - to be forming opinions.
For the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Aug 07, 2016, 09:20 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMEncouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased.
Hey Ark, let's get real.
In your own words, you "don't have a clue" as to whether such treatment works or not.
Have you ever considered that SOTx can be counter-productive?
By the way, Ark...Where's me Lucky Charms?!
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMI do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Posted by PersecutedInWisconsin
- Aug 07, 2016, 01:33 PM... who said he exploited anyone? Who says he is minimizing? You 'percieve' he's in a dark place? Where are the 'many' indiscretions that you intuit that aren't actually posted?
Basically, what you just did was deny that you are biased, then immediately afterwards, put that bias on full display for all to see. You extrapolated the worst possible thing that you could out of waldenrefugee's post... and why? Because he's an SO, you are biased against them, and you are just as ignorant as the general public on the issue. Thank you for illustrating my point for me perfectly.
I'm out.
*drops mic*
Basically, what you just did was deny that you are biased, then immediately afterwards, put that bias on full display for all to see. You extrapolated the worst possible thing that you could out of waldenrefugee's post... and why? Because he's an SO, you are biased against them, and you are just as ignorant as the general public on the issue. Thank you for illustrating my point for me perfectly.
I'm out.
*drops mic*
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 07, 2016, 10:50 AMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 06, 2016, 10:43 PMI'm sure you are deeply connected to the polygraph indu$try
You are hallucinating Dan. I have never been to polygraph school, I have never been to an APA meeting. I am an engineer working with instrumentation. Chill out. And to answer your question, yes, I do not know if SO treatment works or not. But, I can still urge those in a pickle to put a good foot forward and see if the therapy can help them make better decisions. And, hidden in my sarcasm was a thread of truth--you are an expert in this area and your contributions would be meaningful to the discussion.