As a convicted offender and new member who has already had 2 polygraphs, one for "full disclosure" and one for "maintenance", I am wondering which type of tests have been administered to me. Maybe it's me but they don't seem to fit any of the descriptions listed in "The Lie..." Their is a short period of time after being connected to the equipment that the polygrapher says is to pick up "normal" patterns and then he begins asking the questions, usually 10, beginning with "Do you intend to lie on this polygraph?". The second question is "Have you lied in group or to your probation officer?". Each question appears to be relevant after that asking directly about behaviors, set rules and fantasies. I have had no problems with the results aside from a "slight deviation" on the fantasy question which I attributed to them wanting something to bust my stones about. The questions are repeated three times and then there is the obligatory post test interrogation. Anyway, I have no problem admitting my past behavior and therefore don't lie on the test but I am against the inexact science and double standards that it represents. I have no choice about it for the next few years, but I would like to know as much about the "practice" as possible. Anyone have any thoughts on the type of test that I'm being given?
gotno,
why don't you first share what the exact nature of your crime was with us so that members on this board can better explain what sort of testing you will be administered. Remember, we are quite used to people lying and saying that they were 19 and had sex with a 15 year old beauty-----or that they were "drunk" and don't remember. It is ok to be honest here----your identity is secure. Tell us how many pror- to- conviction victims you had, and what sorts of precise activities with the others were enacted. The average number of prior victims for offenders is 18. Boys? Girls? Statistically both I would imagine. Are you still strugglng with those fantasies mixed in with the normal fantasies? Tell the administrator and us all. Your risk level and location has much to do with the sort of test formats----and we cannot assess such without the real truth.
I sense you are brave and honest, prove me right.
palerider,
Are you saying that depending on the nature of the crime, a different polygraph technique (for example, CQT vs. R/I) might be used in a post-conviction polygraph program? I sense you are neither brave nor honest. Prove me wrong.
Gotnochoice,
The question, "Do you intend to lie on this polygraph?" is commonly used as a sacrifice relevant question in various versions of the Control Question Test.
The question, "Have you lied in group or to your probation officer?" is almost certainly a probable-lie "control" question.
I am aware of no standard polygraph technique that would consist solely of these two questions followed by a series of all relevant questions. Might you have mistaken one or more probable-lie control questions for relevant questions?
Tell us all what you did gotno, then I'll offer my professional polygraph experience advice. Send me a private message if you want.
Gotno, here is an example of what you can expect. I want you to read the following short bit of garble:
bbdee.';ehi c nc
ok. That was my 3 year old saying "hi" to the man on the computer. He said hi to you gotno!
Now, you have had contact with a child. He is sitting on my lap. You will most certainly be tested on secret contact with children. Say "bye" to the computer man.
bvy
Palerider,
You don't need to know anything about Gotnochoice's crime in order to comment on the polygraph format (s)he encountered.
Gotnochoice,
It appears that palerider (a polygraph examiner) has no interest in answering your question, but rather is very interested in obtaining enough information from you that you could be identified.
I have enough information now. I know that all of his polygraph questions are relevant. I know that he has used a computer for sexual reasons. I know that he has now had secret contact with a child. I know that he is located in one of 3 states. I know that he is lying to his agent/officer, treatment provider, and most importantly to himself. I know that he victimized a female child. I know that he is addicted to sex---in many varieties. I know that he is intelligent but socially akward (like George). I know that his future attempts at countermeasures will be folly, and his subsequent tests will reflect such. I know that he is addicted to the same behaviors which got him in trouble in the first place----utilizing the "dirty dozen" criminal thinking errors----one of which is "criminal uniqueness"----in that he believes that he is an exception to rules and laws-----since he "feels" so complicated and thoughtful. I know that he believes he is a victim of the criminal justice system----because he "gotnochoice" rather than having a choice of not being monitored. I know that he has family members/friends who support him and believe that he wouldn't harm a fly, but they aren't aware of his core demons. I know that he probably thinks that the adage "virtue is insufficient temptation" doesn't apply to him, as he is so "in control" of himself.
He is smart, but he believes that only clinical depression should be his punishment. He regrets what he did, and yet he still masturbates to thoughts of his or other victims inexplicably. He lies, grooms, and feels sorry for himself. I know you. Get off the goddamn internet. Tell your therapist about this excursion.
If he doesn't fit to a tee the above, than 99% ain't bad.
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 08:20 AMI have enough information now. I know that all of his polygraph questions are relevant....
How do you know this? Can you cite any references that document such a technique?
George, in order for you to get a preliminary grasp of the subject of monitoring sex offenders with polygraph, you should first do some research. Try here; http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Pedophiles-Offenders-Ourselves-Children/dp/0465071732/ref=sr_1_2/102-0281108-4837744?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185540764&sr=1-2
spend a few bucks, and then we'll talk.
palerider,
Salter's book provides no specific information about polygraph techniques. (I used Amazon's "Search Inside" feature.)
Please answer the questions I put to you. How do you purport to know that all the questions in Gotnochoice's polygraph examination were relevant? Of the two (s)he cited, only one was relevant, and it was a sacrifice relevant question. Again, please cite any reference documenting a polygraph technique that consists entirely of relevant questions.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 27, 2007, 09:07 AMpalerider,
Salter's book provides no specific information about polygraph techniques. (I used Amazon's "Search Inside" feature.)
Please answer the questions I put to you. How do you purport to know that all the questions in Gotnochoice's polygraph examination were relevant? Of the two (s)he cited, only one was relevant, and it was a sacrifice relevant question. Again, please cite any reference documenting a polygraph technique that consists entirely of relevant questions.
To The Administrator:
Why do you assume that the question "Have you lied to anyone in group or to your Probation Officer"
is a Control Question (probable lie) ?
It is a POORLY constructed question, but if a p/g examiner uses such a poor question he could be using it
as a Relevant Question.
GotNo admits that he is a convicted offender. Nowhere in his post does he proclaim to be innocent or
wrongfully convicted.
I think that to offer any advice to sexual offenders (on how to beat any test devised to detect bestial behaviour) is deplorable, and you should rethink your position in similar situations.
I hope that GotNo fails his test, goes to jail and gets it good.
Again, please research the the subject matter and target issues before attempting to ask your question. You are clearly illprepared to discuss both the nuances and the larger issues involved with sex offender monitoring. I'm afraid that your lazy and G.W. Bush-esque attempt at learning a topic through a pathetic browse of 1 book preface is lacking in acedemic sincerity and shows all your degree of cowardice. :-/
p.s. Perhaps it's time to box up your old collection of goofy foreign intel books and spy stories and begin researching a topic that is both relevant to your mission, and relevant to our children. It is high time that you cease being clumsy with your advice.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 27, 2007, 09:07 AMpalerider,
Salter's book provides no specific information about polygraph techniques. (I used Amazon's "Search Inside" feature.)
Please answer the questions I put to you. How do you purport to know that all the questions in Gotnochoice's polygraph examination were relevant? Of the two (s)he cited, only one was relevant, and it was a sacrifice relevant question. Again, please cite any reference documenting a polygraph technique that consists entirely of relevant questions.
George,
Salter is a psychologist, not a polygraph examiner. However, she does make ref to the polygraph
in some 19 places throughout her book.
I dont think that Palerider said in earnest that all questions on the test would be RQ's.
He is an experienced examiner. He was being flippant - in case you missed that.
I notice that when you're cornered you generally retort with, " cite any reference" or " there is no scientific research..etc " - which makes you somewhat hypocritical, as you (correctly) state that
polygraph is not a science, then why do you frequently say " there is no scientific research" to back
opposing views to your own....??
George, you are not the world authority on DOD technologies. Sometimes you show just how shallow your knowledge of the technologies are, when you make knee-jerk comments.
Regards.
Quote from: Kalex on Jul 27, 2007, 09:36 AMWhy do you assume that the question "Have you lied to anyone in group or to your Probation Officer"
is a Control Question (probable lie) ?
It is a POORLY constructed question, but if a p/g examiner uses such a poor question he could be using it
as a Relevant Question.
I believe it to be a probable-lie control question because in post conviction sex offender "testing," the relevant questions tend to be about go-to-jail violations of the examinee's terms of probation or parole. This question is vague in nature, and lies told "in group" or to the probation officer are not necessarily material to the examinee's terms of probation or parole.
QuoteGotNo admits that he is a convicted offender. Nowhere in his post does he proclaim to be innocent or
wrongfully convicted.
Agreed.
QuoteI think that to offer any advice to sexual offenders (on how to beat any test devised to detect bestial behaviour) is deplorable, and you should rethink your position in similar situations.
What I find deplorable is governmental reliance a fraudulent procedure that is wrongly called a "test" to monitor the compliance of convicted criminals with the terms of their probation or parole. Such reliance on an inherently unreliable, scientifically baseless procedure is clear and present danger to public safety.
I
am interested in the details of any novel polygraph techniques, and thus would like to know more about the procedure used with Gotnochoice.
QuoteI hope that GotNo fails his test, goes to jail and gets it good.
I would only hope so if, in fact, Gotnochoice has violated his or her terms of probation/parole. At this point, there is no indication that such is the case.
Kalex wrote; "George,
Salter is a psychologist, not a polygraph examiner. However, she does make ref to the polygraph
in some 19 places throughout her book.
I dont think that Palerider said in earnest that all questions on the test would be RQ's.
He is an experienced examiner. He was being flippant - in case you missed that.
Yep
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 09:38 AMAgain, please research the the subject matter and target issues before attempting to ask your question. You are clearly illprepared to discuss both the nuances and the larger issues involved with sex offender monitoring. I'm afraid that your lazy and G.W. Bush-esque attempt at learning a topic through a pathetic browse of 1 book preface is lacking in acedemic sincerity and shows all your degree of cowardice. :-/
p.s. Perhaps it's time to box up your old collection of goofy foreign intel books and spy stories and begin researching a topic that is both relevant to your mission, and relevant to our children. It is high time that you cease being clumsy with your advice.
Palerider,
I didn't browse the preface of Salter's
Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders : Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children. Rather, I looked at in-context citations of each instance of the word "polygraph" in the book, and saw quite clearly that there is nothing in the book that is germane to the specifics of any polygraph technique.
I think
you lied when you said you wrote:
QuoteI have enough information now. I know that all of his polygraph questions are relevant....
I think the reason you have failed to cite any reference documenting such a technique (wherein
all questions are relevant) is that, in fact,
you know of none. But you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it. Shame on you.
So, lying to your probation/parole officer isn't relevant? Polygraph aside George, is manipulating your supervising officer not relevant? I have not lied. Since you profess to know soooooo much about my profession, than perhaps you could tell me what is not relevant? Deviant sexual fantasies? Using Alcohol? Secret Contact with minors? Take your pick. If an Offender bites his tongue on any questions other than a sacrifice relevant and irrelevant, he is in deep shit.
George,
It is not my intention to get you grumpy on a weekend, but the argument iro pigeonholing questions is a bit irrelevant (no pun intended) some questions can be used as either CQ or RQ depending on the type
of test being used. Remember too that the APA sanctions the use of ANY technique when used for
research purposes and what better subject matter to use for research than a real live dirt bag who did
the crime. (in this instance he admits to past 'wrongdoings' -- like maybe taking Sally's head off with a chainsaw)
How would you George, classify the following questions:
1 Did you cause Mary's death with a knife
2 Did you cause marys death with a noose
3 Did you cause marys death with a firearm
4 did you cause marys death with a blunt weapon
5 did you cause marys death with poison
Quote from: Kalex on Jul 27, 2007, 10:21 AMGeorge,
It is not my intention to get you grumpy on a weekend, but the argument iro pigeonholing questions is a bit irrelevant (no pun intended) some questions can be used as either CQ or RQ depending on the type
of test being used. Remember too that the APA sanctions the use of ANY technique when used for
research purposes and what better subject matter to use for research than a real live dirt bag who did
the crime. (in this instance he admits to past 'wrongdoings' -- like maybe taking Sally's head off with a chainsaw)
How would you George, classify the following questions:
1 Did you cause Mary's death with a knife
2 Did you cause marys death with a noose
3 Did you cause marys death with a firearm
4 did you cause marys death with a blunt weapon
5 did you cause marys death with poison
Sorry, i hit post and deleted some text.
Contnd...
The above questions are all relevant, and are used in the GKT protocol.
If the investigator did not know the key, they are all RQ's - if he did know,
then only one (the key) is RQ
In a searching POT protocol, all the questions will always be RQ's because
the investigator does not know the key and only the perp does. ie
Do you think marys body is in a river
................................... is in a lake
...................................... is buried
.................................... is in Texas
................................. is in Kansas
.................................is in mexico
You're welcome.
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 10:19 AMSo, lying to your probation/parole officer isn't relevant? Polygraph aside George, is manipulating your supervising officer not relevant? I have not lied.
Yes you did. You must surely know that there is no generally accepted (within the polygraph community, that is) technique that consists
entirely of relevant questions.
QuoteSince you profess to know soooooo much about my profession, than perhaps you could tell me what is not relevant? Deviant sexual fantasies? Using Alcohol? Secret Contact with minors? Take your pick. If an Offender bites his tongue on any questions other than a sacrifice relevant and irrelevant, he is in deep shit.
Ideally, to classify questions as relevant, irrelevant, or "control," one should know
all the questions that will be asked during a chart collection, as well as, in the case of post-conviction polygraph screening, the terms of probation/parole. Note that those in post-conviction polygraph programs will know all of the foregoing.
With regard to your questions, if use of alcohol is proscribed, then a question about alcohol use would almost certainly be relevant, as would secret contact with minors, if such is prohibited. On the other hand, a question about deviant fantasies may well be a "control" question. Under Illinois administrative procedure for sex offender polygraph screening programs (cited at p. 44 of Research Overview: Post Conviction Sex Offender Polygraph Testing (http://nmsc.state.nm.us/download/sexOffdrPolytest.pdf), New Mexico Sex Offender Management Board, September 2004):
QuoteSex offenders shall not be tested on fantasy, intentions or thoughts. Questions regarding arousal shall be tied to behaviors: e.g., "Have you masturbated to deviant sexual fantasies?"
So a question about "fantasy, intentions or thoughts" not tied to a specific behavior would likely be a "control" question.
You don't have the foggiest George. Unlike other kinds of tests, many rules do not apply with pcsot. An example is the word "intentionally" which in other testing is not usefull, but in PCSOT testing is used regularly-----such as "Are you now intentionally withholding any (on-parole)contact with minors from me today?"
Many of us stopped using the sanctimonious control question cliche's of yesteryears. Control questions these days are very "hot." Quite simply, the clinical polygraph is powerful, and far less recognizable to examinee's than other types of tests. And no, I won't be shedding any light on test constructions for this crowd. aw shucks!
palerider,
I think you have demonstrated through your disinformational posts in this thread that you in fact have little confidence in the robustness of polygraphy against countermeasures.
uh, ok. hmmmm. Whatever you say.
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:01 AMSnip...
Quite simply, the clinical polygraph is powerful, and far less recognizable to examinee's than other types of tests.
Snip...
So even if the "clinical" polygraph is powerful, do you think the sequential nature of its use (i.e. quarterly exams) might affect its accuracy due to habituation or sensitization of the subject? In other words, can a previous exam affect the results of a current exam?
Digi, your question is presumptuous. "quarterly"? nah. The tests are sequential and/or situational and are not like filing taxes. The examinee must continue manipulating other people---from test to test-----consequently, good behavior isn't immediatly (if ever) known. This proves to be difficult for Offenders to continue to engage in behaviors and indulging fantasies that are empirically proven to increase acute dynamic risk factors.
I am not here to educate, I am here to warn. The two deeds are mutually exclusive.
p.s. I address countermeasures and visits to this and other counterproductive types of websites and secret computer activity on tests. Gotcha! Instead of biting the tongue, maybe Offenders should bite their genitals. 8-)
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:45 AMDigi, your question is presumptuous.
How so? I'm asking if sequential use of the polygraph might affect its accuracy...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:45 AM"quarterly"? nah. The tests are sequential and/or situational and are not like filing taxes.
Regardless of the period, as you state, they are given sequentially...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:45 AMThe examinee must continue manipulating other people---from test to test-----consequently, good behavior isn't immediatly (if ever) known. This proves to be difficult for Offenders to continue to engage in behaviors and indulging fantasies that are empirically proven to increase acute dynamic risk factors.
The evidence that indulging in fantasies (i.e. viewing Playboy) increases acute dynamic risk factors suffers from the same fallacy of composition that the polygraph does. Namely,
some who engage in fantasies such as viewing pornography show increased risk factors but
not all who engage in fantasies such as viewing pornography show increased risk factors. That's not to say that some behaviors are not indicative of relapse. Engaging in alcohol and drug use is well correlated with relapse but they can be detected without the use of pseudoscience...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:45 AMI am not here to educate, I am here to warn. The two deeds are mutually exclusive.
I don't think you know the meaning of mutually exclusive...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 11:45 AMp.s. I address countermeasures and visits to this and other counterproductive types of websites and secret computer activity on tests. Gotcha! Instead of biting the tongue, maybe Offenders should bite their genitals. 8-)
So if visiting this site and countermeasures are of no help, then why do you feel the need to address it with your examinees?
Back to my original question, can habituation and sensitization occur with sequential polygraph testing? If yes, do they affect any supposed accuracy of the polygraphy?
D-head, you clearly don't know a thing about sex offender treatment and supervision. What the hell does Playboy have to do with fantasies?! I was referring to deviant fantasies, not masturbating with Playboy.
Honestly, to even be posting on this board without some required reading and hands-on sex offender experience is laughable. Playboy? A sex offender in treatment knows better than to confuse deviant sexual fantasies and masturbating to Playboy. I thought that you were some sort of criminologist or something similar. Jesus H Christ.
serenity now
To answer your question. I don't know. Habituation is a great concern. It's amazing to me that you imply that I am deluded (yadayadayada) from previous posts and threads, and yet you ask questions of me that are better suited for researchers. I am not a researcher. If I read some empirical study about habituation that extends beyond a cautionary tale and is sex offender specific, at that time maybe I'll let you know. If it happens, I will probably be too busy adjusting protocol measures and polygraph modalities to align with said new research.
Why do I test for visits to this site and others? I am more interested in contact with children over all else but I really don't like some half-baked "recovering predator" messing with the charts. It's that simple people. Make a test look spammy with goofy untested and anecdotal countermeasures, and it pisses me and the rest of the team off. When my known countermeasure "attempters" (I have about 30ish at any given time) so much as miss 1 group therapy or get so much as a speeding ticket, he goes back to prison, period. Offenders are better off failing their test than trying countermeasures. The stink of even a "suspected countermeasure attempter" (verified or not) will hang around your neck like a dead goose----and will follow you in your "packet" (corrections record)for the rest of your life. I shit you not.
I don't want paroled/probationary sex offenders on the internet period----this site, amazon, myspace, you name it.
FYI, drug tests have countermeasures, so do we stop testing? Alcohol tests are very short fused (short spanned).
Dear DHead,
how do you suggest we monitor sex offenders? Strap yourselves in folks, DHead is going to attempt to build a barn rather than burn one. :D
George, thank you for your feedback about my question. I suppose there are some control questions in my tests that I have overlooked. And maybe I shouldn't put that much thought into it. Like I said earlier, I haven't lied and don't plan on lying or using countermeasures. I am more interested in the legality of the polygraph because it is such an inexact practice and I must take them occasionally. And in doing some reading regarding legislation, there does appear to be some double standards where tests results can be used against someone but not for them in certain instances. I'm going to monitor that closely. I hope that my frankness about my situation was not inappropriate for this message board. I have no intention of sharing details with anyone outside of my support group, although there appears to be some zealots on this site that would like that. I'm sure that's not the purpose of this site. Thanks again George. I really respect your efforts.
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMD-head, you clearly don't know a thing about sex offender treatment and supervision.
Because I referred to Playboy as pornography? Sigh...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMWhat the hell does Playboy have to do with fantasies?!
You need to get some imagination...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMI was referring to deviant fantasies, not masturbating with Playboy.
Honestly, to even be posting on this board without some required reading and hands-on sex offender experience is laughable. Playboy? A sex offender in treatment knows better than to confuse deviant sexual fantasies and masturbating to Playboy. I thought that you were some sort of criminologist or something similar. Jesus H Christ.
Who gets to decide what's deviant? Playboy and many other men's magazines are considered pornographic by many correctional systems including California...
Pornography, in its much wider sense, is any material - film, print, internet - that is used by an individual for titillation. Any number of paraphilias have their own material that no one else would consider to be pornographic such as foot fetishists subscribing to shoe catalogues. Heck, there are people who even get off on Sears catalogues. So how do you decide what's deviant? Oh, that's right, you use the polygraph to get them to admit to what they whack-a-doodle to. How do you know that they're telling the whole truth? Oh, that's right, the polygraph will reveal all...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMTo answer your question. I don't know. Habituation is a great concern. It's amazing to me that you imply that I am deluded (yadayadayada) from previous posts and threads, and yet you ask questions of me that are better suited for researchers.
Hope springs eternal that some are capable of learning from their mistakes...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMI am not a researcher. If I read some empirical study about habituation that extends beyond a cautionary tale and is sex offender specific, at that time maybe I'll let you know. If it happens, I will probably be too busy adjusting protocol measures and polygraph modalities to align with said new research.
I love it when you guys parrot treatment terminology to make it seem like polygraph is not pseudoscience...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMWhy do I test for visits to this site and others? I am more interested in contact with children over all else but I really don't like some half-baked "recovering predator" messing with the charts. It's that simple people. Make a test look spammy with goofy untested and anecdotal countermeasures, and it pisses me and the rest of the team off. When my known countermeasure "attempters" (I have about 30ish at any given time) so much as miss 1 group therapy or get so much as a speeding ticket, he goes back to prison, period. Offenders are better off failing their test than trying countermeasures. The stink of even a "suspected countermeasure attempter" (verified or not) will hang around your neck like a dead goose----and will follow you in your "packet" (corrections record)for the rest of your life. I shit you not.
Are you sure you caught all of the people employing countermeasures? And I thought you said countermeasures were ineffective. If they're ineffective, then how can they affect the test?
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMI don't want paroled/probationary sex offenders on the internet period----this site, amazon, myspace, you name it.
So how do you prevent them from accessing the internet when it has becomes so ubiquitous? Between iphones, picture and text messaging, and other emerging technologies, you're fighting a losing battle. Offenders also have a legal right to access libraries and other information sources...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMFYI, drug tests have countermeasures, so do we stop testing? Alcohol tests are very short fused (short spanned).
Except that drug tests have actually been scientifically proven to detect the very thing they're trying to find and drug tests can be given sequentially without worrying about habituation or sensitization...
Quote from: palerider on Jul 27, 2007, 03:07 PMDear DHead,
how do you suggest we monitor sex offenders? Strap yourselves in folks, DHead is going to attempt to build a barn rather than burn one. :D
Before one builds anything, one should make sure that the foundation on which they are building is firm. I think the majority of the containment method is fine except that its reliance on the polygraph undermines its effectiveness. So I'm trying to strip the polygraph from the containment method, decrease officer caseloads, and increase surveillance. The use of therapeutic communities has also shown great promise not only for sex offenders but also for drug and alcohol abusers...
As for the recalcitrant, incapacitation is the only solution be it civil commitment or incarceration...
Just an FYI, I'll be traveling the next few weeks and will only have intermittent access to the internet but I eagerly await your next barrage of vitriol, ad hom, and self-deception...
palerider:
It seems from your post history that you are involved in some manner with monitoring the activities of convicted sex offenders. If this is correct kudos to you Sir. However, you are likely wasting taxpayer money by seeking to do so with the prop con of polygraph testing. Also, you are not meeting the needs of our citizens for protection from sex offenders by using a method that does not work.
Some might be convinced you can determine deception while you have them attached to a polygraph and therefore either refrain from lying or confess. Yet, in general, use of the polygraph cheats us good taxpaying citizens out of protection from despicable criminals by our fine LE agencies. Please let me suggest a method that may actually function.
Convicted sex offenders on parole may be physically attached to a monitoring system connected to the telecommunications network. Many parents have purchased cell phones for their children that track their movements through the GPS system. Simply attach an anklet containing a similar system with always on voice transmission to the offender. Automated systems for location and voice recognition of key words can easily be devised to queue LE to be ready and waiting. Should the offender engage in conduct that violates the terms of probation, he or she might be stopped before committing further crimes.
Though this might seem a bit draconian, it presents a viable and cost effective means to limit future sex crimes by known offenders.
Lloyd Ploense
PS: We're long past 1984 Dude.
Lloyd, based on your theories as to how to replace the role of polygraph in the monitoring of sex offenders, it is clear that you know precisely 2 things about supervising sex offenders. Jack and Shit, and Jack left town. What the hell good does gps have when reoffense usually takes place at the offender's home or work----if you knew beans, you'd know this. GPS has distinct advantages and pluses, but it has great limitations. Chemical castration------equally limited, but popular with the ignorant as the most dangerous offenders don't need their dick to offend (there are plenty of paraplegics who offend without their plumbing.) The best ways to monitor sex offenders----and each have inherent weaknesses---are all of the above. Regular sheduled interrogations, GPS, chemical treatments (on high risk fellas), and regular drug tests and home visits with surreptitious drive bye's. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know dick about supervising sex offenders. You can argue the empirical data as to why we do what we do---i.e. the registry and the fact that the vast majority do not offend against schools or stranger's children----regardless, the crimes against children are so heinous, that many offenders will suffer to protect those children who are statistically certain to die from demonic types of abuse.My advise------steal, hurt, do drugs-------but if you molest a child or rape a woman-------you are fucked. Sorry.
I have a feeling that if a sexual predator lived next door to you, you would prefer all of the above tools for supervision----including polygraph. About one third of my sex offender population struggle with sexual fantasies of nearby children---- your children. One therapist told me that even if polygraph were 50% accurate (he knows better), he loves it. The majority of polygraph tests ran in the US are on sex offenders-----like it or not. The majority of sex offenders lie with a level of proficiency not seen in the general population. A web search and some snippets read here and there will not paint the picture----despite many on this site who claim to have knowledge of the field as they've read 20,000 words on the subject. Fight the applicant screening all you want----but leave the sex offender testing alone, as we aren't giving the keys to the nursery to Offenders who manage a passed polygraph. We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%.
Fortunately I'm an engineer and don't willingly associate with creeps. You can keep them Sir. Just thought I'd mention a few things. You seem to have all that covered though. I'm glad you're on the case.
Please try not to be so offensive. Your job must be very difficult. I hope they are not rubbing off on you.
Lloyd Ploense
My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health----and then you go out on a crusade against something that may have been misused on you, but is perfectly suited for others (this is the part where the deaf parrots around here say that "it isn't real science" and yadayada)-----Poly is perfectly suited for others such as people who the criminal justice system has a real problem with----sex offenders. My problem on this site is with the projectors who want to believe that most people who take polygraphs are fawns such as yourself who are caught up in an evil trap, rather than evil people who are just plain caught. About 5% of my offenders reoffend---and they aren't caught by gps, cops, or any other boyscout or gizmo. They are caught by clinicians and interrogaters who have less than 3 hours to get to the truth with the aid of a really cool instrument that indicates in most cases, serious deceptions regarding whether they have been touching the sexual parts of children.
Greetings PaleRider:
Respectfully Sir, I beg to agree and disagree at the same time.
Long ago during very dark days of my life there was a "prop con" artist named Clarence McCormick. Clarence misapplied common psychological test procedures to convince parents their children needed to attend his unlicensed school/clinic. When a Judge in IL terminated his public operations he reopened covertly in the basement of his home. Clarence had this thing about suffocating and strangling innocent young children. I've witnessed him beat children suffering from autism and Down's syndrome into bloody pulps. That basement on Forest Avenue in River Forest, IL, probably still reeks with the stench of the urine, feces and vomit voided by terrified children. Clarence was well paid by deluded parents to 'play school' and thoroughly enjoyed his work. Perhaps he experienced some sort of sexual thrill from this.
Another very convincing "prop con" artist from IL was "Pogo the Clown." Pogo wore a very proper visage and was even photographed with future-First Lady Rosalynn Carter. Later we came to know Pogo as John Wayne Gacy.
PaleRider, you are correct pal. You're preaching to the choir. There are some very sick people out there that must be identified, caught and stopped. The inevitable question now is:
Once we have accomplished this, why do we release them?
Personally, I'd like to see all the verified sex offenders gathered on a large ship and sent to the Bikini Atoll. Once there, they might be assigned a Geiger counter and a pair of tweezers to remove radioactive contaminated particles mote by mote...
That will never occur while "treatment" options are available. Our mental health professionals needs collect their fine salary as they "rehabilitate" these mentally ill criminals and return them to our neighborhoods. I see your difficulty PaleRider.
Still though Sir, I am opposed to polygraph testing. I personally know for a fact that the false positive percentage for detection of deception technologies is unacceptably high. There is an uninvestigated positive interference when a good and honest citizen is falsely accused of heinous crimes against those he or she loves. This is particularly acute when the falsely accused human is actually the victim who reported the crime in the first place.
I agree Sir that you must use all legal methods to identify and constrain sex offenders. These include an array of interrogation techniques that may be tailored to a person's belief systems:
1) If a person believes in god, you may claim god revealed in a vision to you exactly what he or she did;
2) If a person believes in the horoscope, you may tell him/her that their offensive behavior was forecast in the Sunday paper;
3) If a person believes in spirits, you may claim that a medium has communicated their guilt;
4) Etc...
Polygraph testing though presents quite a conundrum PaleRider. It is a two edged sword that is very inaccurate on the backstroke. Innocent people can be easily decapitated. For this reason I can never conscience polygraph testing. That I consider similar to the use of bis 2-chloroethyl sulfide as a weapon of war. Mustard gas presents too much collateral damage and poisons the land for a long time. All civilized nations have outlawed chemical weapons for this reason among others.
While polygraph examinations remain legal in the US, I beg you Sir to check your backstroke conscientiously.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Levander Ploense
PS: Long ago a woman I dated spoke an old adage to me: "If wishes were horses all beggars would ride." Ride on PaleRider but I beg of you again, check your backstroke!
With everyone throwing around percentages and statistics, I once again ask the question yet to be answered....Can anyone site a single person who was wrongfully jailed due SOLEY to a polygraph test.
If not, and as I've said before, if it is used a useful tool, I see nothing wrong with it. Nobody will be wrongfully incarcerated soley on polygraph testimony. There will always have to be back up evidence. While I agree that using it as a tool for job applications is a bit sketchy, as a law enforcement tool, it seems useful if used as only one piece of evidence to point police in the right direction.
I've read many posts here and I am still not convinced that polygraphs are not a useful tool. I'd even give odds that many of those posting here against it as a criminal detection tool are guilty of the crime they are being charged with and using their postings here to attempt to make themselves look innoncent.
Just my opinion.
Stan
Well Stan,
I have not been charged with a crime because I did not commit one. I was the victim of a crime. Despite that, during a polygraph interrogation I was accused of commiting the crime I am the victim of. How bizzare! That is why I'm upset.
Considering what I wrote on another thread, I think polygraph operators do not care if innocent people are harmed with false accusations that produce false positives. 'Hey Man, you hold the nail while I swing the hammer!'
When a false positive occurs in polygraphy, is the only consequence to an innocent person false imprisonment? Can you show evidence of that? Can you show it with the family consequenses inherent to this threads subjects?
Lloyd Ploense
lloyd,
You assume all that post here bashing polygraphy are innocent. I tend to think otherwise.
Stan
Quote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 16, 2007, 04:55 PMWell Stan,
I have not been charged with a crime because I did not commit one. I was the victim of a crime. Despite that, during a polygraph interrogation I was accused of commiting the crime I am the victim of. How bizzare! That is why I'm upset.
So Lloyd, are you are you not being accused of a crime? Double speak does not help your case.
Stan:
A Clarification Sir:
1) I am the victim of a crime, the poisoning of our wedding cake;
2) LE asked me to take a polygraph exam;
3) During the examination, I was asked if I committed the crime myself;
4) I truthfully responded no;
5) The LE interrogator told me the polygraph exam indicated I was not telling the truth;
6) I have not been charged with a crime I did not commit.
It is quite simple Stan. Polygraph testing is not accurate and perhaps will always yield a false positive under these circumstances. Particularly if the victim suffers from PTSD. LE in NJ seems to realize that.
When I have more time I will discuss in writing and in detail the most effective use of polygraph testing: Harassment and manipulation through false accusations. I was wrong Stan. Some persons can really use that tool EFFECTIVELY! I don't fault LE for that though. They were just doing their job.
Lloyd Ploense
lloyd,
If you are truly innocent of what they are accusing you of, then there is no way they can convict you of it using ONLY a polygraph. I don't know how many different ways I can say this.
If you are truly innocent of this, I would assume your family would obviously believe that you are, and it should be nothing more than a nusciance. As I said before, methinks you doth protest too much. If LE has no other evidence to back up their claims that you poisoned your own wedding cake (even typing that seems ludicrous), then it will be dropped, period. If you are innocent as you claim, don't worry about it, let it run it's course, let the police make their false accusations and when their investigations come up with nothing, move on and live your life.
Stan
Yep Stan:
You are correct in some respects. But WHAT A NUISANCE! I'm not one to be kicked in the back and pretend I like it Dude.
I've also had to contend with numerous bizarre false accusations made to the department of youth and family services. Fortunately, the forensic examiners of DYFS used their eyes, ears AND minds rather than the "prop con" mechanisms of polygraph testing to reach the conclusion that all allegations were unfounded.
Guess that's just life in America, the land of specious accusations and the home of ?
Lloyd Ploense
Lloyd,
Just curious, who's making allegations and what is it exactly that they are alleging?
Stan
Stan
Your posts are remarkably like Nonombre. You ask questions but seldon ever answer questions. If you do answer they are nonsubstantive. Me thinks...???? I don't think Nonombre wants to engage Lloyd as Nonombre.
lol, talk about false acusations. What questions have I been asked that I have not answered?
Well TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Quote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AMWell TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation. Ping me? so now you want to electroncially invade my privace after all your rants about 4th ammendment rights?
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal. Just another ad hom attack by Lloyd. Seems the usual response when someone is feeling guilty and logic is used to show their argument is faulty.Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Stan:
I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals. As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum. I am using my true legal name. I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.
Is Stan_Smith your real name? Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner? If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research. A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude. Hope you don't mind. Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory. BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin. He could not hide behind a "restricted" phone number.
For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan?
For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation. I don't mind if you goad me a bit either. That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site.
Lloyd Ploense
Quote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AMWell TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors' jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Lloyd,
I don't think palerider understands the limitations of polygraph testing. He said in no uncertain terms that "We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%." Furthermore it seems to me that he made some low key attacks on your character: "My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health." Palerider clearly believes that false positives don't occur, and if they do occur, it was YOUR fault, not the polygraphs. YOU didn't disclose your PSTD, therefore you have no one but yourself to blame. I disagree. The situation was forseeable by a reasonable person, and the LE knew, or ought to have known that the polygraph would fail, especially in this case. The term for this is negligence.
I address this to you rather than palerider because you have let your fear of child molesters cloud your judgement. That, and palerider is beyond convincing. If we should use any, and all means available to hunt down and monitor sex offenders, why not torture? Torture makes people talk, and it's not like sex offenders have rights, they are evil after all. What about capital punishment, let's just kill em all, and wash our hands of the whole mess. The issue isn't about what sex offenders deserve, or how much of threat they are to our children: all criminals are "evil." Saying that sex offenders are evil monsters lurking amongst us with "a level of deception not seen in the general population" is fear mongering, and certainly doesn't prove that polygraphs will be any more reliable than it was with employee screening.
You shouldn't accept polygraphs just because your afraid, and I have one word for anyone who would say otherwise: evil. The more serious the situation is, the more important it is that decisions are made only a reliable information. Palerider is no hero protecting society with "3 hours to get to the truth." This isn't 24, and he's not Jack Bauer. Please don't listen to that drama queen on a power trip.
Quote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 18, 2007, 03:37 PMStan:
I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals. As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum. I am using my true legal name. I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.
Is Stan_Smith your real name? Yes, my name is Stan Smith. However, unlike you, I am not as comfortable giving out any more information than that as those that puruse this site (not all, but some) are likely to be criminals in search of a way out.
Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner? If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research. A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude. So is Polygraphy, Lloyd. Yet you seem to very much mind the polygraph the police used on you. Hope you don't mind. Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory. BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin. He could not hide behind a "restricted" phone number.
For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan? Not so negatively, just careful is all Lloyd. As I said, you never know who might be posting on a site such as this.
For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation. I don't mind if you goad me a bit either. That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site. No problem, as I said before, if you are TRULY innocent of what you are being accused of (I'm not convinced completely that you are) than I do honestly hope you are caused no further trouble. And as I've said before, if you are TRULY innocent, a polygraph alone will not, and can not, cause you to be convicted of said crime.
Lloyd Ploense
Stan
Huh? I never insulted Lloyd's character, and I have never blamed him for adverse results of his test. In fact, I called his examiner a "shlub" ----provided that his story is true----and lean very heavily toward Lloyd's truthfulness, sight unseen. I have never denied false positives or false negatives----and considering such inevidibilities gives me no comfort.
Excuse me while I get some rest, as I have a 3 hour appointment with a very gentle, nice man named Brian. Brian was arrested for molesting his 4 year old daughter----he has a fixation on drinking the urine of very small girls. He has told of his struggles with fantasies of nearby girls at stores and around his neighborhood and feeling very guilty of such thoughts----thoughts that are so graphic, I don't believe non-offenders on this site need to read-----although I have many clients who come to this site to grasp at the straw of a way to beat their test-----which I have my own potent methods of revealing such activities(my secret, sorry). Brian really wants to change----and if he knew what part of his brain gave him such proclivities, he would dig it out with a spoon and pocket knife. He is courageous for facing his demons, but he is nonetheless very, very dangerous. We as a community need to use every variation of supervision that we can get our hands on----to help protect our kids, and also to protect Brian from his addiction.
Quote from: palerider on Aug 15, 2007, 08:53 PMMy job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health----
Palerider,
When you insult two people at the same time, they don't cancel each other out: you're just insulting two people. Even though you believe Lloyd's story, your declaration that the false positive was caused by either the examiner's incompetence, or by Lloyd's failure to report his condition is demeaning to both of them. The third most probable explanation is that the polygraph procedure is flawed.
What makes you think that "Shlub" administered the polygraph test incorrectly? It's entirely possible that "Shlub" followed his training to the letter, only to erroneously fail Lloyd anyway. Agreed, Lloyd's motivation to consume his own poison is a compelling argument for his innocence, but if his charts showed signs of deception, wouldn't "Shlub" be obliged to report his findings? If he had taken measures to ensure Lloyd passed because the facts suggest he had no motive, wouldn't that have been evidence tampering?
Polygraphs inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory that explains and describes the relationship between emotions and physiology. There is no unique pattern associated with deception, or any emotion for that matter. Such a theory on emotions and physiology would be able to predict how love, stress, and hatred will affect our heart rate and perspiration: never to be confused with the fear of being caught lying.
Nothing reveals the polygraphs shortcomings more than the practitioners of the art deriding each other as the one bad apple that makes the rest of them look unprofessional. "When you start right, you end right." The polygraph will inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory supporting it. It's not that "Shlub" does his job improperly; he just shouldn't be doing this job in the first place.
-Brettski
To be fair Brettsky:
The examiner who tested me seemed to have no idea what PTSD was and left the room. He returned referencing a thick book and proceeded with the examination. I'm satisfied with Palerider's understanding that certain people should never be polygraphed.
I also believe that no one should ever be polygraphed for polygraphy is far too inaccurate to base life decisions on it.
Thanks for chipping in Brettsky.
Lloyd
palerider
You just touched on the fallacy of the system concerning this type of person. If Brian is a real person, he is avery sick individual and needs to be in a mental institution undergoing deep psychotherapy and on the correct medications. If he truly wants to get rid of his demon, he would check himself in. The system in place is punitative (gotten many poluted-crats elected)and not geared toward cures. There's nothing you or your machine can do to cure him. Hinkly didn't get prison for shooting a president. Nor was he relegated to a life of polygraphy. He got life in a mental institution.
I know you don't make the laws. You just administer them. However, warehousing mentally ill people in prison or making them take many polygraphs a year will NOT help them become a safe part of society.
Why don't you use your influence and power to get Brian and people like him into a facility where they can get some real help.
From what I have been able to glean, from the little research I have done, is that the sex offender treatment program works pretty well because the recidivism rate of so's is the lowest of all major crimes. But the accute mentally ill, like Brian and those classified as died in the wool predators are not helped by this program. Low risk offenders seem to benefit from the program. I hate these people too, but we are not going about solving the problem totally the right way. Let's take the politician out of the equation and install some common sence.
I would like to see drug dealers, who kill our kids with drugs, be placed under the same restrictions as sex offenders. They should have to register for life as drug dealers and never have contact with kids under 18 either.
Palerider, Brettski, Twoblock:
It is very sad our world has the problems it does. Good humans wish they could solve them somehow. For personal reasons, I wish Palerider well equipped with accurate technology to assist him.
Unfortunately, polygraph testing may present far more problems than solutions. In the context of Palerider's efforts and LE, a false negative may be far worse than a false positive. The Green River Killer is a case in point.
So what do we do? Nothing? That cannot be countenanced either. In our dilemma, we permit known offenders such as Brian freedom and wrongly accuse the innocent with polygraph "technology."
Well guys, I'm proficient with instrumentation and have validated medical equipment for FDA registration before. Perhaps I can round up some of my colleagues and attempt to improve detection of deception technologies. It's something I can do and perhaps we will succeed. Well, that won't be difficult for anything is better than what is presently offered.
Palerider, it would please me to assist your goals, if feasible. What would our world be like though if deception were not routine?
Perhaps no more poker
or polyticians...
Regards,
Lloyd Ploense
The type of test you were given was a test to make you think you are doning something wrong. In other words, it is no more than a tool to keep those who use it to keep their pockets full on the pretends of saving society of sex offenders.