I am a registered offender . I was told last night in my therapy group that I will have to submit to polygraphs twice a year. This is a new development in group, not something initially established when I started this program. This has to be some violation of civil liberties, but the word for the ACLU is that they can do pretty much what they want, especially if it falls under the 'therapy' umbrella. Oh yeah, I also have to pay for the test, hundreds of dollars.
In the eyes of society, you got it pretty well off. You won't find too much sympathy in this forum about being a SO.
Quote from: gelb disliker on Dec 21, 2005, 01:22 PMIn the eyes of society, you got it pretty well off. You won't find too much sympathy in this forum about being a SO.
Considering that we know neither kingjames' offense nor the punishment he has received for it, I think we are in no position to judge whether he "got it pretty well off."
In any event, governmental reliance on such quackery as polygraphy under the guise of "therapy" should be of concern to all.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Dec 21, 2005, 03:10 PM
Considering that we know neither kingjames' offense nor the punishment he has received for it, I think we are in no position to judge whether he "got it pretty well off."
In any event, governmental reliance on such quackery as polygraphy under the guise of "therapy" should be of concern to all.
George,
In this case of kingjames, he was technically already found guilty and I am assuming that he is currently on some type of probation or parole. Let's remember that this is in lieu of doing jail or prison time and therefore he is subject to whatever restrictions or test they may want to subject him to.
I also realize that many people who have been found guilty may indeed be innocent or merely pleaded guilty to avoid a costly trial and a more severe charge.
While in the context of sex offenders, I really do not think that in society there is a more vile type of offender, granted some sex offenders technically had sex with their high school girlfriend who was one year younger than them and they now have to deal with the label of sex offender, but these cases are far and few.
As for governmental reliance on the polygraph for sex offender monitoring, it is merely another tool to keep these people in line and from re-offending. While I have my reservations about polygraphy as a pre-employment tool, it is a completely different animal when you talk about monitoring individuals who have already been convicted and NEED to be monitored as closely as possible. If I recall the estimate is that most child molestors had molested 30-50 times prior to being caught. To keep an eye on these creeps I would even be all for the reading of "tea leaves" if it meant it would keep even one of these guys from touching another child.
Just my 2 cents, but for once I have to agree with gelb disliker and re-state that he isn't going to get much sympathy in this forum.
I'm not looking for sympathy, just trying to find out how much is too much. It seems to me that if a polygraph is not an absolute science then it is a waste of time for all involved.
Say they give me a poly and the test says I am lying. What is their recourse? They could monitor me more, restrict me more, but other than that what else? Seems like over doing it for a low level offender.
I reached this website in an effort to find my rights as well as to get more info. as to what to expect.
KingJames,
this is a website that is anti-polygraph. i believe the mission is to finally abolish the polygraph altogether. like all things in life, it'll take some time.
of course, it seems that your conditions of therapy will have you admit to taking a polygraph. i don't believe you are able to refuse this at this time in your life. especially if it falls under the category of "therapy."
we don't feel that a polygraph is anything but quackery, but at this point it is still being used to "monitor" activities. unless you have a PO or therapist following you around, this is what they feel would "control" you.
polygraph examiners base their findings and conclusions on your fear of them and their machines. so it would be best to read up on Mr Maschke's book, to better prepare yourself for their illusions called the polygraph.
I am a registered sex offender also and served 12 years in prison for my conviction, although i was innocent, no one wants to listen. I was accused of molesting my daughter and i daughter will tell you it was all untrue. however, i did 12 years in prison. Now on parole, the agent demands me to take a polygraph for therapy. the therapy demands i sign waivers to be tested and one of the tests is poloygraph. The therapist insists that the program is "voluntary" but when i refused the program (mainly because the parole officer sit in the therapy, negating it's therapeutic value) I was told either to sign the paper voluntarily or be subject to a parole violation and sent back to prison.
I used the information at this site with the premise that "tis not deceit to deceive the deceiver" The information at this site told me exactly everything that was going to happen. To my surprise it was like I read the whole script at my polygraph test. Not only was the polygrapher trying to be my friend, they told me I failed the test miserably and then tried to extract a confession. Sorry, but I cannot confess to something I did not do. I really dont give a damn if I dont get any sympathy from this forum, the main focus is the voodoo science utilized and how the California Department of Corrections has ganged up with therapist to extract confessions. Confess or be sent back to prison. What kind of society are we living in? I did my time so dont try and say i got off easy.
What kind of society are we living in? It (the USA) is an evolving totalitarian police state, it seems to me.
Despised minorities such as convicted sex offenders are the first to be brutalized, followed eventually by the average Joe.
Millions of corpses later, the whole thing self-immolates and whoever's left does their best to patch together a new society.
Quote from: mksdk on Jan 19, 2007, 03:08 AMWhat kind of society are we living in? It (the USA) is an evolving totalitarian police state, it seems to me.
Despised minorities such as convicted sex offenders are the first to be brutalized, followed eventually by the average Joe.
Millions of corpses later, the whole thing self-immolates and whoever's left does their best to patch together a new society.
To draw parallels between people who have been convicted of a sex crime and people who are persecuted because of race, ethnicity or gender is inane...
The use of the polygraph with sex offenders is driven by a societal need to prevent future offending. I oppose the polygraph because it's pseudoscience and gives a false sense of security that these criminals are being adequately monitored. But however flawed the current methods of supervision, sex offenders should be monitored because they have demonstrated the fact that they are a threat to society. How we monitor them is an empirical question where answers to it should be based in science rather than wishful thinking...
Rather than bemoan the fact that you're being supervised and surveilled, how about taking responsibility for the reason why you're in this situation, then maybe you can start to fix whatever is wrong with you...
Are all sex offenders the same? Would you consider the 21 year old who slept with his 16 year old girlfriend the same type of offender as the rapist who stalks children at the local playground? Both have been classified sex offenders but clearly they are totally different people, with a different "offense".
Quote from: kingjames on Jan 20, 2007, 11:05 PMAre all sex offenders the same? Would you consider the 21 year old who slept with his 16 year old girlfriend the same type of offender as the rapist who stalks children at the local playground? Both have been classified sex offenders but clearly they are totally different people, with a different "offense".
Firstly, your question misdirects away from my point. I didn't differentiate among the sex crimes because monitoring and surveilling of sex offenders (whatever type of sex crime they've been convicted of) is something that is decided by legislators. When you're tasked with coming up with a monitoring plan, you classify offenders through various means (psychometric, past history, likelihood to reoffend, etc.) so that you can devote your time to the most serious offenders.
Secondly, your question is silly. What if the 16-year-old was developmentally disabled, drunk, or otherwise impaired? In addition, age of consent laws come into play and I'm not familiar with all of the state statutes in the U.S. but the typical age of consent is 16 so your example is also ill-formed. What if in your example the male was 50, do you consider a sexual relationship between a 50-year-old male and a 16-year-old female wrong? What about an 18-year-old male and a 13-year-old female? What if they were brother and sister or father and daughter? Again, the acts that are deemed criminal are decided by our elected officials. If you have a problem with a particular act being classified as a crime, take it up with your local representative.
As for monitoring a 21-year-old man who has been convicted of statutory rape, it would depend on his past criminal record, whether or not he has been classified as a Level I, II, or III sex offender, and other predictive factors.
I'll turn the question to you since you're so outraged that a 21-year-old man who's been convicted of statutory rape would be monitored. What should the age of consent be? 15? 14? 11? Where do we draw the line between adulthood and childhood?
Psychometric, past history, risk to reoffend????? Psychometric tools are valuable but pretty nebulous, don't you think? Past history? Just how do you go about ascertaining the ACTUAL prior history? Risk? Are we talking about the Abel assessment(?)------a tool to identify arousal, not behavior. I simply do not see how your battery of risk assessment is any more effective than one that includes polygraph among the other components. Why not use them all? If the Abel contradicts poly, or any number of combinations, than take note.
Incidentally, the Abel assessment is a test which also has a degree of susceptibility to countermeasures. The countermeasures for Abel will not "fool" the test, but will create obvious distortions, and subsequent difficulty of scoring. Sound familiar? TLBTLD is nothing more than a guide to goof around, and skew the results rather than so-called "beating the test."
How many poly supporters would let their daughter accept a ride from a stranger who had just "passed" a polygraph test that determind that they were being truthful when they said they would not harm her in any way?
I wouldn't.
Nor would I, a polygraph Examiner. No child's safety is or should be put into risk by a polygraph test that at it's very best accuracy (97%?) would be 3% short of being trustworthy (I have 3 young children.) Similarly, you will find that even oncologists who treat their family members will get a second and third opinion on a positive biopsy. Again I say that at no time does a "passed poly" sex offender on parole/probation EVER get the green light, or get ignored/unmonitored.
"No child's safety is or should be put into risk by a polygraph test that ...."
But isn't the point of follow-up polygraphs of SO's exactly that. If you don't trust polygraphy in the case of someone that you have no reason to suspect is an offender, then what's the point of applying it to a convicted SO? Why trust it for them?
Condoms are not 100% effective---but good enough for me to use. But for my (probablly) sexually active teen children, I don't feel that they are effective enough. Hello------ever heard of the parental double standard?
:-/
Quote from: palerider on Mar 01, 2007, 04:06 PMNor would I, a polygraph Examiner. No child's safety is or should be put into risk by a polygraph test that at it's very best accuracy (97%?) would be 3% short of being trustworthy (I have 3 young children.) Similarly, you will find that even oncologists who treat their family members will get a second and third opinion on a positive biopsy. Again I say that at no time does a "passed poly" sex offender on parole/probation EVER get the green light, or get ignored/unmonitored.
Your statement that the polygraph is 97% accurate is not supported by the literature - both pro and anti...
If supervised sex offenders never get ignored or unmonitored, wouldn't that mean that there should be no recidivism in this population because they would have no chance to reoffend?
Do you really believe that a parole office with a caseload of 70 to 120 offenders can effectively monitor all them?
Do you really believe that these POs would not take nondeceptive results to mean that increased supervision is unwarranted because the offender is being compliant?
Do you really believe that an offender who has a nondeceptive test is
always compliant?
Quote from: palerider on Mar 02, 2007, 01:01 AMCondoms are not 100% effective---but good enough for me to use. But for my (probablly) sexually active teen children, I don't feel that they are effective enough. Hello------ever heard of the parental double standard?
:-/
Comparing the accuracy of polygraphs (a device that has both false positives and false negatives) with effectiveness of condoms (which either stop sperm or do not stop sperm) is simply misdirection. You better stick with your medical diagnosis analogies...
digithead,
I find it disturbing that someone so deeply deluded as to believe that polygraphic lie detection might have an accuracy rate as high as 97% has anything to do with the supervision of convicted sex offenders. And to suppose that probation and parole officers who have drunk the polygraph Kool-Aid won't make decisions based on the results is sheer lunacy.
In reference to condoms, the numerical efficacy of condoms has been scientifically test and those tests are repeatable.
As far as I'm aware, in all cases where polygraphy has been subjected to scientific testing, the results have been that polygraph is about as good as a coin flip. I feel no comfort in the fact that a sex offender has "passed" a poly.
Please cite you source for the 97% effectiveness claim.
How accurate is the polygraph?
In 1990, Norman Ansley1 published a report of polygraph validity from studies of real cases conducted since 1980. Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. According to Matte2, the algorithms that score computerized polygraph tests are correct about 95% of the time.
References:
1. Ansley, Norman, (ed.) (1997). November-December, "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing," American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 30 (6): 6
2. Matte, Ph.D., James. (1996) Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, J.A.M Publications, pp 424-425.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 04, 2007, 04:40 PMHow accurate is the polygraph?
In 1990, Norman Ansley1 published a report of polygraph validity from studies of real cases conducted since 1980. Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. According to Matte2, the algorithms that score computerized polygraph tests are correct about 95% of the time.
References:
1. Ansley, Norman, (ed.) (1997). November-December, "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing," American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 30 (6): 6
2. Matte, Ph.D., James. (1996) Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, J.A.M Publications, pp 424-425.
You're going to rely on a study published in a polygraph newsletter to prove that accuracy is high? That's pretty funny. One would think that with those results he could've gotten into a top-tier psychology journal...
So how do you refute the National Academy of Science conclusion that "Estimates of accuracy from these 57 studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field. Laboratory studies tend to overestimate accuracy because laboratory conditions involve much less variation in test implementation, in the characteristics of examinees, and in the nature and context of investigations than arise in typical field applications. Observational studies of polygraph testing in the field are plagued by selection and measurement biases, such as the inclusion of tests carried out by examiners with knowledge of the evidence and of cases whose outcomes are affected by the examination. In addition, they frequently lack a clear and independent determination of truth. Due to these inherent biases, observational field studies are also highly likely to overestimate real-world polygraph accuracy."
Not looking for argument, simply posted two studies conducted that indicate high accuracy rates. I'm not concerned about publishing them or seeing them published nor am I concerned about scientific validity, just responding to the prior post about studies.
Palerider did not post them or respond. I will however look for other studies that have been published and are in fact studies that have validity according to "YOUR" standards.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 05, 2007, 02:08 PMNot looking for argument, simply posted two studies conducted that indicate high accuracy rates. I'm not concerned about publishing them or seeing them published nor am I concerned about scientific validity, just responding to the prior post about studies.
Palerider did not post them or respond. I will however look for other studies that have been published and are in fact studies that have validity according to "YOUR" standards.
These are not "MY" standards, rather they are the standards set forth and accepted by the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Nationa Institute of Justice, National Academy of Science, and countless other academic and professional organizations. Simply put, most estimates of polygraph "accuracy" fail to control for confounding, selection bias, and measurement error. They also mix studies with different outcomes and do not distinguish properly between the two types of error (false positives and negatives). Finally, they all fail to properly understand the difference between validity, reliability, and repeatability...
If these high estimates of accuracy are only accepted by the polygraph community and are roundly rejected by the larger scientific community (NSF, NIH, NAS, psych community) as absurd, what does that say about the polygraph profession?
As stated before, not looking for an argument or really a discussion relating to any studies or validity of studies. Simply posted two from the polygraph community.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 06, 2007, 09:56 PMAs stated before, not looking for an argument or really a discussion relating to any studies or validity of studies. Simply posted two from the polygraph community.
Then why bother posting at all? Is it merely a rebuttal to my claim that the literature does not support the notion of such an absurdly high accuracy rate? Then I stand corrected and amend my claim to say that independently peer-reviewed literature published in academic journals do not support the notion that the CQT polygraph can have any high degree of accuracy...
Thank you so much for your "Amendment". Still no debate or further discussion. That post was for information only and is only supported by proponents of Polygraph, conducted by Polygraphists, and used by polygraphists. Thought you might find it of interest. Sorry to have disappointed you.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 07, 2007, 04:47 PMThank you so much for your "Amendment". Still no debate or further discussion. That post was for information only and is only supported by proponents of Polygraph, conducted by Polygraphists, and used by polygraphists. Thought you might find it of interest. Sorry to have disappointed you.
Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Mar 07, 2007, 04:59 PM
Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?
My, my. Isn't that an articulate statement... ::)
Quote from: nonombre on Mar 07, 2007, 09:52 PM
My, my. Isn't that an articulate statement... ::)
I chose my words carefully. I think that ridicule is the only appropriate response to one who advocates a viewpoint while refusing to discuss or debate it, as if that were somehow a virtue.
Quote from: Lienot on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMHow accurate is the polygraph?
Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts.
What is there to debate in this post? Validity? Method used for the study? It is not a published study in journals other than polygraph journals?
I did not participate in the studies, have only read them and believe you should read them before making the statement you made.
I really don't like debating in this format, I prefer face to face debate and deiscussion.
I will not return your insult Mr. Maschke. Your ad hominem attack deserves no return or retribution.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 08, 2007, 02:00 PMHow accurate is the polygraph?
Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts.
What is there to debate in this post? Validity? Method used for the study? It is not a published study in journals other than polygraph journals?
I did not participate in the studies, have only read them and believe you should read them before making the statement you made.
I really don't like debating in this format, I prefer face to face debate and deiscussion.
I will not return your insult Mr. Maschke. Your ad hominem attack deserves no return or retribution.
Digithead offered thoughtful, well-reasoned counterpoints to the material you presented as "evidence" that polygraphic lie detection has an accuracy rate in the mid-to-high 90th percentile. To his criticism you responded, multiple times, saying that you have no interest in debating the matter. Why then did you even bother to post in the first place?
The reason I referred to your offering of such "evidence" as "shoveling shit" is that that both items (by Ansley and Matte) are non-peer reviewed writings by non-scientists whose livelihoods depended on public belief that polygraphy is highly accurate. Indeed, the former study was funded by the American Polygraph Association itself. If you think that these "studies" prove that polygraph results are almost always accurate, you are seriously deluded. The fact that you are unwilling to engage in any discussion of the merits of these "studies" suggests that you are willfully so.
This forum has gotten off topic, but it is really the only topic of importance. I for one would like to see the full study to which LIENOT refers, not simply paraphrased results.
Can LIENOT obtain a copy for review, please?
Ecchaste,
The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.
The Study referenced by Matte is in his book and can be reviewed in that manner.
Mr. Maschke,
I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con. I simply referenced them. The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%. I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings. When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings. I am more comfortable with those studies.
No where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed. I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know? They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings. They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies. They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study" for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.
If this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms. I do not believe that to be the case. We are in fact off topic of the original post.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 09, 2007, 02:52 AMEcchaste,
The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.
Classic case: fox - hen house. 8)
QuoteClassic case: fox - hen house.
Yep...
Drew Richardson provided a great analogy a few years back, describing the situations where polygraphers control all polygraph validity studies as putting big tobacco firms in charge of lung cancer research.
The DoD studies are a joke.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 09, 2007, 02:52 AMMr. Maschke,
I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con. I simply referenced them. The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%. I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings. When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings. I am more comfortable with those studies.
You are indeed deluded, to the extent that you believe, as you seemingly do, that the polygraph is capable of detecting lies or deception. As Dr. Drew Richardson has vividly put it, polygraphers who administer lie tests are involved in the detection of deception in the same way that a person who jumps from a tall building is involved in flying. See How Polygraphers Become Deluded About Accuracy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3423.msg23874#msg23874) for relevant observations by the late Dr. David Lykken.
QuoteNo where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed. I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know? They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings. They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies. They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study" for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.
It is common knowledge that the American Polygraph Association's newsletter is a trade publication, not a peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) scientific journal. Neither is the APA's quarterly journal
Polygraph, which also published Ansley's "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing" in Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Ansley was
Polygraph's editor-in-chief when it published his article.
QuoteIf this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms. I do not believe that to be the case. We are in fact off topic of the original post.
If you wish to persuade critically thinking people that polygraphy has an accuracy rate as high as the 90th percentile, you'll have to come up with something better than the citations you provided.
Very well, I am very deluded and will in all probability remain deluded for life in your context of that word. Thank you for your diagnoses and I will now rest.
Well lets parse this shall we,
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 24, 2007, 11:17 PMWell lets parse this shall we,
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !
OK. Let's "parse" this. You have engaged in classic minimizing----the swan song of the American sex offender. Sure there are some sexual misconduct cases---but 2/3rds? BS and you know it. The vast majority of sexual offender populations throughoiut the country are incest cases. "Uncle woody cases" if you will. Barring that your treatment group is/was a "special" sexual misconduct group versus the more numerous child molest, sexually violent types of groups, than you must be stretching the truth.
Also,---in addition to your classic---AND I MEAN CLASSIC---minimizing and distortion, you have even spoken of a "revolution." I can just see it now---a parade of sex offenders marching on Washington, burning their winnie the pooh t-shirts or throwing their rape kits "over the wall." What are you doing on the internet? Are you still on the rope?Your disagreement with polygraph aside, your presence here online shows that you aren't serious about treatment---if you are still on supervision. Lookin at porn are you---or on swinger sights maybe? You aren't in a position to be trusted just yet you know. You need to heal man, and in case ya didn't know, revolutions aren't known for their healing potential------as people get hurt. Pardon my cool tone, but if you had cancer I'd feel very sorry for you---but since your sad tale is as a result of you molesting a child---and you are obviously inteligent based on good penmanship---you knew far better. Screw with kids, and you are F'd. You knew this at the time. Incidentally, did you know that your victim is 30 times more likely to commit suicide before age 30 than the unmolested? Why aren't you fighting for victim charities?
answer; because you might still be in your narcissistic pattern of existance.
good luck