The polygraph is a complete fraud. How do I know this? Two ways: when I was telling the truth and being scored "deception indicated," and when I got on board with TLBTLD and essentially lied on an exam and was scored "no deception indicated."
I'm a sex offender. I molested my daughter. For those of you who expect me to minimize what I did, sure, I'll engage in that just a little bit: whatever the worst things you can think of is not what I did, but what I did was 100% inappropriate and my fault. I took responsibility for what I did from the very beginning and stood up to take my whacks. 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. It cost my family its husband and father. I did jail time and probation, which has been successfully completed. All I'm waiting for now is the scarlet letter and fame on the internet.
[pausing 30 seconds for the obligatory slams, slurs, put downs, condemnation, etc. Let me know when you're finished so I can continue this post.]
The first few years of probation was a never ending stream of inconclusive, pass-fail mix, or all deceptive, and that was when I was telling the truth. I was "consequenced" as an incentive to perform better (i.e., pass the test). You can only begin to imagine the discouragement from being told you were being deceptive when you're telling the truth. That's one of the worst injustices for a lot of people - being accused of lying when you know you are telling the truth.
It was and is a common practice for polygraphers to try and elicit admissions and confessions during the post-test interview. Those attempts were made over a week later when I'd call the polygrapher to ask how I did. "What were you thinking about this question, Mr. So-and-so?" Being naive, I admitted some totally unrelated thought, whether it was something about a book I had just read, or a movie, a song stuck in my mind, whatever. "Okay, I'll factor that [what I admitted or disclosed] into the scoring and see if it makes a difference. That is an out-and-out lie.
Even on my last one, the polygrapher asks me if there is anything I want to say, better confess now, the test looks iffy either way. Nope, I really don't have anything else to say. Results of the test: passed.
So, I'd like to thank the polygraphers who scored me as being deceptive for getting me on board with this site. The countermeasures work like a charm. In fact, I improved on the technique by using a thought and trying to create that feeling you get when you almost trip or fall, that little adrenalin rush you get. It's like the "Ohmigod I'm on fire!" technique. Pick a control question to use it on, spike the question (don't go too overboard, it may take a test or two to calibrate your reaction), and relax and tell the truth on the remaining questions.
Embellish the reaction by talking about that control question in between the test panels or at the end of the exam. "Have you ever lied to anyone in a position of authority?" Of course I have, just as everyone else has. "No, I mean something really serious." In my case, no. So at the end of the exam, gee, I felt bad about kind of having to lie to my supervisor about why I needed the time off [the four hours it takes to take the exam], even though I have the hours and I can take them whenever I want.
I'm not advocating lying on relevant questions, but on the other hand, the less you disclose, the less ammunition there is to be used against you.
The polygraph is a complete fraud. What the process boils down to for most people is a gut check. You want to tell the truth. Most people feel bad about lying. But, when you've been screwed over and over for false positives, you need to do what it takes to pass. If it means using countermeasures to protect your self-interests, then do what you have to do.
The science behind the polygraph, well, let me start over. The attempt to apply scientific principles to the use of the polygraph is just that: an attempt. Much the same way Marston and Wonder Woman's lasso of truth are related. That is so ironic, the history behind the polygraph and its concocter (inventor is too generous a term), and I'd really be laughing at the irony if it hadn't cost me thousands of dollars in repeated exams that, in fact, were quite unnecessary.
So, yeah, I'm on board with helping to bring about the end and demise of this voodoo science.
George you should be very proud of this new recruit. Or is this Gino using a pseudonym so as to be able to tell his story. :-[
Lessons learned: Polygraphs and Polygraphers are easily duped and provide little or no real protection in the probation/parole process.
Unless, any polygraphers would like to challenge this anecdotal information as false?
Yes, it would have been so much better if I had kept on eating consequences for failing polygraph examinations because of how I test/perform on those charades of science. Is that your concept of justice and efficacy of the device?
Gee, Tough Cop, what about the people more like you - the fine, upstanding, educated (if you count a criminal justice major as education), justice for all and the American way - who wanted to be something more, but were denied the opportunity because of a failed polygraph? All it takes is for you to fail one test, then let's see your reaction.
Mr. Truth,
I too am a sex offender, but my offense was indecent exposure at a drunken frat party. Some prissy Sorority sister decided to call the campus police and next thing I know I am a sex offender going to weekly groups listenting to guys like you talk about how they molested their daughters. It sucks to say the least.
But I am off probation this month and my recorded is being wiped clean.
I have to admit, though, when it comes to someone who has molested their daughter, sure the polygraph is bogus, but who cares? As long as it scares guys who molest into at least trying to be honest, that is what matters.
Now, when it comes to lesser crimes like exposure, having public sex with a consenting partner, public masturbation, or some other non-violent crime, then I think those people shouldn't be subjugated to the psuedo-science of the polygraph.
But with rapists and molesters...I say give it to them weekly, and make them pay for it out of their pockets.
OkieBoy,
Sounds like you got a lot out of counseling. You sound pretty typical of the offender who minimizes what he or she did. Sounds like you have some other issues, but this isn't the forum for that. This is about the unjustified use of something that is unreliable. Does it really matter what the circumstances are surrounding the reason why someone has to take a polygraph?
I like your cognitive distortions ("I'm special, the rules don't apply to me" and "What I did isn't that bad"). So, we'll just bend the rules of fairness to suit our purposes, is that it? If the process/procedure is wrong, what makes it okay to use it when you think it is convenient? That line of thinking is referred to as hypocrisy.
Mr. Truth,
Don't be bitter.
It's typical of molesters like yourself to try and bring those who haven't committed such horrific offenses to your own level. In a way, its a self-defense mechanisim all its own...it's your way of minimalizing your own offense to try and make the most you can out of other's offenses. The other molesters and rapists I have to sit with in group are just like you, so I'm used to it.
Well, guess what? You can talk about cognitive distortions all you want, because in short of a month I will be off probation and my record will be wiped clean.
Obviously the Judge in my case thought lightly enough of the offense to give me a deffered sentence.
So your observation of my attituded "It's not that bad" would be more than just my attitude...it would be fact.
Have a nice day! ;D
Mr. Truth and OkieBoy,
Nothing in this world is "black and white". Everything is varying shades of gray. Discussions about these varying degrees with regard to sex offenses are not "justifying" or "minimalizing", they are merely statements of facts. And each offense and offender must be judged by these facts, not by "labels".
Mr. Truth,
Molesting your own daughter is a horrid, inexplicable event. But I would imagine that you would be "minimalizing" your actions if you had been drugged out of your mind on crystal meth at the time. And rightfully so. While it wouldn't make the crime any less heinous, it would provide some explanation for why you did it.
You seem to have done quite well in your therapy, but I think you have gone overboard on some aspects of it. You have bought into the theory that every person convicted of a sex offense is a monster who won't admit it. That's like telling an 85 year-old man who pulled the life-support plug on his wife of 60 years to end her suffering is no different than Jeffery Dahmer. After all, they're both murderers, aren't they?
Lighten up. Not every "sex offender" is the twisted monster you are.
Thank you sir, please don't give up on me. You're right, there are shades of grey to many things, and I'm not here to debate whose crime is worse or less, relative to me or anyone else. I asked in the original post, and even provided space for it, for you (the generic you, not you specifically) to go ahead and vent/dump on me. I see that I should have allotted more time and space for that so the name calling could be over and done with so that discussion about the validity of polygraph testing could continue based on the merits of the argument.
I couldn't care less what you think about me because of what I did. I suppose I could take comfort by playing the OkieBoy game by pointing out that I had to sit in groups listening to people who did things way worse than what I did, many times over, to many more people. Those are the "real" sick, twisted monsters, aren't they? Let's gang up on them and call them names, and make them take the polygraph every week at their own expense (at whose expense was it when OkieBoy took his?), because, you know, damn, they deserve to be abused by the polygraph, right?
There are people who screw up, and there are people who are screw-ups. I freely admit I screwed up, and I am far from a screw-up. Feel better now?
Mr. Truth,
Perhaps I was too strong? I don't know you, your daughter or the circumstances surrounding your offense, so perhaps I was.
Personally, I know sex offenders who would think nothing of raping a 4 year-old, sex offenders who simply left the bathroom door open while they relieved themselves, and everyone in between. Some are "monsters", some are not. Some know they have a problem, and some the only problem they have is that the general public thinks they have one.
My apologies if I was too rough. That out of the way, let's bring this back to the relevant issue of polygraphy.
In you examinations, were you asked specific questions about contact, or were they more of the "have you thought about..?" variety?
Do you happen to know how many people had their probation/parole violated for "failing" the polygraph in the timeframe you were subjected to them? A rough guess?
Do you recall having anybody in group that you personally felt may actually have been "innocent"?
Did your polygrapher ever ask the question "did you commit the crime you were convicted of?"?
Thanks.
A standard test consists of eight questions. One or two fluff ones (are you sitting in a chair, are the lights on), two to three control questions (have you ever lied to anyone in a position of authority, would you lie to get yourself out of serious trouble, have you lied to your fill_in_the_blank about what you've reported to him or her, have you tried to blame someone else for something you did, and so on), and then three to four relevant/reportable questions - the ones that really matter as far as what therapists/parole/probation officers are looking for.
The relevant questions tended to have a theme. Themes included sexual contact, use of pornography, use of something else, and whatever the therapist/PO felt was an item of interest. So, the "theme" questions would overlap in terms of area of coverage.
Take sexual contact. You would be asked questions like, "Have you had sexual contact with anyone other than your wife?" "Have you attempted sexual contact with anyone other than your wife?" "Have you had sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18?" "Have you had sexual contact with anyone other than what you've reported to me today?"
You could be scored deceptive on one question and scored non-deceptive on another question, where the questions are mutually exclusive.
Never had a question about whether or not I did what I did - I mean, that was the price of admission into counseling, having to admit what you did, so there was never any question about that.
Anyone who claimed to be innocent? Not where I went because of the price of admission mentioned above. But that reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption - why are you in here? "Because my lawyer screwed me!"
I've seen people terminated for failing to make progress on polygraphs, but that was generally for history-related exams. I saw lots of people get extended on probation because of not having passed the poly before the period of supervision expired. Virtually all of those peope were cowed into "agreeing" to be extended for anywhere from six months to two years. PO's cowed the people because the clients were afraid to take their chances before a judge. Of course, that begs the issue of whether or not results of polygraph can be used in those cases. By law, they aren't, but they really are. That's analogous to "agreeing" to take the exam, as if you really have any choice in the matter.
Any polygrapher in here or elsewhere who claims to have a 90-plus percent or better detection rate, or who can easily spot countermeasures, or who thinks the polygraph is reliable in terms of detecting deception is a mf-ing liar, and that is about as plain and simple as I can put it.
My husband just recently had his therapy terminated and his probation revoked for failing his 4th polygraph. He has never passed one, even when telling the truth. He even shows deceptive on his name, and address.
I know things like high blood pressure can affect a polygraph. Does anyone know if ADHD can?
Mr. Truth,
Florida's "standard" test is similar, except that there is a 200 item questionnaire that the examinee fills out regarding everything from "did you watch 60 Minutes last Sunday" to "did you molest your dog last night". One of the relevant questions of course is, "did you truthfully answer all the questions". Show a response, and the examiner gets to pick which one of the 200 questions you were "deceptive" on. As far as I know, Florida is the only state using this method.
The question of guilt or innocence is one that seems to be a point of contention on both sides. Some people in sex offender therapy are actually innocent, yet they are ordered to say they are guilty or risk getting kicked out and subsequently violated. So if the polygraph is "all that", why not ask the question? Suppose a person denying their guilt is proven wrong by the polygraph. There goes one denial mechanism out the window. On the other hand, suppose it shows the offender is telling the truth? How do you deal with it then? Maybe the poor guy really is innocent. I think the reason you don't see the question is because the polygraphers and P.O.'s know that the polygraph can be manipulated at will by a person such as yourself to show innocence that is "fabricated". They won't admit it, because then the rest of the polygraph is worthless.
It's my experience that most people violated weren't violated for "failing the poly", they were violated for not "completing the treatment program". Most states do prohibit using the results for a violation, so this is the work-around.
To be more precise, since you mentioned some things that only someone familiar with this stuff would know about, terminations were for failure to make satisfactory progress in treatment or failure to meet the terms and conditions of probation. The court can order someone into a treatment program, and one of the conditions for meeting T&C is successful completion of a treatment program. What does successful completement of a treatment program entail? Three guesses, and if you said one of them is successfully completing polygraph requirements (like passing a history and the last two maintenance exams), you guessed right.
To me, that shows the court is giving its tacit approval of the use of the polygraph, when, in fact, the results of a polygraph, with the exception of some conditions in the legal world that are not pertinent here, are not admissible. That's the big wink, wink, we can't use the results of a polygraph against you dealio. So if the court can't use or admit the results, how is it that a PO can sanction a client for failing an exam? Oh no, it isn't the court doing that, it's only an agent of the court doing that - our hands are clean.
As for the Lady's question, anything that provokes a physiological response, whether it is from something external (pain) or internal (being distracted, nervous, upset, emotional) while you're hooked up, where that response is different than what the control question response(s) looked like, can be scored as "Mr. So-and-so, in the expert opinion of this examiner, was deceptive on this question."
Mr. Truth,
As you surmised, I am quite knowledgeable about sex offender probation and the various "treatment" programs out there. These programs are quite successful, with the exception of the polygraph. As you alluded, the polygraph is in the treatment program because 1) the polygraphers (who invented the concept of post-conviction SO testing) needed the work after passage of the EPPA and lobbied heavily for it, and 2) the Corrections Departments wanted a way to violate people who were otherwise not doing anything wrong. Some therapists seem to think the polygraph has some validity and/or utility. But on a national level, mental health professionals are overwhelmingly opposed to the usage of polygraphs in treatment programs. A "therapist" who got a certificate in Mental Health Counseling down at the local tech school or community college will tend to support the polygraph, while those with Bachelors or higher degrees from universities tend to give it the credit any quackery is due, which is none.
I recall LadyDarkFlame's post from earlier this year. Her husband was on sex offender probation in Oregon, which is one of the toughest states in the country to complete such probation in.
To you, LDF, I advise that you have your husband appeal his revocation. Nothing will ever change if affected people don't speak up and fight for their rights. Did you ever contact that SO organization in Oregon I told you about before for help?
Next life, when faced with a choice of something stupid to do, can I pick something else?
Only if I can, too ;D
I don't suppose you could tell me via private message what state your conviction was in, could you? I'll keep it to myself.
To both Orolon and Mr. Truth,
Unquestionably, the polygraph is psuedo-science...a bogus tool used to ilicit confessions.
Now...let me play devils advocate. I have sat in groups and listen to sex-offender after sex-offender who has failed his polygraph admit to more molestations or brutal, inhuman sex acts of that nature. If it hadn't been for the psuedo-science of the polygraph, they would have never admitted these incidents. Some of the gentlemen had their probation revoced and were thrown in jail, where I believe the belong (if they can't keep from re-offending) and some where given second chances.
If we take the polygraph away completely and say, just ask nicely these offenders if they are re-offending, do you really think they will tell the truth?
Where do we draw the line?
Is saving a little girl from getting ass-raped by her father less important that banning an un-scientific, bogus, piece of fakery like the polygraph?
That is the question I ask, after sitting through these groups and seeing this. For myself, choosing never to get drunk at a frat party and "whip it out", is an easy choice. But it seems that poeple who molest can't seem to make this choice so easily, maybe because of some deep level of addiction. Sure, we are violating their rights with the polygraph. But what other interrogation method works?
What about those drugs that you hear about in Spy movies that make people confess to things? Could we use those on violent sex offenders such as molesters?
-OkieBoy
OkieBoy,
I agree with to some degree about using the polygraph, because what else is there? Part of me did not want to vent about the polygraph because of the reasons you mentioned. On the other hand, if someone wants to reoffend in a big-time manner, the polygraph isn't going to do squat to deter that. The admissions I heard about in group settings had to do with contact (sleeping over at a girlfriend's house where children were present, alcohol usage, use of pornography, etc.).
It's a tough call, but sooner or later, everyone is going to find out what a fraud the test is. If you believe the test works, and you go in intentionally lying, and are scored deceptive, then you deserve to get whacked for lying or violating terms and conditions/treatment contract.
I happen to believe the use of the polygraph does more harm than good, considering all of its uses. I don't know what the alternative is, but if we as a society can settle for using the polygraph as a tool, why don't we take it one step further and use rubber hoses on the soles of the examinee? Obviously, that isn't going to happen, but that's the thing with rights, civil or otherwise: you always need to fight to preserve them. It's okay that we use this less than perfect (not even close to perfect) device because the payoff is we catch some people. Unfortunately, innocent people get caught up in and are needlessly punished or harmed.
Ok, let me continue playing devil's advocate.
You said, "I happen to believe the use of the polygraph does more harm than good."
In the case of hard-core, habitual sex-offenders, the group that I mentioned it is hard to see how else they are going to be scared into at least trying to tell the truth...how can the polygraph do more harm than good?
You sound like you had/have a pretty decent group, but I have seen several hard-core child molesters confess in the past six months soley because they succuumbed (spelling?) to the psuedo-science of the polygraph.
Doesn't the end justify the means in the case of little children being spared?
-Okieboy
OkieBoy,
QuoteIs saving a little girl from getting ass-raped by her father less important that banning an un-scientific, bogus, piece of fakery like the polygraph?
No, it isn't. Curious what your opinion would be if you were falsely accused of committing a new offense more severe than indecent exposure on the basis of a failed polygraph, though. Would you sacrifice your freedom so the machine could remain in use to save the children?
QuoteDoesn't the end justify the means in the case of little children being spared?
Not always. Should we err to the side of caution and demand the castration of every labeled sex offender, to be sure no new crimes are committed? Some, like you, wouldn't need it, but we can't be 100% sure. So let's do them all. The end justifies the means :-/
I'm surprised that there are hard-core violent child molesters in your group. It is quite rare for a multiple-victim habitual violent offender to get a probation sentence. Most get a prison sentence and are then committed to an institution when and if they get paroled.
Professional therapists are making great strides in the treatment of sex offenders. Many of them, as I stated before, see no value in the polygraph. I know one here locally who won't even look at the results. She just throws the file away. Thing is, her success rate is around 91% in putting offenders back out into the community without them re-offending.
Orolon,
Interesting question you pose,
>>>Would you sacrifice your freedom so the machine could remain in use to save the children?
I really can't answer it right now. It is something I must ponder. If I knew for sure that my freedom was weighed against the innocence of young children, then the logical answer would be Yes, I would sacrifice my freedom. But the emotional, more human answer would be No. Given the question, I can't truly say what my answer would be.
>>>It is quite rare for a multiple-victim habitual violent offender to get a probation sentence. Most get a prison sentence and are then committed to an institution when and if they get paroled.
My state doesn't consider sex-crimes, habitual or not, an "insanity" and so sex criminals are never sent to institutions. Many of the gentlemen in my groups have served 20 years or so in prison and are on parole or probation. Many of them are looking at ten to twenty years probation, with maditory therapy and polygraph testing the entire time.
And I agree with you that modern therapy has taken great strides. Cognitive Behavorial therapy in particular seems the best method when approaching sex crimes. But sadly, many cognitive behavorial therapists have fallen prey to the belief in the psuedo-science of the polygraph.
Orolan
Regarding your comment about the therapist. Where does she come up with the figure 91%? How can she truly know whether or not her clients are re-offending unless they're caught? Basically you're saying 9% of her clients have been caught reoffending. The other 91% is not known. Correct?
Saidme,
You made a good point regarding the 91% claim by Orlan. However you are asking a question analogous to one you have never answered before when asked. Correct me if I am wrong.
How can you claim a cetain perentage accuracy rate regarding your poly when your only verification would be corraborating confessions or hard proof?
CC
Precisely my point. The anti folks use data and information to fit their own agenda, regardless of how factual. I can only base accuracy on my personal experiences. So when you ask me how accurate polygraph is, my answer to you would be: it's very, very, very accurate. I couldn't even begin to give you a number nor would I. :)
Saidme,
You write:
Quote...The anti folks use data and information...I can only base accuracy on my personal experiences....
We rest our case and checkmate, pal. ;D
Saidme,
I know the therapist, the community and its LE professionals, and have interviewed nearly 200 of the offenders.
So I'll stand by the 91% "clean" rate.
QuoteI can only base accuracy on my personal experiences
thank you for the info, and also, thank you for the referal to SOhopeful. I've written them and am waiting to hear back. :)
>>>I can only base accuracy on my personal experiences.
What Saidme said right there is the universal proof that all psuedo-science, spiritual, or religious claims are given as proof. There is only "personal experience".
What does someone say when you ask them for proof that Jesus, Bigfoot, Aliens, or pyramid crystal power exists? "personal experiences." No hard-core scientific studies or proof using the scientific method. Just personal experience.
QuoteSo when you ask me how accurate polygraph is, my answer to you would be: it's very, very, very accurate. I couldn't even begin to give you a number nor would I.
That's okay, there are those who will and have done that for you (NAS report, to name one). "Very, very, very accurate?" You mean, you can be more "accurate" than the roughly 80% accuracy rate of the software (using Polyscore as an example)? How can that be? Subjectivity on your part? Is that what allows you to pump out reports saying "It is the
expert opinion of this examiner..." saying an examinee was deceiptful? Because you are so sure you and your "instrument" are so "very, very, very accurate," can you tell us how many people you've bent over with a false positive/deception indicated report?
My personal experience, which happens to be just as valid as yours, is that the polygraph is far, far, far from being very, very, very accurate.
Mr T
As I've stated on other threads, I don't give much credence to the NAS reports or anyone else's. I have to base my beliefs on day-to-day operations. Regarding polyscore, it's crap. What allows me to pump out those reports are DI charts with confessions to match. Maybe when I get DI charts on a child molestor next time, I should just cut him/her loose. Hell, it's not scientifically valid, why the hell should I waste my time talking to this poor unfortunate soul who was wrongfully accused. You anti guys are a trip. :D
As long as people continue to believe there is some validity to use of the polygraph, then you will continue to have post-test confessions when these gullible sheep are confronted with "what were you thinking on this question, because my charts show you are lying."
If someone is lying and coughs it up because of what the polygrapher does, well, they shouldn't have been lying in the first place, and they deserve the lumps that await them.
Being a victim of false positives many times, listening to some "expert" state his opinion regarding the veracity of what I answered, and having to answer to a brilliantly educated criminal justice major probation officer, well, no need to beat a dead horse. THAT is what pissed me off to no end. Again, I'd like to thank all of those in your profession for helping me get on board about how screwed up the polygraph is. Your faith in what you do is what inspires me to help expose the polygraph for the fraud it is.
Okieboy & Orolan:
Just the thought of a scum bag like Mr. Truth being on this site scares the hell out of me. Anyone that could
rape their daughter or any child deserves the ultimate punishment. Mr. Truth lecturing Okieboy, what a joke
that is.. Mr. Truth gave up his right to live in this world when he committed his horrendous act. I am a little shocked that either of you would give him the time of day.
Thank you for your input, PeterFonda (quite the role model name you picked for yourself). Let me help you sleep better tonight: I didn't rape anyone. What I did or didn't do doesn't really matter. I had my head up my ass, guilty as charged. Gee, I really, really wish I had chosen drugs or alcohol, or committed domestic violence, because the effects of someone using or doing those things, is, well, so much less than what I did. Oh well, better luck next life. Have a nice day.
PeterFonda,
I believe we've had this conversation before. You don't know the whole story about Mr. Truth's offense, any more than we know the whole story about yours.
Jesus said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".
Be careful with the stones you throw, because some of them may bounce back and hit you.
>>>Gee, I really, really wish I had chosen drugs or alcohol, or committed domestic violence, because the effects of someone using or doing those things, is, well, so much less than what I did. Oh well, better luck next life. Have a nice day.
Is he being serious or sarcastic? I can't tell if he is minimalizing his crime or just making fun of himself.
Anyway, Mr. Truth, let me just ask you something up front if you don't mind.
Did you molest your daugher, knowing very well what you were doing, or were you falsely accused by a vendictive wife or something of that nature?
I know someone who served his wife divorce papers and next thing he knew he was behind bars because she accused him of molesting their daughter. The daughter admitted to the molestation in court and this guy was sentenced to 75 years. Five years later, the girl was older and went to the police and the Judge and admitted that her mother coerced her into lying about the molestation and the charges were nulled and the guy was let out of jail.
Tough life huh?
And so, Mr. Truth, if you did molest your daughter...why?
I did it, I'm guilty, at the time I was in complete denial of what I was doing (in that it was harming anyone).
Why? That is the hardest question of all to answer. Why would anyone want to trash a career and lose retirement benefits, go thru a hugely expensive divorce, go through the legal system (on the receiving end of things), and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on counseling (and polygraphs)? Why would anyone want to put himself in a position where he has to face his daughter and try to explain to her why you, as an adult, did what you did? Why would anyone in his mid-30's wake up one day and say, "Gee, today I am going to become a sex offender. Let me throw away everything I have worked for just so I can make myself feel better for a few minutes." Why? Why does anyone do something bad? I don't blame anyone but myself.
Yes, I was being sarcastic about myself. If it makes anyone else feel better, I was also cheating on my wife, so my acting out wasn't focused in one area (translated: no, my interest is not in children). No alcohol, no drugs, "just" sex.
What I did, although it may provide some interesting reading for others, in no way diminishes the fact that the polygraph is a complete fraud. You only have my word for this, but I did not "beat" the test so I could cover up doing something illegal. I was sick and tired of getting nailed with deception indicated on questions that I was truthfully answering.
Are there others out there beating the test and reoffending? I don't know. Are there others out there beating the test and spying on the US? I don't know, but if history is any indicator, you can probably bet the farm on it. Why I had to take the polygraph falls into the so what? category. The fact of the matter is the "instrument" is being used with a result of providing people with a false sense of security (we're catching spies, we're weeding out the undesirables from law enforcement careers, and we're able to monitor the behavior of sex offenders).
Orolan,
Its seems that you are a person who looks for the positive in all people, and that is truly admirable! I asked you before what you do for a living. After going back and reading numerous posts from you on various
topics, I would guess that you are a counselor, or in some way work with troubled "souls"..
I can relate to your comments of not rushing to judgement, but in this case Mr. Truth has openly admitted to child abuse. Although he is very remorseful for his act, we must face the fact that he has a severe thinking disorder, a warped sense of right and wrong. As you have pointed out, we are not aware of the particulars in his case, but one thing is clear, he was aroused by a child? The very thought of that makes me sick with disgust.
Orolan, let me ask you, when is a criminal beyond therapy? Beyond being allowed to live amongst us? The
answer in my opinion is simple, at the point they stop being people and become monsters. Face it, Mr.
Truth is just that, a monster. He comes to this site pretending to be a person, but down deep he knows what he is and no amount of therapy will ever change it.
Would you not agree that people who kill for kicks have no place on this earth? How about the guy that
rapes or sexually abuses a child to get his rocks off?
I wonder if Mr. Truth's little girl will ever live a normal life? The scare from being abused by ones own
father would seem to be a great deal of baggage.
Finally, I have a little girl 7 and a boy 9. If they ever crossed the path of someone like Mr. Truth,
therapy would not be an option.
Peter
Whatever.
George
Some of your champion students sound like real prizes.
Orolan
I'm not much on religion, where are the rock ;)s?
I used to live for the approval of my (ex) wife. As I can no longer come close to obtaining her approval, I must seek out another whom I can please. Saidme, you are my hero, and I live for your approval.
PeterFonda,
Yes, you did ask me once what I did for a living. I told you to send me an e-mail and I would tell you. But I also said you would have to convince me that you will keep it to yourself and not post it on this board or any other. The offer still stands. Just click my byline and it will take you to my profile. You'll find the address there.
To answer your questions in their paragraph order:
Yes, Mr. Truth admitted to his crime. I disagree with your assessment that he has a severe thinking disorder. Many people know that something they are about to do is wrong, but go ahead and do it anyway. Succumbing to that temptation to do the "forbidden" is quite common, and it can be argued that the actions are equally wrong regardless of what they may be. I can't speak about Mr. Truth becoming "aroused" by a child, because I don't know the age of the child or the extent of his arousal, if any. I do know one sex offender here in my community who gets an adrenaline rush by "pleasing" females in ways other than intercourse, if you get my drift. He was quite compulsive about it, and branched out into pleasing teenagers, which is what got him in trouble. Sexual arousal? Not him. He's 100% impotent and sterile, according to the MD's. So not all molestations are about sexual arousal/gratification.
I agree somewhat with your assessment of people's ability to be rehabilitated. A person who will commit crime after crime, with no remorse or concious thought of doing wrong, is beyond therapy. True "serial" rapists, murderers and child molesters have a mental imbalance that prevents them from "knowing" what they are doing. But this theory applies also to those people who are pathological liars and kleptomaniacs. Shall we lock them up forever, since they will never change? Or does the fact that their crimes are "harmless" excuse the behavior? Regardless, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Truth has an obsessive compulsion to molest children. Nor is there any evidence that you have an obsessive compulsion to beat the crap out of women. You both committed your crime once. So why is he a monster, but you aren't? Now if he had molested his daughter repeatedly over a period of years, or gotten ahold of every 10 year-old in the neighborhood, you might have a case for his incurability. But that isn't the case.
The above pretty well covers your next paragraph.
Mr. Truth's daughter may or may not live a "normal" life. Problem is, who can define a "normal" life? Yes, she may be traumatized by what happened to her. Or she may not. Odds are, the severity of her trauma will be affected more by what others tell her about how "horrible" it must have been then by the event itself. Again, since we don't know her or the specifics, we can't make a judgement.
And finally, I too have children. They aren't as young as yours anymore, being 16, 17 and 19. And all three of them are girls. I wondered and worried about them when they were little girls, so I taught them what was right and what was wrong. My oldest nearly got expelled from the first grade for beating the crap out of a third-grade boy who cupped her butt-cheek in his hand during recess.
Statistically, I wouldn't worry about Mr. Truth being around your kids. Around 60-70% of molestations are parent-on-child, and a very small percentage, around 3%, re-offend. So the fact is that statistically, your kids are in more danger of being molested by you than by him. Now if he had molested a stranger, you would have reason to be cautious.
Mr T
Now you're on the right track. Keep away from those kids! ;)
Thank you, Saidme. I just knew I picked the correct role model. :)
Orolan,
You said:
"Around 60-70% of molestations are parent-on-child"
What is the break down on the parents, what percentage male to female? Mom or Dad??
Peter
To Everyone,
It seems what PeterFonda was asking here is an age old question about human redemption. When is a person redeemable as a member of society?
I can only answer this philosophical pondering for myself.
It makes logical sense to me that if a person is a first time offender, no matter the crime, and if they show remorse and EMPATHY for their hideous actions, then they are redeemable.
If a person is a multiple offender of said crime and uses cognitive thinking distortions, i.e. defense mechanisms, instead of owning up to their behavior, then they should be pelted about the head and neck with small to medium pointed rocks, or at least be locked up for the rest of their natural lives and only served bread and water.
-OkieBoy
Okieboy
Define "redeemable."
PeterFonda,
I erred in my previous post, thus the percentage I gave is incorrect. That is the percentage of offenses committed by a family member or close acquaintance, but not necessarily a parent.
Some percentages for sex offenses with victims age 0-17:
78.4% of victims are female
96% of offenders are male
79.5% of offenses occur in the home
4% of offenses are committed by females, but when limiting the data to victims under age 6, the percentage jumps to 12%
The data doesn't indicate the detail you seek, but the percentages would seem to confirm that most offenses that involved a parent would be father/daughter. But one must also consider offenses committed by siblings, cousins, grandparents, etc. These are less common, except that there is a slightly higher chance(+.2%) that an offense in-home against a victim under age 6 will be committed by a juvenile age 12-17 rather than an adult age 25-34.
OkieBoy,
Not bad on the "philosophy". Glad to see that you understand that one screw-up does not make a person incurable.
Saidme,
the Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines Redeemable as the adjective version for redeem. The verb redeem can mean 1) Make up for the faults or bad aspects of, 2) save from sin or evil, 3) fulfill (a promise), or 4) regain possession of (something) in exchange for payment.
I like meaning number four. If a person is "redeemable", then by going through the hoops of the system for their "payment" (therapy, probation or jail time, and court costs and fees) in exchange they are eventually given back their position of freedom in society.
If a person is "unredeemable" then no matter what they could ever possibly do they would not be allowed back in the general population of society. Their crimes were too severe to allow "redemption".
Lets look at my case. I committed indecent exposure. I have served my three years of probation, I have not re-offended, I have paid my court costs and fees, and now after my probation I consider myself redeemed.
I am now, again a valid, functioning, positive member of society. I am no longer a danger to anyone.
I have regained back the priviledges taken away from me by probation (the right to drink alchohol and stay out past curfew and live without a probation officer looking over my shoulder).
If I should ever re-offend, then by all means lock me away for the rest of my natural life. I deserve it. That is how positive I am that I will never re-offend.
-Okieboy
Okieboy,
I think you may be comparing yourself, as a person to the monsters. In my state peeing in public is not a crime as long as the person peeing is not attempting to arouse others. I can't count the times I have been forced to pee off the back of my boat, and could have possibly been seen by a female in the far distance. Probably was seen, but as I said before this is not a crime in my state.
Okieboy, it is unfortunate that you have been up close and personal with these monsters. But being the case, do you really believe that a person that could fantasize about a young child and then carry out the act, could not be criminally mentally insane? Be it one time? That being the case, could you truly open up your door to this person if you had a child? I think not..But the general public is expected to forgive and forget.. Right?
I agree with you that I want the best of the best polygraphers assigned to these people..If a confession gets them off the street, I am happy.
Orolan,
Hopefully you recieved my email, and I am assuming that I was correct in my assumption. That being said, we will probably tend to disagree on some of my views concerning this subject..
Peter
>>>do you really believe that a person that could fantasize about a young child and then carry out the act, could not be criminally mentally insane?
You are asking a very valid and observant question. There are two answers to it. Yes and No. There are two types of people who commit these crimes. The criminally insane and the person who is merely using cognitive distortions and can be taught to think properly again through therapy. The first step in Modern Cognitive Behavorial therapy is to recognize which kind of person the individual is. If it is assessed that they are criminally insane, then the recommendation is sent to the courts that they not enter probation or therapy and be sent to an institution. If they are treatable then they are given the chance at treatment and redemption.
By assuming that all people who commit an act like say child molestation are automatically criminally insane and untreatable goes against what the top scientific minds in this country are saying.
That would be like saying everyone who commits murder is criminally insane and should never be let out of jail.
Let me ask you this PeterFonda. Say you had an Uncle who committed murder in a fit of jealous rage after finding his wife in bed with another man. After serving fifty years in prison and being let out again would you let that Uncle around your family?
Say your father killed a man or woman in a DUI incident and went to jail for thirty years and was let out a broken, changed man. Would you let your father visit your family?
If you answer is yes to either of those questions, is murder no less of a crime than child molestation?
Not every child molestation is merely because a criminally insane individual is sexually aroused by children and can never be cured of that thinking. Some men as a result of extreme stress factors and extreme cognitive distortions let themselves start thinking a certain way and allowing behaviors to follow that are deviant. Here is an example.
Joe Schmoe is fired from his job.
His wife nags at him constantly.
He goes home and looks at porn on the computer.
He starts looking at hot teen stripper sites.
He starts fantasizing and masturbating over sixteen year old girls on the hot teen stripper site.
His life gets even more stressed when his wife starts fighting with him. He doesn't know how to deal with the stress...he is somewhat of a moron.
So he decideds to go out and get him some sixteen-year-old hotty like he sees on the internet.
He sees some little fourteen-to-seventeen year old girl at a park and approaches her.
Angry at his wife, angry at the world, and stressed out of his mind, and horny from the internet porn he rapes the girl.
Is this man criminally insane, or merely responding to his environmental stressors in a cognitively distorted manner?
I'm not saying that this man shouldn't go to jail for a very long time. I am merely pointing out that he is not "insane". He hears no voices, he sees no hallucinations, he has no actiosn that label him criminally insane. He is just a fool who has made a very, very bad decision and who has very, very distorted thinking. Hopefully, after fourty years of intense cognitive behavorial therapy and hard time he will come to realize what the cognitive distortions were that led up to his behavior.
If he got out of jail after that one offense and could tell me his deviant cycle, explain what his cognitive distortions were, tell me his plan of action and coping methods so that he doesn't slip back into his cycle of deviant behavior, then yes, I would let him around my family.
Sorry for the long answer to a short question you asked.
-OkieBoy
OkieBoy,
Very good. I like your reasoning. There is one other factor involved in some child molestations, and that is curiosity. There are offenders who wanted to know if they could be aroused by a child and in what way.
Not to move away from the subject here(much), given that a first time offender that has never offended any minor....that means virtual.......if I take the 5th on the poly, what is the best/average/worst they can/will do?
Fear of a pseudoscience? Yep. If they could read my mind.....it would fine. They "status quo" like to twist the real meaning into THE MEANING (as they see it).
Comments?
Aldo
Huxley,
What they do depends on your situation.
If you are a registered sex offender on probation and are required to take the polygraph due to probation rules, then your P.O. could put a motion before the Judge to revoke your probation.
It would most likely pass and you would be sent to prison.
But, even while you were in prison, your lawyer could fight the revocation of probation with an appeal, and like the recent case in Virginia, you might actually win and be let free.
In case you don't know about the recent case in Virginia, a sex offender on probation had his probation revoked for failing the polygraph and was sent to jail, but his lawyer filed an appeal and the judge ruled that polygraph results are not enough hard-core information to revoke someone's probation and the sex offender was let free.
Situation is that no where in my probation does it state that a poly graph is required. They embedded that in the sex offender course of which I'm an intrerstate transfer from Okla to Texas. The additional paper work that stated that was pushed on my after the court decision. The probation office set me back to the court(without my lawyer) to sign the "2nd" form that required the additional testing. Again, nowhere did it say poly graph. So, what's my options here?
Aldo
Huxley,
Under the Interstate Corrections Compact, Texas is allowed to impose any conditions on you that it would otherwise impose on its' own probationers, with proper notification of the sentencing court. Sounds like they did this, evidenced by the 2nd form you had to go back and sign.
Keep in mind that your request to transfer is what opened you up to this. Your desire to relocate carried some additional requirements that you had to follow, like it or not. Texas will no doubt tell you that "if you don't like our rules, then you can go back to Oklahoma".
You can't "refuse" the polygraph test. If you do, you will be discharged from the treatment program. This will trigger a violation for "failing to successfully complete treatment". You might also risk the same if you constantly "fail" the polygraph, all the while proclaiming that you are "cured" of your deviant desires.
I hesitate to offer any advice about "beating" the polygraph, because I know nothing of you or your offense. If you did something that was wrong, you must first deal with that within yourself. Much like AA, admitting to yourself and others that you have a problem is the first step to rehabilitation.
Thing is I did live in Texas, it was an Oklahoma sting. I did not ask for transfer, that was where I live.
Aldo
Oh, forgot, and if I take the poly as required and take the 5th?
Aldo
BTW, never touched any child, just in the mind and that's aginst the law....although I never believed this to be a police stae, it is.
Huxley,
I know what you're saying, but under the law it is still a "transfer". The conviction is in Oklahoma, thus any sentence handed down is presumed to be served in that state. Since you lived in Texas, the transfer was somewhat "automatic", but the law still looks at it as having been at your request. After all, you could have taken up residence in Oklahoma and served your sentence there.
You can't sit for the polygraph and plead the 5th on various questions. The examiner will stop the test immediately and send you packing with a "failed to cooperate" note in your file. That will get you kicked out of treatment, etc.
I assume by your comment that you got involved in some type of "discussion" with an "underage person" in a chatroom who turned out to be some perverted cop, or you obtained some child pornography via e-mail?
yep
Orolan
On one hand I commend you for your advice (or lack thereof) to Huxley. In that short period of time I thought maybe you aren't as bad as I've envisioned. Then you turn right around and confirm all I've ever thought. Why would you call a police officer who is trying to rid the world of child sexual predators a "pervert?" Does that type of law enforcement operation offend you? Hmmmm. ???
Did you at least have the decency to meet at a place other than a Motel 6?
Hotel 6? I only stay in the best! Hotel De La Chardier in Canada, the Hotel Del Coronado on Coronado Island. The Hyatt in Tokyo. Don't even go there dude, your below me at best no matter what your "righteous" position may be.
Aldo
Saidme,
There are two sides of the issue you must look at when it comes to police officers posing as underage children looking for sex.
I knew a local detective who's job it was to do so. He talked to hundreds, sometimes thousands of men on the internet posing as a thirteen year old nympho before he finally caught someone. He ended up getting a guy from out of state on a first offense for crossing state lines with the intention of having sex with a minor.
Let's look at the pros and cons of this.
Pro: The police officer prevented a potential future meeting of a willing, sexually active young girl and a sexually deviant man. The outcome of that sitation would have probably ended in sex between the individuals.
Cons:1) The police officer basically caused hundreds of thousands of men online to think that there are actually thirteen-year-old girls online looking for sex with older men. This was a falsity, that probably in itself led to the perpetuation of the crime the police officer was trying to stop. It probably got some men curious and led them to keep looking for young girls online.
2) The police officer hooked a man on a first time offense, a man who might have never committed the crime if he had never had the chance. We are all potential theives walking around. What would you do if you found a million dollars sitting all alone in a open, country field. If you took a single dollar you would be a thief. Why don't police officers just to that? Why don't they leave money laying in the streets and wait in the shadows for someone to pick it up and arrest them for theft? Because it would obviously be entrapment and would be wrong.
Your an idealist Saidme. It is obvious from what you write. I used to be like you. But through life experience and through mistakes of my own I have come to realize not everything is black and white.
There are grey zones out there and the justice system is full of them.
-OkieBoy
OkieBoy, you "hit the nail on the head".
There is a "feeding frenzy" out there, to bad for those who had a cheating wife with a younger guy and one who wanted to "one up 'er". Nuff said.
Aldo
Saidme,
Naturally, I don't live for the day I get your "seal of approval", so your comments don't bother me. OkieBoy has done a good job, but I will add to it.
Anybody who pretends to be a minor and engages in sexual discussions with adults has a mental problem. The fact that they do it under the guise of law enforcement does not change that. The Internet is rife with "teen" chat rooms that have no teens in them, only 40 year-old cops pretending to be teenagers. The true "sexual predators" out there aren't stupid enough to frequent these chat rooms, so I see the whole thing as a waste of resources. There is enough crime in the world without the police creating new ones.
For the record, I'm also opposed to cops pretending to be prostitutes so they can bust johns, cops confiscating drugs and then re-selling them to bust buyers, etc.
I'm surprised that cops don't just set up fake red-lights that never turn green. Then they could hide in the shadows and bust those people who run the red light.
Sort of reminds me of that recent "terrorist" the CIA busted and Curious George Bush's war on Iraq.
The CIA went to a retired arms dealer, played the part of a guy interested in buying the weapon and then played the part of a guy who had the weapon to sell to the arms dealer. So they successfuly inticed the guy to come out of retirement. And after the bust the Curious George administration wants everyone to feel safer because a battle had been won against terrorism????!!!!
And don't even get me started on Iraq and Curious Georgie's Weapons of Mass Imagination.
Orolan
You write: "The fact that they do it under the guise of law enforcement does not change that."
Your statement leads one to believe that law enforcement officers are really doing their job to get their jollies as opposed to putting sexual predators in jail.
You're pretty much anti anything. Maybe George can create an anti cop website which is probably more in line what you're looking for. You're a complete bonehead.
George
Doesn't it bother you just a bit when you see the caliber of people you attract to your ludicrous view?
Saidme,
QuoteYour statement leads one to believe that law enforcement officers are really doing their job to get their jollies as opposed to putting sexual predators in jail.
I have no doubt that there are many of these "psuedo-kids" that are doing just that. Ditto the "child-pornography searchers", who spend their days looking at the vilest pornography around in the name of "justice". "Protect and Serve" my as_. They're sick.
It is a cop's job to catch that predator molesting or attempting to molest a child. It is not their job to "create" a crime for the predator to commit.
I am not "anti-cop", as you state. Some of my best friends are cops, and I lunch regularly with two detectives locally. Guess what. They happen to agree with me. They do a fantastic job, and they do it the old-fashioned way. Oh, and they don't do polygraphs, and never will. Nor do they run "sting" operations, with the exception of opening a pawn shop for a few months just to see what people came in with.
You continue to show your total lack of intelligence in your posts. Keep it up, because the laughs are great.
I really hate to say this, but it's not cops getting jollies or protecting the street. Plain and simple, they found out there is a gold mine in internet entrapments where the "felon" knows good and well to fight it is likened to defending religious beliefs during the Salem witch trails. Shut up, do your legal "bribery" and go about your business. I know that the "city" where I was lead to has a statistically biased rate of "protecting" children from sexual predators. I am still working on the class action suite approach, but I need to wait for them to get really greedy for the almighty $$$. Current calculations from that town would indicate around 13 million US citizens are sexual predators. And by the other stats I have seen, there should be 40,000,000 missing children per year in that case.
Sad thing is the real offenders are more common sense I feel and are getting by with it while others are placed into the system to line their pockets.
Aldo
But isn't that what all law is truly about....just another form of taxation?
Why else would there be a seatbelt law?
Do you really think those jar-heads who work for the highway patrol care whether you live or die in a car crash?
No.
But they do care about raking in as much money through ticketing as they can. They do care about having the power they have over the commoner.
My cousin is in the highway patrol and out of all my relatives he is the one with the lowest I.Q.
He is the epitomy of dumb, country red-neck who has never read a novel in his life and doesn't even know what an art museum is. But he is out there cruising around with his dumb, red-neck buddies who joined the O.H.P. and giving people a hard time over not wearing their seatbelts.
I kind of disagree, I think most people who become HP or policepersons really want to help and serve. Problem is that there is a darker sort out there much worse than the current priest issue.
I think most HP does not want to see your brains splattered all over the highway. Many reasons I would assume:
1. It would make them physically ill(the ones that like that want vice/sex/drugs assignments, not HP).
2. They would carry that thought home with them, and I'm sure they want to go home happy as much as we do.
3. If you do spatter your brains, the following occurs:
a. You no longer pay speeding tickets(loss of revenue).
b. You no longer pay income taxes just when you
were getting or already paying them(the main
reason it's a law driven by the feds).
c. You dependents(if any), becomes more of a burden
to the systems that already is siphoned for more
"needy" people that is 2 public servants paid by
the one they take care of or inflect there will on.
d. There is a mess to clean up which cost money.
e. Insurance has to pay out(yep, they lobby well).
f. You no longer buy gas, clothes, houses, etc.
(Again, look at all those taxes lost).
Ok, to get blunt on this, when did the slaves start running their masters. I pay them, they do not earn
there own way in the world. Live off of the live flesh of those who do earn there own way.
Or am I just an exception with a dark view of those who live off of tax revenue that I send them(and a hell of a lot of it, paid more income taxes per year than they earn!).
Aldo 'he that vents lives longer' or is it better?
counterviews anyone?
Are you talking about politicians now?
I see many of them as nothing but leeches.
I can't really call my cousin the OHP a leech, because he gets payed worse than an Oklahoman teacher, which is pretty bad. It seems to me that he took the job for the power it gave him. He has always been that type.
I guess I am speaking of politicians and there puppet masters as well as the puppets they control. Very astute.
Aldo