On January 24, 1980, in the City of Tacoma, Washington, Joseph E. Duncan , age 16, committed a burglary of a neighbor's home stealing four handguns and ammunition. Later that same evening Duncan abducted a 14 year-old boy who had been walking in Duncan's neighborhood. Duncan sexually assaulted the boy two times at gunpoint, burned him with a cigarette and made the victim believe he was going to kill him by pulling the trigger twice on an empty chamber. He was arrested shortly after the incident. Upon turning 17, Duncan was transferred into adult court where he pleaded guilty to Rape in the First Degree for the abduction and sexual assault of the 14 year-old boy and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
After serving 14 years in prison, Duncan was released on parole in September 1994 where his parole conditions included quarterly polygraph examinations. In late March 1997, Duncan took one of his routine polygraph tests in Seattle in which he revealed he had contact with his girlfriend's two young daughters without his parole officer's permission. The next day, Duncan absconded to California. Seven days later, 10-year-old Anthony Martinez from Beaumont, California was abducted outside of his home and later found murdered with evidence that he had also been sexually assaulted. Duncan was subsequently caught on a fugitive warrant and sent back to prison on his parole violations of illegal contact with children, a failed drug test, and absconding. A psychological review in 2000 found that while Duncan was a Level III high-risk offender, there was nothing to indicate that a civil commitment proceeding should be requested. In July 2000, Duncan completed his sentence and moved to Fargo, North Dakota where he registered as a Level III sex offender, free of correctional supervision.
After his release, Duncan appeared to lead a normal life, working as a computer programmer and pursing a degree in computer science from North Dakota State University. In July 2004, an 8 year-old boy at park in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota was molested and Duncan became the prime suspect. He was subsequently arrested on April 5, 2005 and posted bond the same day. It was later revealed that the Minnesota judge who granted bail to Duncan had no knowledge of the severity of his previous crimes. After posting bond, Duncan fled Fargo and an arrest warrant was issued.
On May 16, 2005 in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, the bludgeoned bodies of Brenda Groene, her 12-year old son Slade, and her boyfriend Mark McKenzie were found. Missing were Brenda's two other children, 8 year-old Shasta and 9 year-old Dylan. A nation-wide Amber Alert was issued and nearly seven weeks after the murders and kidnappings, Duncan was apprehended at a restaurant in Coeur d'Alene with Shasta in his possession. It was revealed later that Duncan allegedly molested Dylan and Shasta repeatedly and taped these repeated assaults. Dylan's body was found a few weeks later at a campground in Lolo National Forest in Western Montana. Subsequent fingerprint analyses tied Duncan to Anthony Martinez's 1997 murder. Duncan is also suspected in a number of homicides and assaults in Washington State during his three years on parole between 1994 and 1997. In addition, Duncan kept an internet blog detailing some of his travels and crimes in 2004 and 2005 and an encrypted diary in which he claimed to detail all his crimes.
What went wrong to allow this sexual sociopath back into society? Clearly, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits. What about his time on parole between 1994 and 1997? He failed one polygraph in which he admitted to having contact with his girlfriend's two children but his parole was revoked for his absconding and drug use rather than solely his unauthorized contact with children without permission. Note that this contact was not sexual in nature but merely unauthorized by his parole officer.
The polygraph was a vital component in Duncan's supervision. However, it failed to detect his most serious offenses and instead focused only on minor violations. Its failure to detect serious violations contributed to Duncan's reoffending. Clearly, reliance on the polygraph in this case demonstrates the threat to public safety and underscores the folly of its use. How many other Joseph Duncans are out there that the polygraph missed?
Digithead,
You claim in your post:
Quote from: digithead on Sep 08, 2006, 09:05 PM The polygraph...failed to detect (Duncan's) most serious offenses and instead focused only on minor violations. (which) contributed to Duncan's reoffending.
Yet, you also say:
Quote from: digithead on Sep 08, 2006, 09:05 PMIn late March 1997, Duncan took one of his routine polygraph tests in Seattle in which he revealed he had contact with his girlfriend's two young daughters without his parole officer's permission. The next day, Duncan absconded to California. Seven days later, 10-year-old Anthony Martinez from Beaumont, California was abducted outside of his home and later found murdered with evidence that he had also been sexually assaulted.
So, as I understand it, the polygraph examiner was supposed to somehow look into his crystal ball and know that a week AFTER the polygraph was administed Mr. Duncan was going to commit a kidnapping and murder?
Mr. Digit, we polygraph examiners are good, but we can't tell the future (The polygraph "future telling" software is not due to be released until January 2007) ::)
You also say:
Quote from: digithead on Sep 08, 2006, 09:05 PM What about his time on parole between 1994 and 1997? He failed one polygraph in which he admitted to having contact with his girlfriend's two children but his parole was revoked for his absconding and drug use rather than solely his unauthorized contact with children without permission...
Mr. Digit, the point is that Mr. Duncan FAILED the polygraph examination. Do we blaim the examiner because all he could get out of Mr. Duncan was the unlawful contact with children? MAYBE that is all that had occured to that point? Besides, isn't "Don't confess" one of the main mantras of this website? Just think, had Antipolygraph.org been around in 1997, Mr. Duncan could have joined in with the rest of the sex offenders buzzing around this site and maybe even started his own club...
You add:
Quote from: digithead on Sep 08, 2006, 09:05 PMClearly, reliance on the polygraph in this case demonstrates the threat to public safety and underscores the folly of its use. How many other Joseph Duncans are out there that the polygraph missed?
I will start by reminding you that polygraph was the only procedure in this whole mess that accurately CAUGHT the problem. In fact, I believe that based on this case, anytime a registered sex offender fails a polygraph examination for ANY REASON, he should return to prison immediately! (No confession necessary) After all, never forget that parole is a priviledge, NOT a right.
No Mr. Digit, the use of polygraph in this case was by no means, "folly." The only "folly" I see is that polygraph is not used on EVERY sex offender in EVERY state.
Maybe you and I can work together to change that. 8)
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 10, 2006, 02:27 PMDigithead,
You claim in your post:
Yet, you also say:
So, as I understand it, the polygraph examiner was supposed to somehow look into his crystal ball and know that a week AFTER the polygraph was administed Mr. Duncan was going to commit a kidnapping and murder?
Mr. Digit, we polygraph examiners are good, but we can't tell the future (The polygraph "future telling" software is not due to be released until January 2007) ::)
You also say:
Mr. Digit, the point is that Mr. Duncan FAILED the polygraph examination. Do we blaim the examiner because all he could get out of Mr. Duncan was the unlawful contact with children? MAYBE that is all that had occured to that point? Besides, isn't "Don't confess" one of the main mantras of this website? Just think, had Antipolygraph.org been around in 1997, Mr. Duncan could have joined in with the rest of the sex offenders buzzing around this site and maybe even started his own club...
You add:
I will start by reminding you that polygraph was the only procedure in this whole mess that accurately CAUGHT the problem. In fact, I believe that based on this case, anytime a registered sex offender fails a polygraph examination for ANY REASON, he should return to prison immediately! (No confession necessary) After all, never forget that parole is a priviledge, NOT a right.
No Mr. Digit, the use of polygraph in this case was by no means, "folly." The only "folly" I see is that polygraph is not used on EVERY sex offender in EVERY state.
Maybe you and I can work together to change that. 8)
Regards,
Nonombre
The polygraph is used for three specific areas in sex offender management.
The first is specific issue testing and attempts to discern if there might be new allegations or specific issues of concern. There were certainly specific issues of concern with Duncan as he is suspected of a number of homicides and rapes in Washington state in the 3 years on parole which the polygraph failed to detect...
The second is sexual history disclosure testing to discern if there are other victims, victim selection behaviors such as specific age of onset, sexual deviancy, sexual compulsivity or public indecency activities such as voyeurism or public masturbation. No mention is made of whether the polygraph actually succeeded in detecting any of Duncan's additional proclivities...
The third is the maintenance and monitoring component to determine if the offender is complying with treatment and supervision protocols. Yes, the polygraph got Duncan to admit his contact with his girlfriend's children and his marijuana usage but it failed to detect his other more serious crimes, thereby allowing him to abscond and then murder Anthony Martinez. No mind-reading or psychic premonitions are needed to see that the polygraph failed to detect the risk that Duncan posed to society. So yes, I think that the examiner should bear responsibility for his failures and their outcomes...
So yes, it is a folly to use the polygraph in post-conviction settings just as it is in pre-employment screening...
And I'm not worried about a sex offender "failing" a polygraph, I worry about the ones that "pass" it. That's the true danger. The examiner failed to identify Duncan's more serious crimes, thereby "passing" him. The examiner fooled himself into thinking that he got Duncan to admit to all of his crimes. Duncan also would not have been revoked if he had not absconded...
Quote from: digithead on Sep 10, 2006, 04:33 PM
There were certainly specific issues of concern with Duncan as he is suspected of a number of homicides and rapes in Washington state in the 3 years on parole which the polygraph failed to detect...
...Yes, the polygraph got Duncan to admit his contact with his girlfriend's children and his marijuana usage but it failed to detect his other more serious crimes, thereby allowing him to abscond and then murder Anthony Martinez. No mind-reading or psychic premonitions are needed to see that the polygraph failed to detect the risk that Duncan posed to society. So yes, I think that the examiner should bear responsibility for his failures and their outcomes...
Mr. Digit,
You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing what the polygraph revealed and what it did not in this particular case. Do you know what the specific polygraph test questions were? Do you know exactly which relevant questions Duncan "failed?" Do you ALL the areas Duncan was interrogated on before he finally admitted to the minor contact issue? Do you know how many hours the examiner invested in the polygraph post-test interview TRYING to get Duncan to talk about the OTHER relevant questions (such as sex with a child) that I strongly suspect he failed as well?
Mr. Digit, neither you nor I know the answer to any of these questions. Until you do, do not critique the examiner in this case....It seems to me he was the ONLY professional in this horrible situation that got anything at all from Mr. Duncan...
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 10, 2006, 05:47 PM
....It seems to me he was the ONLY professional in this horrible situation that got anything at all from Mr. Duncan...
The other professionals relied on the results of the polygraph to make their decisions. If there had been better supervision rather than blind reliance on the polygraph, Duncan would have been stopped earlier...
How else should other professionals (i.e. parole officers) rely on the polygraph and the examiner in post-conviction use? Ignore the results? If it's to view it with suspicion, how much suspicion? At what point does a P.O. assume that the polygraph didn't find serious issues? Your field claims accuracy better than 95% in post-conviction use, doesn't this create a belief in those who rely on its results that it's accurate?
Its presumed usage and utility in post-conviction supervision is to find issues and dig deeper because it supposedly holds the ability to detect deceit. Since you're an examiner, do you or do you not believe in your instrument? Do you believe that your field should only claim its successes and ignore its failures?
Face it, the polygraph and the examiner failed to identify the most serious issues in this case and other professionals believed in the results which created further tragedy, which is why reliance on this bogus instrument/test is a serious threat to public safety...
Quote from: digithead on Sep 10, 2006, 08:06 PM
Its presumed usage and utility in post-conviction supervision is to find issues and dig deeper because it supposedly holds the ability to detect deceit. Since you're an examiner, do you or do you not believe in your instrument? Do you believe that your field should only claim its successes and ignore its failures?
Face it, the polygraph and the examiner failed to identify the most serious issues in this case and other professionals believed in the results which created further tragedy, which is why reliance on this bogus instrument/test is a serious threat to public safety...
"Dig deeper?" "Dig" where? "Dig" who? Get your head out of your ivory tower and smell the ugly smells of life. Since the parole system did not have the resources to follow this creep 24X7, they used what few tools they had to include polygraph maintenance. The only other choice was to deny parole (which by the way, I FULLY support). I believe that if you are convicted of a sex offense (especially on a child) you should have your genitals surgically removed, THEN go to prison the rest of your life.
BTW, I am not in the post-conviction sex offender business, but I have a few friends who are. They (and the parole officers they work with) report daily successes in which the polygraph helped to identify additional crimes/victims, which of course causes the aforementioned perverts to return to prison where they truly belong...
Sooo, is there something better out there? I would love to hear about it...
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 10, 2006, 05:47 PM
...You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing what the polygraph revealed and what it did not in this particular case. Do you know what the specific polygraph test questions were? Do you know exactly which relevant questions Duncan "failed?" Do you ALL the areas Duncan was interrogated on before he finally admitted to the minor contact issue? Do you know how many hours the examiner invested in the polygraph post-test interview TRYING to get Duncan to talk about the OTHER relevant questions (such as sex with a child) that I strongly suspect he failed as well?
Yes, I do, behold the power of the internet:
http://www.furl.net/members/Joe_Duncan_docs
Note the "failure" for his last polygraph before absconding and his "passing" all prior examination...
You can also read about the case in more detail from KREM2 News:
http://www.krem.com/sharedcontent/southwest/pecom/duncan/
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 12:22 AM
"Dig deeper?" "Dig" where? "Dig" who?
You're the polygrapher, it's your machine and examination techniques that you and those in your field claim that it can uncover the truth...
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 12:22 AM
Get your head out of your ivory tower and smell the ugly smells of life.
Why do you engage in ad hominen attacks? You know nothing about my background which includes 7 years experience in correctional facilities working with offenders in addition to my education and research experience...
I don't attack you, I attack your machine and your methods. Please respond in kind rather than continuously using logical fallacies and misdirection...
From your disparaging comments about academia and ivory towers it appears that you support ignorance and stupidity. Did you go to college? If so, do you or do you not think it made you a more educated person? Do you send your children to college? If yes, why when you seem to feel that it's a waste of time filled with pie-in-the-sky types and dilletantes?
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 12:22 AM
I believe that if you are convicted of a sex offense (especially on a child) you should have your genitals surgically removed, THEN go to prison the rest of your life.
Finally, with the exception of genital mutilation, you and I agree upon something...
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 12:22 AM
BTW, I am not in the post-conviction sex offender business, but I have a few friends who are. They (and the parole officers they work with) report daily successes in which the polygraph helped to identify additional crimes/victims, which of course causes the aforementioned perverts to return to prison where they truly belong...
You never mention your failures or their failures, what are you hiding?
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 12:22 AM
Sooo, is there something better out there? I would love to hear about it...
Nonombre
As was stated above, civil commitment...
I do not doubt for an instant your and others commitment to your field and your belief that you're doing good. However, you need to get past your cognitive dissonance and read all of the research behind the polygraph, its sole utility as a bogus pipeline, and the threat it poses to society both in national security and public safety. Perhaps one day you and others like you will realize you've engaged in self-deception all of these years. However, I doubt it and I will do my best to get policymakers to realize the need to abandon this pseudoscience...
Digit:
You want to place blame, then look no further than liberal JUDGES. Your postings on this subject are convoluted and ridiculous. It cleary shows that you just have a hate for polygrahers and only see and hear what you want .
Quote from: retcopper on Sep 11, 2006, 06:06 PMDigit:
You want to place blame, then look no further than liberal JUDGES. Your postings on this subject are convoluted and ridiculous. It cleary shows that you just have a hate for polygrahers and only see and hear what you want .
Nice non sequitor, exactly which liberal judge was involved in Duncan's supervision? Post-conviction use of the polygraph was predicated by practitioners, not judges...
And how are my postings convoluted and ridiculous? Declarative statements without support are meaningless...
Nice ad hominen as I don't have a hate for polygraphers, I have severe distrust of the polygraph and an understanding of its dangers. I've read all of the literature around post-conviction polygraph use, including those that support it. I've also read all of the literature against polygraph testing and came to the conclusion that their arguments and proof were substantially more compelling. I also have an understanding of how the base rate problem undermines the polygraph regardless of accuracy and how serial testing causes increases in false readings...
Have you read all of the literature or do you only seek out what supports your world view?
So once again, we have logical fallacies and misdirection. Please speak to the matter at hand...
Quote from: digithead on Sep 11, 2006, 07:12 PMAnd how are my postings convoluted and ridiculous? Declarative statements without support are meaningless...
Well for starters, you blame the polygraph examiner in the Duncan case. Remember?
Quote from: digithead on Sep 10, 2006, 04:33 PM
the polygraph got Duncan to admit his contact with his girlfriend's children and his marijuana usage but it failed to detect his other more serious crimes, thereby allowing him to abscond and then murder Anthony Martinez. No mind-reading or psychic premonitions are needed to see that the polygraph failed to detect the risk that Duncan posed to society. So yes, I think that the examiner should bear responsibility for his failures and their outcomes...
However, the very research you cite revealed that Mr. Duncan FAILED the following relevant questions on his polygraph examination:
Since October, have you violated any parole conditions you have not reported today?
Have you have unsupervised contact with minor children you have not reported since October?
Have you been over your girlfriend's house while her children have been present more than the 10-15 times you reported since October?
Have you used Marihuana or other illegal drugs more than 5 times since October?
Since October 1996, have you spent the night at your girlfriend's house?
Following the exam, the examiner conducted a post-test interview that resulted in Duncan admitting to a minor violation of his parole. He then fled, OBVIOUSLY aware the polygraph had caught him......
So tell me again how everything that followed was the polygraph examiner's fault?
See Digit, this is just one of the times you were being "convoluted and ridiculous." :D
BTW, it seems to me that had the judge had the proper respect for the polygraph results, he would have immediately locked Duncan up for violating his parole and the other murders might not have happened.
I, for one think the polygraph examiner deserves a public service medal.
AND What have you done for your community today?
Regards,
Nonombre :)
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 11, 2006, 10:49 PM
Well for starters, you blame the polygraph examiner in the Duncan case. Remember?
However, the very research you cite revealed that Mr. Duncan FAILED the following relevant questions on his polygraph examination:
Since October, have you violated any parole conditions you have not reported today?
Have you have unsupervised contact with minor children you have not reported since October?
Have you been over your girlfriend's house while her children have been present more than the 10-15 times you reported since October?
Have you used Marihuana or other illegal drugs more than 5 times since October?
Since October 1996, have you spent the night at your girlfriend's house?
Following the exam, the examiner conducted a post-test interview that resulted in Duncan admitting to a minor violation of his parole. He then fled, OBVIOUSLY aware the polygraph had caught him......
So tell me again how everything that followed was the polygraph examiner's fault?
See Digit, this is just one of the times you were being "convoluted and ridiculous." :D
BTW, it seems to me that had the judge had the proper respect for the polygraph results, he would have immediately locked Duncan up for violating his parole and the other murders might not have happened.
I, for one think the polygraph examiner deserves a public service medal.
AND What have you done for your community today?
Regards,
Nonombre :)
What about the dozen other quarterly polygraphs which asked the same questions that failed to uncover his more serious offending? You've got one out of 12, it seems like a statistical inevitability to me that Duncan would fail rather than any true ability of the polygraph to detect deception. And Duncan only admitted to minor violations which would not have resulted in revocation...
And Duncan's drug use would've been detected by a UA, so his admission was moot...
Since you are in law enforcement, you do know that judges are not part of the parole process. It would've been a parole board who revoked him. Only probationers get revoked by a judge. Do you blame liberal parole boards?
Again, you make another ad hominen attack. But since you asked, what have I done for my community lately? Well, I worked for my former correctional agency this summer cleaning up addresses in a database to help parole officers more readily find current addresses for offenders in their caseloads via the internet to streamline their work. It saves manpower, which also allows POs to better supervise offenders. Other law enforcement also have access to this data. Wow, doesn't an increase in supervision ability mean an increase in public safety? Gee, I guess I'm doing alright...
And to summarize, I blame blind reliance on a pseudoscience for letting Duncan get away with more serious offenses that if they had been detected would have prevented him from continued offending. You can try to twist Duncan's story anyway you want to prevent your cognitive dissonance, but if more stringent supervision or civil commitment had been in place in 1997 instead of believing that he could be contained by flapdoodle, 6 and possibly more people would still be alive...
digithead,
While Joseph Duncan is suspected of having committed a number of homicides and assaults while on parole (and passing polygraphs), how strong is the evidence? Has he been charged with any of these crimes?
It may be the case that, like Green River Killer Gary Ridgway (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1436.msg11312#msg11312), Joseph Duncan passed the polygraph while lying about relevant issues, but it seems that this has yet to be established.
Although CQT polygraphy has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth or deception, based on the available evidence, I think an argument could be made that the case of Joseph Duncan is an example of the utility of polygraph screening. However, if it turns out that Duncan indeed committed serious crimes while passing his polygraphs, this same case would instead be an example of the disutility of relying on this invalid test -- something all too often ignored by advocates of polygraph screening.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2006, 05:03 AMdigithead,
While Joseph Duncan is suspected of having committed a number of homicides and assaults while on parole (and passing polygraphs), how strong is the evidence? Has he been charged with any of these crimes?
It may be the case that, like Green River Killer Gary Ridgway (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1436.msg11312#msg11312), Joseph Duncan passed the polygraph while lying about relevant issues, but it seems that this has yet to be established.
Although CQT polygraphy has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth or deception, based on the available evidence, I think an argument could be made that the case of Joseph Duncan is an example of the utility of polygraph screening. However, if it turns out that Duncan indeed committed serious crimes while passing his polygraphs, this same case would instead be an example of the disutility of relying on this invalid test -- something all too often ignored by advocates of polygraph screening.
George,
That's exactly what I'm arguing in this case. Parole boards and parole officers have been sold that the polygraph can discover additional victims and perverse behaviors and determine whether offenders are adhering to parole standards and treatment protocols or committing new crimes.
The polygraph never detected Duncan's new crimes or other deviant behavior beyond minor admissions. There are thousands of offenders just like Duncan supervised on what is called the containment method which relies heavily on the polygraph because parole boards have been led to believe it works. 33 states use the containment method for supervising sex offenders. This is no different of a threat to public safety than mass screening of applicants or workers to find spies. You know what utility the polygraph has in those cases.
In addition, these offenders have become aware of the utility of countermeasures which in effect, reduces whatever bogus pipeline ability the polygraph may have had in getting admissions to violations to nil...
Do you see my argument now?
To answer your first question, authorities in Seattle and California are awaiting the outcome of Duncan's case in Idaho. If he gets the death penalty, the likelihood is that they won't try him because it's a moot point. However, if something else occurs, Duncan will probably be extradited to California...
-digithead
Digit:
The Minnesota Judge should have made it a point to check on the guy's prior history, especially in light of the fact that pedophiles have a high recidivism rate.
Quote from: retcopper on Sep 12, 2006, 11:48 AMDigit:
The Minnesota Judge should have made it a point to check on the guy's prior history, especially in light of the fact that pedophiles have a high recidivism rate.
I agree, but that's not the point...
As I said in my opening post, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits. However, these happened sequentially. Fix the root which began by releasing Duncan and none of these future missed opportunities would have happened...
However, his release was predicated on the belief that the containment method can control sex offenders. Since the containment method's main component is the polygraph, it bears responsibility for allowing him to reoffend while he was on supervision between 93 and 97 because it failed to discover his more serious violations...
It's no different from the JeffCo Sheriff's failure to execute a simple search warrant then allowed Harris and Klebold to murder 13 people at Columbine...
Hindsight may be 20/20, but you need to see what went wrong if you're trying to prevent future occurences...
And in the Duncan case, it demonstrates that reliance on pseudoscience can have tragic consequences...
I am enjoying the parley between digit and retcopper, while once again realizing that Geroge has the only cogent message in this thread:
I will repeat the basic failings of the poly:
It does not detect anything. It is a cool biofeedback machine that measures certain physiological changes and levels. You could say it suggests that something -might- be up, but it proves nothing, and may only be showing stress or revulsion. The happy endings come when the post-test interrogation geared toward the abnormal stress readings produces something. If these perverts, and all other crooks, know the lie behind the poly, then it becomes worthless...
It is sad whenever a criminal uses info from this site to beat a poly, I submit. However, other, bigger, and more frequent harms occur such that the lie must be exposed, as should all black lies.
Again, the only way that a poly ever works is if the subject buys into it and confesses. If they deny everything, then you have nothing. Incidentally, I tend to doubt some of these stories where people claim they would be violated if they failed, or are violated if they come back inconclusive a certain # of times. I wonder if some of those persons aren't deep cover polyboys... you could contest such a violation from here to Mars and back 8)
I think we all know the lie behind all this. I will be the first to argue disutility, also. This polygraph lie will only provoke lies in return, which is the standard slippery slope. I advocate, as always, that this clunker be retired... all lies are shameful...
Digithead:
If the polygraph results keep the guy from being released you comolain. If the test frees him you still complain. Which way do you want it? Sorry, but as good as we, are the polygraph cannot predict the future. The plolygraph is only one component of the containment program so if you want to place blame how about pointing the finger at the other parties involved. I dont think I missed the point. The thrust of your post was that the polygrapher should be blamed. IMHO the Judge also bears some resonsibility. And of course, although not politically correct to say this this, don;t you think just a little blame should go to the doer.
Quote from: retcopper on Sep 13, 2006, 01:40 PMDigithead:
If the polygraph results keep the guy from being released you comolain. If the test frees him you still complain. Which way do you want it? Sorry, but as good as we, are the polygraph cannot predict the future. The plolygraph is only one component of the containment program so if you want to place blame how about pointing the finger at the other parties involved. I dont think I missed the point. The thrust of your post was that the polygrapher should be blamed. IMHO the Judge also bears some resonsibility. And of course, although not politically correct to say this this, don;t you think just a little blame should go to the doer.
Duncan will get the death penalty, so he will be punished for his deeds. However, all of the problems and mistakes that occurred that allowed him to continue offending need to be examined so that they can be prevented or mitigated in future cases. As I've stated previously, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits...
But I blame the initial reliance on the polygraph because it gave a false sense of security which predicated all of what followed...
The polygraph should be abandoned in all of its uses in law enforcement because it's pseudoscience which ruins careers and threatens national security/public safety...
QuoteDuncan was subsequently caught on a fugitive warrant and sent back to prison on his parole violations of illegal contact with children, a failed drug test, and absconding.
Why wasn't he polygraphed again after being caught? Doesn't the pro-polygraph crowd think they might have been able to get him to admit to the Anthony Martinez murder if he had been polygraphed? Did those involved in the case just assume he was on his best behavior while running from the police?
QuoteA psychological review in 2000 found that while Duncan was a Level III high-risk offender
Perhaps the APA should put out a disclaimer that polygraph testing doesn't prevent high-risk sex offenders from re-offending? At best, it might catch them, but only after they have committed another crime. (as nonombre stated, the polygraph does not predict the future) Instead, polygraphers prefer to exaggerate the accuracy of their test, which no doubt helps to mislead judicial systems into over-reliance on the polygraph test. If polygraphers were more forthright about the limitations of their test, perhaps criminals would not be let out into society on the false hope that a polygraph machine will keep them in line.
QuoteDuncan is also suspected in a number of homicides and assaults in Washington State during his three years on parole between 1994 and 1997.... However, [the polygraph tests given during this time period] failed to detect his most serious offenses and instead focused only on minor violations.
I'm just joining these quotes for those that seem to think the polygraph successfully caught Duncan in 1997. There's a good chance that Duncan was killing people and still passed multiple polygraphs.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2006, 05:03 AM
Although CQT polygraphy has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth or deception, based on the available evidence, I think an argument could be made that the case of Joseph Duncan is an example of the utility of polygraph screening.
Post-conviction polygraphy is like waterboarding at Guantanamo (or any other form of government torture): it is useful, in that it can elicit confessions.
I believe this is the spirit in which it is being used presently in the USA: its practictioners/supporters are well aware that it has no diagnostic validity in discerning truth from lies; and they don't care.
They just want confessions.
They also take for granted - and don't care - that innocents are swept-up in their polygraphic fishing expeditions.
Seems like the real issue is that Duncan was given a 2nd chance to terrorise society.
To my mind, he should have been shot when he was first caught. Sexual offenders get
worse or get clever. They dont get 'better' (cured)
If the authorities insist on using a polygraph on a sexual offender, then it should only
be as a means with which to bash the sob's head in.
Quote from: 1904 on Jul 09, 2007, 12:22 PMTo my mind, he should have been shot when he was first caught. Sexual offenders get worse or get clever. They dont get 'better' (cured)
1904, I have been a big fan of your posts for the past month or so and have been following the action on this site for several years.
Although I normally agree with much of what you post, I must call BS on this particular post. In spite of the generally accepted societal hysteria when discussing sex offenders (of any classification), studies have shown that recidivism rates for child molesters are typically lower than the recidivism rate of other types of criminals.
At some point in the near future, we as a society MUST learn to behave rationally and discuss the serious issue of sex offenders in a manner that will allow progress in treatment, housing, awareness, etc. WITHOUT simply condemning offenders to death.
While I agree that VIOLENT OFFENDERS and REPEAT OFFENDERS and HIGH LEVEL RISKS should be segregated from the innocent, we must also agree that treatment is an option for first-time offenders and that the chance of success is actually quite high.
In one 10 year study of Recidivism rates of sex offenders, it was shown that the recommitment for a new crime is 22%, of which 14% are NON-SEX offenses. The TOTAL SEX-RELATED recidivism rate, including technical violations of supervision conditions was 11%.
Among sex offenders recidivism rates for rapists (with adult victims) is 17.5% while the rate of re-offense for extra-familial child molesters is 8.7%. The same study shows that those offenders who receive treatment while incarcerated are apt to re-offend at a significantly lower rate.
Let me conclude by pointing out that I am not a child molester, I am not a rapist or a sexual deviant. I am simply someone who sees through the hysteria.
Hello Casual Bystander;
My post was emotionally fuelled. No question. But the background to that:
I was the victim of sexual offenders three times in my youth. At the age of
ten, a family friend put his hand between my legs - my father sorted him out.
At 13 yrs, a man tried to corner me in a public toilet - I shouted and a friend
came to assist me - we manged to chase him out - he had tried to strangle
me - this incident was extremely disturbing. At 15yrs, I was hiking home after
school - a man picked me up and put his hand on my crotch. I punched him
out when he stopped at a red light.
My niece's 4 yr old daughter was molested at kindergarten last year, by a 50+
yr old handyman. She still has nightmares.
My teenage daughter was stalked on holiday and cornered in a bathroom at
a hotel in Palm Springs. She was very traumatised.
During my p/g years, every single suspect sexual offender that i tested,
failed and there was no doubt in my mind that they had failed because
they were guilty. Full Stop.
So when I say, hit the sob's with the poly - it is a knee-jerk reaction.
But it would be great thing to do. I have no time for sexual offenders or
pedophiles. Usually by the time they become suspects for a p/g test they
are already well into it.
BTW - I cant argue your recidivism stats - because I dont have any. But
I do wonder what they would look like if one had to add the numbers of
unsolved sex attacks and murders (unknown crimes committed by paroled offenders)......food for thought.
Please don't mistake my post as acceptance of sexual offenders or an attempt to diminish the seriousness of the crimes. Thank God you were able to cut short any attempts at molestation in your youth and I will pray for your niece's daughter.
As the father of two children aged 9 (boy) and 6 (girl) I am always vigilant when they are around other adults and adolescents. God help the person I ever suspect of touching either of my children.
My involvement in this thread is only to inject a bit of reality. I don't believe that everyone that fails the poly is guilty, just as I don't believe that everyone who passes is innocent. I don't believe that every person accused of molestation is guilty, just as I don't believe that everyone who professes innocence is innocent. There are some truly disturbed individuals walking the streets and it is our responsibility to protect our children from them.
By the same token, there are also mixed up people who make mistakes. Maybe the judgement is bad, or their reasoning centers of the brain don't function properly. Maybe they are dealing with stresses that affect their reasoning, or they don't have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions. It also could be that they were molested as young children and are repeating their experience.
We have to come to a point as a society where the topic of sexual molestation can be approached rationally. Making blanket statements that all sex offenders should be killed or castrated or tortured will only contribute to the hysteria and serve to force offenders even further into their morass. How can a beginning offender seek the help needed to control their urges if they are certain to face an angry lynch mob?
It is commonly accepted in scientific circles that a majority of victims of abuse go on to become abusers later in life. If our collective stance is that all molesters should be killed, we might as well kill the victims as well in order to prevent them from offending as they mature. In this way we can stop the cycle of victimization/abuse. <--- facetious remark
To Casual Bystander,
I think that your position and the rationale you present are solid.
Correct? Maybe.
The treatment (and success thereof) of offenders and victims is one that could be debated forever
without 100% agreement and without us ever really knowing all the answers.
Human behaviour will never be reliably predictable.
But you did put your points across very well.
Agreed...we may never know if my position is correct. The human psyche can be a dark and disturbing place. I find it interesting that our most violent and twisted criminals, even mass murderers have the moral high ground on those that they perceive to be child molesters.
It is such a touchy subject...as stated above I would lose all rationale if I found that someone was harming my children.
Update on the Joseph Duncan case - he was sentenced to death in federal court yesterday for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of 9-year-old Dylan Groene. He had already pled guilty in Idaho for the murder of Dylan's family and the rape and kidnapping of his sister Shasta. CNN has a good summary of the case:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/27/duncan.death.ap/index.html
Duncan's case demonstrates the futility of post-conviction polygraph as it failed to detect his most serious offense(s). Duncan admitted that he murdered two sisters from Seattle during while he was on parole in the mid-90s. He took multiple polygraph tests as a condition of his parole and because these so-called tests failed to detect his crimes, five more people lost their lives and a little girl's life has been shattered. There may be additional victims of this monster that have yet to be uncovered.
Most of the anti- people here complain about false positives, I worry about the false negatives. So I ask the question again, how many more Joseph Duncans are out there getting away with rape and murder because we rely on this pseudoscience to catch them?
digithead
How would you catch them?
Digithead:
Duncan Timeline
Convicted 1980 for raping a 14 year old boy and paroled in 1994
Polygraph on 1/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 5/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 9/14/95 Passed
He violated his parole in 1996 by using marijuana and getting caught, and for possession of a firearm.
Polygraph on 6/11/96 Passed
July 1996 first murders Sammiejo White, 11, and Carmen Cubias, 9 Bodies found 2 years later
Deborah Palmer, 7-years-old March 26,1997 disappears Her body was found 5 days later
Polygraph on 3/26/97 Failed
Then he is on the run
Next possible murder Anthony Martinez disappeared on April 4, 1997.
Although Information on the internet is sketchy I have not found any information alleging that this monster passed a single polygraph after committing a murder.
If you have something substantive in this regard please post your source.
Sancho Panza
The failed polygraph after the murders got Duncan to admit that he smoked pot which would've been detected with a UA. Seems that he was able to manipulate the polygrapher in his favor away from his real crimes. Hence, the polygrapher failed to detect Duncan's more serious crimes which allowed him to commit further murders. Face it, Duncan was a false negative no matter how you spin it. He suckered the system and tricked the polygrapher into thinking he had done nothing more serious than smoke pot which created a false sense of security.
As for something more substantial, how about a quote from the monster himself which he said in his closing arguments earlier this week, "You people really don't have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I've done."
By the way, Duncan created an encrypted diary that contains all of his criminal acts. The FBI hasn't cracked it yet but it's just a matter of time before all of his crimes come to light. Do you really want to bet that Duncan didn't do other things while on parole that the polygraph/polygrapher also missed?
Lastly, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that I have to come up with something "better" than the polygraph. To me, expunging this pseudoscience from law enforcement is better as we will no longer be relying on wishful thinking and make-believe security.
The polygraph is great example of routine activities theory: suitable targets, motivated offenders, and lack of capable guardians. With countermeasures employed by motivated offenders to easily manipulate the test (i.e.., lack of capable guardian), it's no wonder people like Duncan can rape and murder until they get caught the old-fashioned way.
Digithead, Would you care to post the source of your information as I requested.
I have seen what purports to be a copy of the examiners report on his Polygraph from 3/26/97 and it contains NO information regarding any admissions he may have made.
Based on question 4. I would have to conclude that he admitted to illegal drug use before the exam not after.
Here is a link to the report.
http://img58.imageshack.us/my.php?image=326975yv.jpg
Sancho Panza
My statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true. The only thing they pinned on him were minor parole violations. Duncan was not revoked for failing this polygraph, he was revoked for absconding. Given how post-conviction polygraph is sold, shouldn't we expect more from it? If it worked as sold, Joseph Duncan would have been caught for the Seattle murders. It didn't. You can try to spin it but reliance on the polygraph failed society in this case.
By the way, here is a link from the Spokesman Review that details Duncan's travels in this time frame:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=83414
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 10:49 PMMy statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true.
OK so Digithead says they are true but I guess he doesn't have a source to back up his assertion. The link he provided certainly doesn't. I guest he must have had a vision or a dream or perhaps found it in a fortune cookie.
Could you at least scan the fortune cookie and post it so it doesn't look like you just made it all up?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 07:54 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 10:49 PMMy statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true.
OK so Digithead says they are true but I guess he doesn't have a source to back up his assertion. The link he provided certainly doesn't. I guest he must have had a vision or a dream or perhaps found it in a fortune cookie.
Could you at least scan the fortune cookie and post it so it doesn't look like you just made it all up?
Sancho Panza
Let's see, Duncan wasn't a suspect in the Seattle murders until after he was caught for the Groene case in 2005 and admitted that he did it.
The sources are his polygraph tests in that time frame (1996-97) that did not uncover the fact that he murdered two little girls. It seems a clear case of polygraph failure to me, what other proof would you like? Do you really think the polygraph "worked" in this case?
OK Digithead Let me see if I have your positon correct. DUNCAN passed all of his polygraphs until the one he took on the day the 2 little girls disappeared, 3/26/97,WHICH HE FAILED and because he didn't confess to murdering 2 little girls that no-one knew were missing yet, after FAILING this polygraph, your contention is the polygraph didn't work even though he FAILED THE POLYGRAPH.
With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 04:54 PMOK Digithead Let me see if I have your positon correct. DUNCAN passed all of his polygraphs until the one he took on the day the 2 little girls disappeared, 3/26/97,WHICH HE FAILED and because he didn't confess to murdering 2 little girls that no-one knew were missing yet, after FAILING this polygraph, your contention is the polygraph didn't work even though he FAILED THE POLYGRAPH.
With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.
Sancho Panza
What exactly did this failed polygraph uncover? That he smoked pot and didn't tell his parole officer that he was spending time with his girlfriend and her two children. He was not revoked for these violations; he was revoked after he absconded. Post-conviction polygraph is sold that it can uncover serious trangressions yet it failed to do that in this case, why? Because Duncan was able to fool the polygrapher into thinking he had uncovered all there was to uncover. If I were a polygrapher, I wouldn't chalk this one up in my win category.
By the way, the two girls that Duncan admitted murdering were abducted July 6, 1996. His failed polygraph didn't come until March 26, 1997, more than 7 months later. There is a gap of more than 8 months between between his passed June 1996 test and his failed March 1997 test of the available polygraph tests on the web. These are dated January, May, and September of 1995 and then it skips to June of 1996 and then March of 1997. Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? I'll remind you that he was a paroled Level III offender, is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?
Additionally, Duncan is no longer a suspect in the March 26, 1997 murder of Deborah Palmer so it's not relevant to the case anymore.
Anyone out there want to bet me that he didn't have more victims in this time frame? I'm guessing that he did. Heck, I'll even give you 100-1 odds...
Go ahead, spin away....
At this point can you cite a SINGLE POLYGRAPH that he PASSED after murdering those two girls? Can you cite a single polygraph he passed after murdering anyone?
I don't think you can.
Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 06:31 PMAt this point can you cite a SINGLE POLYGRAPH that he PASSED after murdering those two girls? Can you cite a single polygraph he passed after murdering anyone?
I don't think you can.
Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza
So tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from reoffending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.
And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:
Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame?
Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?
How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?
QuoteSo tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from re-offending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.
In 1978 when he was 15-years-old Duncan was sentenced to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma fo raping a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint, he told a therapist who was assigned to his case that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys, according to a report by the Associated Press, he also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. In 1980 Duncan was sentenced to 20 years in prison for raping a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint.
WHAT WAS HE DOING OUT OF PRISON?
Why wasn't he civilly committed under the Washington State Community Protection Act of 1990?
Why do you want to hold Polygraph responsible when it was the Department of Corrections, The Parole Board, and his P.O. that had the authority to keep him in or send him back?
What about the State Psychologist in 2000 that determined that he was not a violent sexual predator.?
What about his P.O. who knew that he was beginning to break his conditions regardng drug use and possession of a firearm because he was arrested in possession of a gun and drugs ?(he did 30 days in jail instead of returning to prison)
The polygraph Examiner DID HIS JOB. He reported Duncan had failed his test. The Department of Corrections decides whether or not to act on that information.
And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:
Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame?
I don't know for sure, I haven't seen any proof that he had any other tests in that time frame. NEITHER HAVE YOU at this POINT YOU ARE JUST GUESSING OR LYING.
Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders? I really can't comment on common practice in the location he took his tests. He may have failed to appear for a scheduled polygraph or his P.O. may have got busy and failed to schedule one at the appropriate time. I don't know but NEITHER DO YOU ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE JUST GUESSING
How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?
I don't know whether or not he had more victims,BUT YOU DON'T EITHER
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWHAT WAS HE DOING OUT OF PRISON?
He was paroled on the belief that the containment method - which relies on the polygraph - could prevent him from reoffending. Obviously, it didn't...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhy wasn't he civilly committed under the Washington State Community Protection Act of 1990?
They didn't have enough evidence at the time to civilly commit him...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhy do you want to hold Polygraph responsible when it was the Department of Corrections, The Parole Board, and his P.O. that had the authority to keep him in or send him back?
There's a lot of blame to go around. This case demonstrates a systematic and systemic failure of the criminal justice system...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhat about the State Psychologist in 2000 that determined that he was not a violent sexual predator.?
Actually, he was a level III offender but they didn't have enough information to civilly commit him. Remember, they did not know that he had murdered people at the time he finished his sentence...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhat about his P.O. who knew that he was beginning to break his conditions regardng drug use and possession of a firearm because he was arrested in possession of a gun and drugs ?(he did 30 days in jail instead of returning to prison)
Because you know as well as I do that it's standard practice to do this rather than revocation as the system usually strives for the least restrictive placement. Plus shock incarceration was in vogue at the time...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMThe polygraph Examiner DID HIS JOB. He reported Duncan had failed his test. The Department of Corrections decides whether or not to act on that information.
Yes, he uncovered that Duncan smoked pot and was at his girlfriend's house without his parole officer's permission. How about those two murders he committed. How'd the polygraph miss that?
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI don't know for sure, I haven't seen any proof that he had any other tests in that time frame. NEITHER HAVE YOU at this POINT YOU ARE JUST GUESSING OR LYING.
How can I be lying when I asked a question? And why are you unwilling to speculate on this when you'll speculate on just about everything else? Oh yes, it's because you know the probable answer and it doesn't make the polygraph look good....
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI really can't comment on common practice in the location he took his tests. He may have failed to appear for a scheduled polygraph or his P.O. may have got busy and failed to schedule one at the appropriate time. I don't know but NEITHER DO YOU ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE JUST GUESSING
Yup, I'm guessing he had more polygraphs in this time frame since the conditions of his parole mandated them every 90 days. See here:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=80802
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI don't know whether or not he had more victims,BUT YOU DON'T EITHER
I don't know for sure but sadly, I'm willing to bet that he did.
As post-conviction polygraph is touted by those that sell it, it's supposed to provide valuable feedback on compliance with supervision and treatment. It somehow missed that he murdered two children. There's no way to spin that, the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes...