In order not to hi-jack the other active thread, I will start another, but the question stems from the other thread.
What occurs to a SO who fails a polygraph which he is compelled to take as a condition of his treatment? For purposes of this discussion, lets not go into any confessions induced as a result of the polygraph test, but instead simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.
Depends, and depends on which type of exam. You could (only) get to take a failed polygraph module of about 4 weeks duration, where you get to discuss why you lied. This is in addition to whatever else you have to attend. If there were admissions of violations of terms (assuming a maintenance exam), then you have additional consequences for those transgressions. Your probation officer (or parole, depending upon whether you did prison or not) could toss in 8 to 16 hours of community service to help incentive-ize you to tell the truth next time. Add more hours for any aforementioned transgressions.
The three biggest/most important exams to pass are the history "exam" and the last two consecutive maintenance "exams" just prior to your end of court supervision. It may take a while before you pass a history exam, so it is not worthwhile to focus on that early on. People with whom you've had sexual contact may not legally be victims, but will become victims as your understanding of boundaries changes.
Classic example of that is what millions of people have done and will continue to do: go to a bar, have something to drink, meet a member of whatever sex, go home and get lucky. In the healthy relationship model, that person you scored with is now a victim because he/she could not give full consent. When asked to list all victims, if in doubt, say victim. Your primary victim(s) are usually very well defined, no doubt there unless you are a flasher (then it is very hard to list all victims). The problem is sorting out where everyone else fits.
Part of how you are consequenced depends on your progress in other areas. Some people get cut more slack for failed or inconclusive results. Some get hammered right away. Some programs will terminate you for repeated failures. That's not because you are lying on the exams (assuming you have been telling the truth), but due to the refusal of anyone involved to admit that some people never do well on polygraphs.
People who seemed to do well on the exams early on in treatment are one of two types (my theory): almost amoral and just average intelligence. The amoral types don't really care about how their actions affected others, so there's no reaction to control or relevant questions. It's almost like they're saying, "Yeah, so what?" What's there to feel guilty about? The other type that does well doesn't over-analyze things. Not a whole lot of imagination or imaginative thought. Generally work in construction or trades, blue collar, high school grad.
Treatment agencies used to be in the driver's seat, but the control/main driver now is the parole/probation officer. Some of the more enlightened treatment agencies look at the polygraph as a tool and they know there are problems with the test. Parole/probation look at it more in terms of black and white: results say you were lying, ergo, you were lying. If the results say no deception indicated (note that it doesn't say you weren't lying), then you may have been lying but got away with it this time.
React more to control questions than to relevant questions and you will pass. It's pretty much that simple. I am not advocating lying, but if you have been scored deceptive or inconclusive over and over for questions you were answering truthfully, then do what you have to protect your interests.
Thank-you Mr. Truth, for answering my post. It appears that many of the poly examiners simply want to cut down George, or argue with Sarge.
The reason I asked the question to begin with, is that D. Taylor and others have been making it sound like this site and George Maschke are directly responsible for allowing child molesters and other sex offenders to roam the streets of America and ply their anti-social behavior. I have not quite figured out how the poly examiners can on one hand say that counter measures don't work, and on the other hand chastise George for explaining how to use them, but that has been already asked and never answered.
Anyway, I would have thought that a failed polygraph would send one back to prison, but it doesn't appear to be the case. The miscreants are allowed to continue to live in society, (based on what you have said) regardless of a failed polygraph. With that in mind, it doesn't appear that the passed or failed polygraph is responsible for keeping the child molesters in our society.
Again, thank-you Mr. Truth.
What creates the danger is when sex offenders withdraw from treatment by keeping tight lipped, and worse yet, when offenders are emboldened that they will be able to fool their tests. The common issue is this. Say an Offender has his next polygraph test in 6 months (that is in June) and the Offender becomes emboldened by this site----and by the way, it is too easy to embolden addicts, which make up over 75% of sex offenders. The offender believes he will be able to disengage the rules in secret, and begins a downward cycle of cognitive distortion (thinking errors.) He essentially has 6 months to do irrepairable damage to either himself, or heaven forbid, children. I have very little doubt that in June the offender will NOT be able to fool anyone with a polygraph instrument----but the preceding 6 months are potentially devastating. The Offender could therefore be said to be directly emboldened by Sarge (who has gravitas) and others here to engage in high-risk behavior at no percievable consequence.
To codify, the members on this site either intentionally or unintentionally cause great risk to the community i.e. women and children.
p.s. If I had my attachment priveledges back, I would post a picture of a cheesey WWII propoganda poster "Loose Lips Sink Ships." But at this time I am unable to exercise any irony or humor.
One thing I think should be made clear at the start of this discussion is that it is not the job of the polygrapher to bounce sexual offenders back into prison.
No polygrapher gets to decide who goes back to jail and who stays out. Their job is simply to help the treatment provider and parole/probation officer monitor the behavior of the Sexual Offender to insure that they are responding to treatment and following their court ordered conditions of release. If a Polygrapher reports that a Sexual Offender is having problems with a drug question, the result would most likely be increased frequency of UAs. If a polygrapher reports that a Sexual Offender is having problems with questions regarding pornography, then the treatment provider might direct more treatment sessions in that direction and ask the probation/parole officer to conduct a surprise inspection. If a polygraph discloses a new offense, the Sexual Offender still enjoys all constitutional protections afforded any criminal suspect.
One plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams, VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release. This is different than a treatment contract. The implication of that contract is that they will be cooperative in the enforcement if all conditions. Regardless of the outcome of a polygraph test, if they attempt countermeasures they are violating their contract. They do have options. More than one Sexual Offender has decided to sit out his sentence so he wouldn't have to deal with parole conditions. The Quid pro quo (sorry useless Latin syndrome) is that they get out of jail by agreeing to follow the rules in the contract.
One other plain and simple truth about Sexual Offender's is that the vast majority CAN be helped through treatment and if they are successful, they are no more likely to re-offend than anyone else. In order for this treatment to be effective there can't be much tolerance for aberrant behavior. Sexual Offender behavior must be monitored and controlled either on probation/parole or inside prison. Probation/Parole gives them an opportunity to prove they can make it on the street. Polygraph, Probation/Parole, and Treatment providers all work together in this process.
One of the advantages of this treatment model is it really helps identify the relatively small number of Sexual Offenders that are either untreatable or refusing to accept treatment. (One might compare this to the number of alcoholics that are successful at not drinking and those who just can't stop) Yes, this process tries to send them back to prison in order to protect the public.
One more plain and simple truth is that it is in the financial interest of the treatment provider and the polygrapher to keep the Sexual Offender out of prison and in compliance because when one is returned to prison they cease to generate revenue. One might argue that Probation and Parole may have an incentive to send them back because it shifts their heavy case loads back to prison staff.
The last plain and simple truth that I will offer is that if it weren't for a proven successful treatment model for dealing with SEXUAL Offenders outside of prison, society would demand that they be locked up.
In conclusion; If you are a convicted Sexual Offender and you don't want to submit to polygraph you should contact your Probation/Parole officer immediately and tell them that you have decided to revoke your release contract and return to prison for the remainder of your sentence.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 12:45 PMWhat creates the danger is when sex offenders withdraw from treatment by keeping tight lipped, and worse yet, when offenders are emboldened that they will be able to fool their tests. The common issue is this. Say an Offender has his next polygraph test in 6 months (that is in June) and the Offender becomes emboldened by this site----and by the way, it is too easy to embolden addicts, which make up over 75% of sex offenders. The offender believes he will be able to disengage the rules in secret, and begins a downward cycle of cognitive distortion (thinking errors.) He essentially has 6 months to do irrepairable damage to either himself, or heaven forbid, children. I have very little doubt that in June the offender will NOT be able to fool anyone with a polygraph instrument----but the preceding 6 months are potentially devastating. The Offender could therefore be said to be directly emboldened by Sarge (who has gravitas) and others here to engage in high-risk behavior at no percievable consequence.
To codify, the members on this site either intentionally or unintentionally cause great risk to the community i.e. women and children.
p.s. If I had my attachment priveledges back, I would post a picture of a cheesey WWII propoganda poster "Loose Lips Sink Ships." But at this time I am unable to exercise any irony or humor.
I understand this logic perfectly, Mr. Johnson. Is there any evidence this site has emboldened sex offenders to re-offend based on the perception that they could pass a polygraph by using the advice given in TLBLD? I would figure, that given the longivity of this site, (several years), that if this were a problem it would have occured by now. Anyone reading this know of any instances of this occuring?
SP:
I appreciate the respectful, substantive post, thank-you. Makes perfect sense. My one comment, though, is given the nature of the contract between the SO and society, (don't know who to exactly name as the other party of the contract), I would think that the other party, (society), knowing the limitations of the polygraph would understand that a SO would likely attempt to manipulate the results of the polygraph and take this into consideration when entering into said contract.
Afterall, the issue has been on the table for years, if not decades. The people who have chosen to use a polygraph routine to monitor sex offenders most likely are aware of the limitations of the polygraph, even to the extent that there are people who say the polygraph can be beaten by use of countermeasures. But, knowing this, still invoke the use.
I don't think George can be blamed if a sex offender re-offends after society voluntarily let him out of prison based on a contract to receive treatment, including polygraph monitoring, when the polygraph field is well aware of the potential use of countermeasures and the availability of such information on the internet or in book form. One search on ebay for the word "polygraph" will turn up many books regarding the issue.
It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 05:10 PMSP:
I would think that the other party, (society), knowing the limitations of the polygraph would understand that a SO would likely attempt to manipulate the results of the polygraph and take this into consideration when entering into said contract.
It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act.
Without conceding your points quoted above please allow me to respond.
If society should expect that an SO will not honor his release contract for any reason, why should he be released at all?
Surely you aren't advocating that persons on probation or parole should only adhere to the provisons in their contracts that they like, no matter what they signed. The time to clarify the terms of any contract is before it is signed. Once it is signed, the fair presumption is that the parties have reached an agreement to be bound by its contents unless a new agreement is negotiated or the contract is invalidated by legal process.
Unless the SO is acting Pro Se he is advised by counsel regarding the terms of the contract and even if no counsel is present it is furher explained in detail by the court prior to the excecution of the agreement.
So the short answer is NO I don't think that society should presume that a convicted SO will attempt to manipulate the polygraph or ignore any part of his release agreement just because he doesn't agree with it.
Would you also argue that since UA's are not 100% accurate that a convicted felon is justified in using someone else's "Clean" urine in order to manipulate the results of the test and avoid a false positive?
As to your second point that I have quoted, Your insinuation that polygraph examiners need to "clean up their own act" is slanderous but I will concede it is probably protected free speech.
I have been nothing but polite and cordial to Mr. Mashke even though I disagree with him and his statements.
I have not tried to "make him feel bad" unless you conclude that pointing out that he
co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information and then at his request cited examples of his own words to support that conclusion intentionally hurtful. GO BACK AND REaD MY POSTS
As long as he continues to provide a forum for the exchange of opposing opinions and ideas regarding polygraph his site has no black eye, regardless of my opinion concerning the remainder of it's content. I believe that is certainly Mr. Mashke's intent to allow all sides of this issue to have a voice, regardless of someone elses request that we go elsewhere.
Sancho Panza
If society should expect that an SO will not honor his release contract for any reason, why should he be released at all?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, I would rather release all drug offenders, (except for pushers) and keep all the SO's behind bars. Get the drug users in to treatment.
Surely you aren't advocating that persons on probation or parole should only adhere to the provisons in their contracts that they like, no matter what they signed.
No, but also there must be some recognition of the falibility of the polygraph, and the recognition that some will try to beat the polygraph. But, since counter measures don't work, what harm is done?
Would you also argue that since UA's are not 100% accurate that a convicted felon is justified in using someone else's "Clean" urine in order to manipulate the results of the test and avoid a false positive?
It is much easier to watch a guy piss into a bottle, than read the mind of someone taking a poly. Not a very good comparison. On the other hand, if when one watched a guy piss into a bottle, took that bottle of piss and did a drug screen, which all knew was only 80% accurate, what good would that drug screen be?
As to your second point that I have quoted, Your insinuation that polygraph examiners need to "clean up their own act" is slanderous but I will concede it is probably protected free speech.
Thank-you for that concession, very generous of you, SP. ;)
"I have not tried to "make him feel bad" unless"
Unless you have lied about not being an examiner, then my comments obviously do not apply to you, do they?
SanchoPanza and nopoly4me
This string has become quite informative. I had no idea that SOs had to sign a contract to be polygraph as part of their release. Now if we just could get the same applied to drug pushers maybe my grand-children and great-grand-children would be a little safer still. UAs are not effective on pushers because most are not users. This was taught when I was thinking of becoming a Narc in my early days.
nopoly4me
You ask entelligent questions. A few are answered, but some have started an ack ack barage at your bomber. Hopefully, one day, you will enlighten us as to your MO.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 06:35 PMIf society should expect that an SO will not honor his release contract for any reason, why should he be released at all?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, I would rather release all drug offenders, (except for pushers) and keep all the SO's behind bars. Get the drug users in to treatment.
Surely you aren't advocating that persons on probation or parole should only adhere to the provisons in their contracts that they like, no matter what they signed.
No, but also there must be some recognition of the falibility of the polygraph, and the recognition that some will try to beat the polygraph. But, since counter measures don't work, what harm is done?
Would you also argue that since UA's are not 100% accurate that a convicted felon is justified in using someone else's "Clean" urine in order to manipulate the results of the test and avoid a false positive?
It is much easier to watch a guy piss into a bottle, than read the mind of someone taking a poly. Not a very good comparison. On the other hand, if when one watched a guy piss into a bottle, took that bottle of piss and did a drug screen, which all knew was only 80% accurate, what good would that drug screen be?
As to your second point that I have quoted, Your insinuation that polygraph examiners need to "clean up their own act" is slanderous but I will concede it is probably protected free speech.
Thank-you for that concession, very generous of you, SP. ;)
"I have not tried to "make him feel bad" unless"
Unless you have lied about not being an examiner, then my comments obviously do not apply to you, do they?
If you ever PROVE the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts. Or maybe you could put together a coalition to have polygraphy legislatively removed from the contracts, but the simple fact is that it works. Probation officers and treatment providers praise it.
Remember the unsupported claims of SOs who claim they told the truth aren't worth much. Any convict knows the first rule is NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING ALWAYS CLAIM YOU WERE FRAMED. The fact that some people will try to beat the polygraph is already recognized that is why it violates the terms of release contracts. I think you may be mistating your point. It seems that you don't want society to recognize that SOs will try to tamper with the test. You seem to want them to EXCUSE that SOs will try to tamper with the results of the test.
Regarding your comment about watching people urinate into a bottle. Watching someone do that does not guarentee that they have not consumed substances in an attempt to tamper with the results. Supposedly there is a device on the market called the whizzinator that is an anatomically correct urine dispensing device designed to fool "observers" All that being said, Are you even aware that Drug screens do not detect "Drugs" Rather than searching for drugs, urine tests search for drug metabolites – inactive drug by-products that
the body produces as it processes drugs for excretion. Some commonly used tests have a false positive rate of up to 30% for Identifying Marijuana use hmm that would seem to reduce the accuracy rate below 80% without even including false negatives. Society recognizes that parolees will try to tamper with the drug screen results but they refuse to excuse it. Which is why attemting to tamper with those results violates the release contract.
As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.
Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere
co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response.
Never the less I will endeavor to remain civil. Besides I really doubt you could tilt me with a D-7 CAT
Respectfully
Sancho Panza
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 08:19 PMSanchoPanza and nopoly4me
This string has become quite informative. I had no idea that SOs had to sign a contract to be polygraph as part of their release. Now if we just could get the same applied to drug pushers maybe my grand-children and great-grand-children would be a little safer still. UAs are not effective on pushers because most are not users. This was taught when I was thinking of becoming a Narc in my early days.
nopoly4me
You ask entelligent questions. A few are answered, but some have started an ack ack barage at your bomber. Hopefully, one day, you will enlighten us as to your MO.
Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you find our discussion enformative
::)
Sanch Panza
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 08:34 PM[
If you ever PROVE the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts.
As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.
Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response.
Hopefully, I have reduced your post to something I can manage.
First, I don't have to prove anything. The American Polygraph Association recognizes the fallibility of the polygraph, as shown in the below quoted line:
"While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors do occur."
Secondly, I have not insinuated that you have done anything. You have previously stated you are not a polygraphist, and I said earlier in this thread:
"It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act. "
I was not including your posts, PS.
Lastly, I have not insinuated you have lied either, nor do I revere George Maschke, although I appreciate his willingness to host this site, and to expose the polygraph industry for what it is. Afterall, if I asked these same questions over on Polygraphplace, I would have been banned in a heartbeat. As far as I know, this is the only place I can have discussions about polygraphy with persons who purport to be polygraphists, (although they seem to want to avoid my questions and discussions, I don't know why ;).
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 08:19 PM
nopoly4me
You ask entelligent questions. A few are answered, but some have started an ack ack barage at your bomber. Hopefully, one day, you will enlighten us as to your MO.
Twoblock:
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss any personal (or professional) motive for me being here. Perhaps some time in the future. Thank-you for the complement, and I too wish more of my questions were answered. :(
Hello to all. I think I may have a valid reason for the polygraph which none have discussed that I know of. As a previous special warfare guy with the Navy, SWCC, I can tell you that Spec War is a good ole boy network. If they instructors don't like you, you are gone. I don't care how good you are. Well, the polygraph is the only step in the process that gives departments the ability to let you go, just because they don't like you. The way I figure it, if they don't want to work with you, then they fail you. Sounds simple, but I would not be surprised, and frankly, if that is the case, then I buy off on its use. I'm not scared of it. Sorry if I offend anyone, not my intention, but I try to look at both sides of a coin before jumping on a rant. Sometimes I fail to articulate well on the internet as it is the one place I could care less about articulation. :P
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 09:53 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 08:34 PM[
If you ever PROVE the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts.
As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.
Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response.
Hopefully, I have reduced your post to something I can manage.
First, I don't have to prove anything. The American Polygraph Association recognizes the fallibility of the polygraph, as shown in the below quoted line:
"While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors do occur."
Secondly, I have not insinuated that you have done anything. You have previously stated you are not a polygraphist, and I said earlier in this thread:
"It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act. "
I was not including your posts, PS.
Lastly, I have not insinuated you have lied either, nor do I revere George Maschke, although I appreciate his willingness to host this site, and to expose the polygraph industry for what it is. Afterall, if I asked these same questions over on Polygraphplace, I would have been banned in a heartbeat. As far as I know, this is the only place I can have discussions about polygraphy with persons who purport to be polygraphists, (although they seem to want to avoid my questions and discussions, I don't know why ;).
Nopoly4me
I certainly have never claimed that polygraph is infallible. Infallible and infallibility are criteria in your argument, but it isn't a reasonable standard. I seriously doubt you would be able to quote a polygrapher who states that polygraph is infallible. If you find one who does I will stand at your side and call him on it with you.
The US federal courts, establishes standards that scientific evidence must live up to. One of these "Daubert criteria" is that techniques must have a known rate of error. In other words, in order for any scientific test to be accepted as accurate and valid, it must have a known error rate, I challenge you to name one that is "Infallible". There is nothing reasonable about your insistence that polygraph be held to an "infallibility standard" in order to be considered a valid forensic tool when both DNA and Fingerprints which are considered the "Gold Standard of Forensic Techniques"
have known error rates. Review my posts, if you can show one post where I have previously stated that I was or was not a polygrapher I will apologize to you for my now accusing you of fabricating that statement.
Sancho Panza.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 11, 2007, 10:37 PMThe US federal courts, establishes standards that scientific evidence must live up to. One of these "Daubert criteria" is that techniques must have a known rate of error. In other words, in order for any scientific test to be accepted as accurate and valid, it must have a known error rate, I challenge you to name one that is "Infallible". There is nothing reasonable about your insistence that polygraph be held to an "infallibility standard" in order to be considered a valid forensic tool when both DNA and Fingerprints which are considered the "Gold Standard of Forensic Techniques" have known error rates.
One of the Daubert standards is not simply a known error rate. The rate of errors or potential errors must be known, certainly, but it also must be zero or close to zero. The error rate of polygraphy has never been proven to be anything close to zero.
Another of the Daubert standards is that the science being testified to must have been tested in the field as well as in the laboratory. Polygraphy falls short in that respect because of the lack of confirmation in a large percentage of real world uses. At the end of the polygraph exam, the only "evidence" that the examiner made the right call is the word of the examiner (unless there is a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.)
Sergeant,
I don't know where it is that you came up with your "opinion" on Daubert/evidentiary standards but I would like to see it, as it is nothing I have seen in either the form of a high court opinion or even training on the issue for that matter.
Psychological tests and diagnosis fall far short of zero percent error rates you mentioned but those opinions are still admitted.
Could you also please point me to the extensive field research on other forensic disciplines?
I am of the understanding that there are some that have little to no field research and are completely dependent on statistical inference.
Quote from: 6B0F630F210 on Dec 12, 2007, 12:37 AMSergeant,
I don't know where it is that you came up with your "opinion" on Daubert/evidentiary standards but I would like to see it, as it is nothing I have seen in either the form of a high court opinion or even training on the issue for that matter.
Psychological tests and diagnosis fall far short of zero percent error rates you mentioned but those opinions are still admitted.
Could you also please point me to the extensive field research on other forensic disciplines?
I am of the understanding that there are some that have little to no field research and are completely dependent on statistical inference.
From the syllabus of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993), on the Cornell University Law School web site:
QuoteMany considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.
From Justice Blackmun's opinion:
Quote
Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be(and has been) tested. "Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry." Green, at 645. See also C. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science 49 (1966) ("[T]he statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test"); K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 37 (5th ed. 1989) ("[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability").
Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, see S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 61-76 (1990), and in some instances well grounded but innovative theories will not have been published, see Horrobin, The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation, 263 J. Am. Med. Assn. 1438 (1990). Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of "good science," in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. See J. Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science 130-133 (1978); Relman and Angell, How Good Is Peer Review?, 321 New Eng. J. Med. 827 (1989). The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.
Additionally, in the case of a particular scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error, see, e. g., United States v. Smith,869 F. 2d 348, 353-354 (CA7 1989) (surveying studies of the error rate of spectrographic voice identification technique), and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation. See United States v. Williams, 583 F. 2d 1194, 1198 (CA2 1978) (noting professional organization's standard governing spectrographic analysis), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117 (1979).
You are absolutely correct if you mean that the Federal Rules of Evidence have never codified any further specifications than are broadly defined in Daubert v. Merrill Dow. However, I believe I have read somewhere that, all other factors being equal, testimony regarding a test with a high known error rate has less chance of being admitted then testimony regarding a test with a low known error rate. I don't recall where I read that.
I think it is clear the polygraph falls short as a valid scientific test. I agree with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences in that regard. In their 2003 research study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, those conclusions were as follows:
QuotePolygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
Theoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
Research Progress
Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.
Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 11, 2007, 10:37 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Dec 11, 2007, 09:53 PM[
Review my posts, if you can show one post where I have previously stated that I was or was not a polygrapher I will apologize to you for my now accusing you of fabricating that statement.
;D ;D ;D
The above is me laughing at myself, as I obviously confused you and someone else. You are correct, of course, and I apologize for assuming facts not in evidence.
Your apology is accepted and the error forgiven. Anyone can make a mistake.
Sancho Panza
Sergeant, I dispute your statement that "The rate of errors or potential errors must be known, certainly, but it also must be zero or close to zero. The error rate of polygraphy has never been proven to be anything close to zero."
I see that others have pursuaded you to retrtact that part of your statement. For everyones sake it would be helpful on occasions that you intend to attempt to cite scientific standards, court rulings, or others opinions that you do your research before making the pronouncement.
I would also like to point out that the NAS study is now over five years old and they did not research the polygraph, they only reviewed research that existed at the time of their study. Critics of polygraph seem to pound the NAS findings on the table as though it constutes the end of polygraph, when in fact it may just be a turning point. By the way, the NAS study titled "The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence" criticised DNA research studies because they failed to evaluate the probability of finding" a false positive. New research was cducted to deal with that criticism.
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research. We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 12, 2007, 08:51 AM
Polygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment. I am betting that these new studies will address the NAS criticims regarding previous research. We shall see what this research reveals about polygraph.
That is good news, as long as the studies are reasonably scientific in nature, and be reasonably replicated for validation purposes.
QuotePolygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.
Notice the word "extremely." They didn't say it wasn't accurate.
QuoteFuture Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Well, they found the median lab accuracy at 86%, and they found field median accuracy even higher, so I'd say we're getting close to hitting the ceiling for a psychometric test. How much better can you get? Don't forget that was median accuracy. The Utah studies found their methods to be about 95% accurate.
QuoteTheoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
There has been some recent attempts to address this valid criticism.
Quote
Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Sir,
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp
response to a detected lie, via the fingertip senzors, that might well
increase the efficiency of the technology, even if only by means of an increase in confessions made during the test.
That physical torture would complement the mental torture.
Respectfully,
JP
Hey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? :-?
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 13, 2007, 12:52 PMHey Jesper,
Do you have a point, or are you here to just poorly represent the Teutons? :-?
Sir,
My distant ancestors were Celts. If you wish to pidgin hole me, you may refer to me as an Aryan.
Respectfully,
JP
Quotesimply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.
The examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.
QuoteWhat creates the danger is when sex offenders withdraw from treatment
And if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).
QuoteSay an Offender has his next polygraph test in 6 months
You act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).
QuoteOne of these "Daubert criteria" is that techniques must have a known rate of error.
Actually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".
QuotePolygraph appears to be moving forward with new research studies underway at this very moment.
Who is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."
QuoteSir,
If the mackers of the poligraf instruments were to introduce a 500Amp...
Works for me....if it's the examiner hooked up to the machine ;D
QuoteThe examiner will stand by the infallibility of his black box, and the offender will be kicked out of treatment as "non-responsive". Getting kicked out of treatment is a one-way ticket back to prison in most states.
I have NEVER met a Clinical Examiner who claimed infallibility of their or ANY test. Perhaps you are making the Freudian slip. What states do you speak of? Where do you get this data? It seems you are making things up in order to distract or gain favor from others. Sound familiar?
QuoteAnd if it is the polygraph that is responsible for this "withdrawal"? If the offender realizes that no matter what he does (or more importantly doesn't do), the examiner is going to often throw out a few "deception indicated" or "inconclusive"('we need to get him back in here in a couple weeks for a new exam because my car payment's due..err.... I mean because we need to get this resolved') then what? You and your colleagues are then responsible for his withdrawal and possible backsliding. Thanks a lot.(George, you need a sarcasm emoticon).
You are accusing hundreds of good people of felonious theft. George doesn't need a sarcasm emoticon for you, he needs an animated steaming pile of HS for me to attach next to your thinking errors and blather.
QuoteYou act as if an offender who has been staying 'clean' for years were to happen upon this site he would suddenly feel an empowerment that it will be easier to re-offend and not worry about the polygraph any more than to remain on the safe path he and his therapist have set him on. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Successful therapy is 70% the offender and 30% the therapist. That leaves no room for the polygraph having any 'value'. And contrary to the drivel you spew, very few offenders are pre-disposed to commit a new offense. The US DOJ says 3.5%. Canada's Karl Hanson says 10%(keeping in mind that 30% of US sex crimes are not even crimes in Canada, so they are talking 10% of the 'worst' kind of offenders here). Florida's study puts it at a trifling 1% (that only applying to the 12,000 offenders considered for lifetime civil confinement, thus the 'worst of the worst' in that state).
You really need to review your data. The national DJ numbers for sexual recitivism are hovered around 6%. The national numbers for criminal (felony) recidivism is over half. Newer research yet unpublished is rumored to show higher numbers of sexual recitivism over 9 yrs after release----data that is slow in coming as the study is long term yet of a more contemporary offender population.
QuoteActually I believe the criteria is that it not have a "significant error rate". So what is a "significant error rate"? Most hold it to be 20% or higher although I have seen one case where an 8% error rate was considered "significant". The polygraph can't achieve an 80% absolute and it certainly can't reach 92%. So it has a "significant error rate".
whoa trigger. Why the sudden subject change....man you are all over the board here. I will cut and paste your extremely insightful commentary on Daubert's error rate criteria and send it to the highest courts-------you may have stumbled on to something there! C'mon. Let's come back down from the manic phase orolan.
QuoteWho is conducting this "research" and with whose data? I can see it now. "New study by the American Polygraph Association using select data from the US Department of Defense Polygraph Institute debunks NAS study."
I would read that one. The US DOD doesn't debunk scientific reviews (not study) whilly nilly.
I have been told that this man's website of legal child erotica and mappings of little girl events has a link to Antipolygraph.org.----as well as several other websites which help child predators do what they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_EMmbfUU30&feature=related
This is merely a brutally honest man who is brave enough to reveal his true interests, damn the critics. Remorseless, loveless, selfish and angry about his treatment by society. "Disengaged."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eNDIioyx8
if youre found not physically able to take a polygraph and have taken one previously and they say you failed while being under heavy perscription drugs can it be use agaist you
Quote from: nopoly4me on Dec 10, 2007, 09:50 AMWhat occurs to a SO who fails a polygraph which he is compelled to take as a condition of his treatment?For purposes of this discussion, lets not go into any confessions induced as a result of the polygraph test, but instead simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.
Back to top
Depends on both your "treatment provider" and your PO. In my case, my treatment group has a procedure where they "hot seat" you if you fail, and ask a whole bunch of questions about what you could have done so that you passed the test. They, of course, assume if you failed, you simply MUST be doing terrible stuff and lying about it. If you fail too many, they will probably kick you out of treatment. When that happens, you will then be in violation of the judge's order to go to treatment, and you will be sanctioned--possibly sent back to prison or, at least, some time in county jail. Again, depends on your relationship with your PO.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 11, 2007, 02:56 PMOne plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release.
;D Oh jeez, ya gotta LOVE this attitude. Talk about "cognitive distortions" *sigh*. Yeah, it's "voluntary". If you don't sign it, you don't get released. That's like saying "Here, I'll give you a choice. Sign this waiver VOLUNTARILY, or I will kick you in the huts for about a month. Oh, you'll sign? How nice of you." Yeah, like I volunteered for all of this.
Quote from: abusedbygov on Feb 07, 2012, 04:17 PMOne plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release.
Oh yeah, P.S. No, you fucking DON'T. You sign NOTHING as a condition of release. At least, I didn't. The judge set the conditions, and I was sent to treatment. It was IN TREATMENT that I signed the "voluntary contract". If I didn't, I would not be allowed in treatment, thus violating the judge's order. This would be construed as a PV and I would, indeed, be transported back to the penitentiary post haste and forthwith.
I faild my so ploygraph. I suffer from PTSD, from my childhood. I tryed looking for research about PTSD and polygraph, and only found polygraphs being use to confirm PTSD. Can anyone help me?
Thank you for you time
Email me: worstjerk7@gmail.com
I go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck
QuoteI go for my poly tomorrow. Wish me luck
Good luck! I would be interested to know how it goes.