AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Currently in my 6th year on probation, my third treatment group, and multiple therapists through out the years.

I'm polyed mostly every 6 months, on occasion every 3 months, have been for the past 5 years or so.  Very little trouble with any poly, undetermined results or excuasable/understandable failures along the way, nothing serious that hasn't been resolved to the courts, treatment, probations satisfaction.

About two years ago, I was ordered to a new group, new polygrapher.  New Sexual History exam.  I had previously filled out a Sexual History questionaire for this.  I arrived for my first poly with him, forgot my wallet, couldn't pay, was rescheduled and paid the $100 'fine'.  The polygrapher asked if I had any paper work, I did not.  I asked WHAT paperwork, he handed me a blank copy of the form I filled out a couple of weeks ago (Sexual History form).  I stated that I had given the form to my therapist, as instructed.  I also asked if I could retain the blank form (Sexual History form) I had just been handed for my records, he said I could.

At my next 'group' therapy session I asked the therapist about the original form.  He said he had given it to the polygrapher BEFORE the scheduled exam.  There must be some mistake, not to worry, it would be covered at the next exam.

I arrived at the second poly exam.  Polygrapher asked if I had filled out the form he had given me.  I had not, of course.  I told him the therapist had given him the original form all ready.  He said he had not received it and as I had not filled out the form he had given me the first time, I was denied a poly (and charged another $100).  I pointed out that I had asked to KEEP the blank form for MY records and was never instructed to 'fill out' a SECOND form.  WHERE was the original.  Yeah, I was PISSED.  I called the polygrapher a liar AND a thief for stealing my money and making false claims concerning the form.  It was a VERY tense meeting.  A THIRD polygraph was scheduled.

I arrived for poly #3.  He STILL did not have the form!  I STILL had not filled out a SECOND one!  I had been assured AGAIN from my therapist that the polygrapher did indeed HAVE the original form.  Polygrapher once again denied having the form, I was denied my third polygraph.  I was once again charged a $100 but before we could schedule a FOURTH polygraph I cursed him up one side and down the other for incompetence.  I was so angry I stood up to leave the office and he PUSHED ME OUT THE DOOR!  I immediatly told him if he touched me again I would dial 911 and report an assault.  He responded he would call 911 and have me removed if I didn't leave NOW.  No further polygraph was scheduled.  My therapists SUPERVISOR ordered the therapist to kick me out of treatment.  A revocation hearing was scheduled., 'failure to complete a polygraph'.  NOT for termination of treatment, an important issue to understand here.

A FOURTH polygraph was scheduled IN MY ATTORNEYS OFFICE with the same polygrapher.  When he arrived he initially REFUSED to proceed with the polygraph.  He position was the results would be meaningless due to the stress of the situation (and I concur, the results WOULD have been useless).  However, it was now a 'point of law' and the results were of little consequence.  I HAD to complete a polygraph, in the eyes of my attorney at least.  It is note worthy the polygrapher NOW HAD THE ORIGINAL FORM, I had STILL refused to fill out a SECOND form until it could be determined what happened to the FIRST one.  He would not say how it came into his posession or when he received it.

The fact that I did complete one on the FOURTH attempt was dismissed.  The case focused on the previous THREE failed attempts.  This was ruled 'substantial' and 'inexcusable', I was revoked and sentenced to an additional five years probation.  My THERAPIST testified on my behalf, stating he understood the confusion, did not have a problem with the polygraphs and was WELCOME back into his group.  The Judge dismissed his testimony and went with 'failed to take a polygpraph', period.  HOWEVER, the Judge specifically stated during sentencing (30 days in jail, 5 years probation) that I should APPLY FOR EARLY RELEASE.  I believe the Judge felt compelled to do SOMETHING, rather than find me not guilty.  She came across to me as actually sympathetic to the circumstances, but justice demanded SOME 'remedy'.

After serving 30 days I was ordered to my THIRD 'group' and a new therapist.  I was told from day one I would be there 5 years.  I was also told if I did not 'accept responsibility' for failure to take a polygraph they would be very tough on me.  Two years later now, I still refuse to accept responsibility for failure to complete a polygraph.  The polygrapher ACKNOWLEDGED he 'push me out the door of his office', in WRITING to the COURT during my revocation.  He claimed however I was 'blocking the door' (he's a slick liar that one).

My lawyers said NOT to appeal, wait a year and file for early release, piece of cake.  Well it aint gonna happen, they have NO INTENTION of allowing me to file for early release.

Question:  IS it to late to file an appeal?  Can I SUE the polygrapher for assault?  Can I sue the polygrapher for incompetence over lossing the form?  At this point I am resigned to doing yet another 5 years of probation AND even risking another revocation and jail time because it is just to much to sit by and let this travesty of justice prevail.  I TRIED my best on THREE occasions to take the dam test and was refused.

Options for justice?  PM me if you have pertinent legal advice.  My story is STRAIGHT UP, in fact, the more you hear the more you would KNOW I was screwed, I have nothing to hide in that regard.

It should also be noted concerning my lawyers:
While in jail I sent them a request to FILE AN APPEAL, they never responded.  Before the revocation hearing I told them to subpoena the polygrapher, they never did.  I was NOT able to question directly and under oath the very man responsible for my revocation, the polygrapher.  I FIRED my attorneys through a formal 'motion before the court' when I got out of jail.  I fired them specifically for incompetence.  I also asked that ALL records be given to me and was granted the position of 'representing myself'.  Which to date IS the case, I AM myself the 'attorney of record'.

It should also be noted that a SECOND cause for revocation was also entered along with failure to take a polygraph.  That was 'failure to take a drug test'.  It was the PROSECUTOR that discovered SERIOUS flaws in the testimony of my probation officer as it concerns drug testing (she was caught in an outright lie, under oath, in court).  The drug charges were dismissed, leaving only the polygraph in question.  My probation officer was promptly removed from my case and was demoted as a result of her actions.  She later PERSONALLY apologized to me AND stated, quote, "You should not have been revoked, I never meant for it to go this far."

Going on SIX years probation:  NEVER failed a polygraph, NEVER had any substantial issues or violations.  My problem?  I TELL THE TRUTH and am not afraid to stand up and be counted.  NOT afraid to go to jail or be revoked for TELLING THE TRUTH.  This is a fact, again, straight up.  I need a lawyer who is also NOT AFRAID to find the TRUTH, not kiss the ass of the prosecutors.

It  sounds like you got trapped between your therapist and the polygrapher and treated like a ping-pong ball. I can certainly understand your frustration and anger.

How much of the confusion and trouble could have been avoided if, after your first trip to the new polygrapher, you had your therapist call him in your presence to figure out where the forms you needed were located? If he didn't have it, you would have known to fill out another, or had your therapist just make another copy of the one you completed. Surely your therapist keeps copies of ALL sexual history forms. This would have avoided your second and third trip to the polygrapher without getting tested and neither one of you would haved gotten P.O.'d.

From your story, it kind of sounds to me like your therapist may have been responsible for not sending the form since he was so willing to take you back into treatment. All he really had to do was give you a copy of the form to take with you to your second appointment, "Just In Case"

As to assault.  It kinda sounds like you were in this guys office, Angry and Cursing, probably raising your voice a bit? I don't really think an assault claim will survive a counterclaim that he was simply trying to remove an "out of control" person from his property. You might want to check your state's laws, but civil claims of this sort have a 2 year from incident filing deadline. I don't think you can prove that he lost the forms, he may not have recieved them.

If you talk to 2 or 3 different attorneys and none of them think you can win an appeal, it would probably be  waste of time.

It sounds like you are doing OK in treatment and are passing your polygraphs. It also sounds like you have made your point. You stood up for yourself. I would caution you about continuing to bring up this issue to your new probation officer or your therapist for fear they might see it as a failure to respond to treatment. If you spend too much time on it in group you might cause one of the other guys to manufacture a situation that causes him to fail his program.

If you have never failed a polygraph and your therapist says you are making progress, and your new probation officer is happy with you, You are winning. Hang in there.

Sancho Panza

QuoteCurrently in my 6th year on probation, my third treatment group, and multiple therapists through out the years

This is the most important aspect of your post in my opinion. I'll get to this later.

QuoteI'm polyed mostly every 6 months, on occasion every 3 months, have been for the past 5 years or so.  Very little trouble with any poly, undetermined results or excuasable/understandable failures along the way, nothing serious that hasn't been resolved to the courts, treatment, probations satisfaction.

I hate to be nit-picky, but in post conviction sex offender testing, everything is serious----just maybe not to you or by your surmise.

QuoteAbout two years ago, I was ordered to a new group, new polygrapher.  New Sexual History exam.

What was wrong with the "old" sex history exam? Did they give you a second test, and why?

QuoteI had previously filled out a Sexual History questionaire for this.  I arrived for my first poly with him, forgot my wallet, couldn't pay, was rescheduled and paid the $100 'fine'

I HATE WHEN I FORGET MY WALLET!!!! But you have to understand, a polygraph exam appointment isn't like other appointments. The examiner blocks out upwards of 3 to 4 hours (half day) for a test----and if you screwed up, he gets screwed. You may be a nice guy who is completely trustworthy  by your estimation, but in my career I have tested maybe a total of 3 felon's pro bono (without payment)----with all due respect, we see a lot of con artists in the convict community.

QuoteThe polygrapher asked if I had any paper work, I did not.  I asked WHAT paperwork, he handed me a blank copy of the form I filled out a couple of weeks ago (Sexual History form).  I stated that I had given the form to my therapist, as instructed.  I also asked if I could retain the blank form (Sexual History form) I had just been handed for my records, he said I could.

The examiner was probably a little frustrated that a communication breakdown had occurred. He probably had a little reserved disappointment or even disdain for your therapist's lack of organization. Jeeez, who knows---regardless, the day was a cluster F from the minute you walked in the door.

QuoteYeah, I was PISSED.  I called the polygrapher a liar AND a thief for stealing my money and making false claims concerning the form.  It was a VERY tense meeting.  A THIRD polygraph was scheduled.

This was a colossal mistake. A good measure of rule is to never act out around law enforcement and treatment professionals----as both are viewing your behavior to at the very least assess if your are dangerous to them, much less the community at large. Is this the first time that a beauracracy has failed you? Try not go postal next time, as when you screw up, it is better that others do not verbally assault you, eh? Likewise.

QuoteI arrived at the second poly exam.  Polygrapher asked if I had filled out the form he had given me.  I had not, of course.  I told him the therapist had given him the original form all ready.

Twice? Holy cow I would have arrived with the pope's birth certificate if I thought there was a chance that I could be charged again for a botched paperwork task---I don't care who's fault it was! You really flaked on this one, and it seems you are blaming everyone but your self. Sound familiar?

QuoteI arrived for poly #3.  He STILL did not have the form!  I STILL had not filled out a SECOND one!  I had been assured AGAIN from my therapist that the polygrapher did indeed HAVE the original form.  Polygrapher once again denied having the form, I was denied my third polygraph.  I was once again charged a $100 but before we could schedule a FOURTH polygraph I cursed him up one side and down the other for incompetence.  I was so angry I stood up to leave the office and he PUSHED ME OUT THE DOOR!  I immediatly told him if he touched me again I would dial 911 and report an assault.  He responded he would call 911 and have me removed if I didn't leave NOW.  No further polygraph was scheduled.  My therapists SUPERVISOR ordered the therapist to kick me out of treatment.  A revocation hearing was scheduled., 'failure to complete a polygraph'.  NOT for termination of treatment, an important issue to understand here.

Your losing me with every word here Jester. It seems now you were playing with your freedom as part of some self-figured principle. In my office, you verbally assault me, and you are gone----and readers keep in mind that such is extremely rare. Jester, the last place to have a Jerry Springer show is in a sex offender specialists' office. You are supposed to be more in tuned to behavior than that at 6 yrs of treatment.

QuoteA FOURTH polygraph was scheduled IN MY ATTORNEYS OFFICE with the same polygrapher.

I can't imagine why any examiner would come back for more of you, unless you had a far more friendly relationship with your examiner and you are leaving out an actually decent repoire from readers here.

QuoteThe fact that I did complete one on the FOURTH attempt was dismissed.  The case focused on the previous THREE failed attempts.  This was ruled 'substantial' and 'inexcusable', I was revoked and sentenced to an additional five years probation.  My THERAPIST testified on my behalf, stating he understood the confusion, did not have a problem with the polygraphs and was WELCOME back into his group.

Here is the thing. You really got too comfy in yor probation. It amazes me why someone wouldn't be far more compliant with so much to lose. I would take any manner of mistake and rectify it before showing my ass to authority the way you did to your examiner. It really is simple. Take your test, go to therapy, always keep your paper work handy, stay clean and don't "cuss anyone up and down." You basically are presenting yourself as a victim----and although I would disagree with your harsh sentence of an additional 5-yrs of probation, it ain't my call. You are on the wrong websit----that is if you are in fact even allowed to be on the internet----which is unlikely. You should be on the website antiJester.org---How to beat the Jester habit of blaming others for easily remedied mistakes and life decisions.

You are in the wrong place to keep a smooth and trouble free probation period. Your problem is simple. :)

EJ:
Amen.
Sorry I haven't been writing as much as I'd like too. Just figuring out what I wan't to do for the holidays. LOL. I'm thinking a few bottles of Imperial, and some Guaro (not the bird poo poo). Bueno.
Jester Jester:
I'm having a hard time reading your posts, along with believing your posts. I've shown in the past how I normally disect a post (thus being accused of working as a polygrapher (I'm thinking about it more and more though) in the past.
I'll give you a hint on how to lie more effectively. Ok, I won't. But jeese your excellent use of capitalization is A. eye sore, B. is my target. Thats all I paid attention to really. I'm lying just so you know. I didn't want you to think I'm that sweet, and silly...  :o :o
Oh well, Feliz Navidad, y un prospero ano nuevo. Pura Vida!

"Nice" hasn't been working, but your right, my choices are limited.  The polygrapher even apologized to me after I got out of my 30 day sentence!  I 'let it go' for a year or so, only recently has it been an issue once again.  My concern is that I will be revoked again at the end of this current 5 year term (not get a clinical discharge) and at this rate I may never get off probation.

I have virtually no restrictions as far as probation goes.  No curfew, no limits on internet use, etc.  Typical stuff, no drugs/drinking, which I never did anyway.

I keep getting moved to new treatment providers by probation.  They seem to think I'm 'not making enough' progress and maybe a new group will help.  Everytime they do that I have to start over.  If they move me again I will file a motion to stay with current group.

Seriously, there have been no issues with a polygraph other than a couple of 'undetermined' responses and the usual pressure to get a confession.  I have nothing to 'confess' to, but of course 'suspicion' lingers in this kind of situation.  I've been to a lot of polygraphers!  I've never had a problem with a THERAPIST, but the P.O.'s consistently dismiss there recommendations.  For instance, my current therapist recommends clinical discharge, the P.O. won't even consider it.

Yeah, keep my head down, stay quiet, do my time, of course thats good advice.  Victim stance?  I hear that a lot, in my case, the shoe fits.   ::)

Thanks for the advice, it was helpful, I feel better.  Maybe I just needed to 'rant' over this thing...

By the way, I didn't have a problem paying the $100 fine because I forgot my wallet.  It was noted in court that forgetting my wallet was a convient way to avoid the polygraph, no true!  I DID have a problem when I realized he could not have done the polygraph anyway because he didn't have the form.  Under those circumstances I felt it was improper to charge me.

Jester,

For someone convicted of a sex crime and currently on probation, I must admit that "pushing the envelope" would be a gross understatement in your case. I can't think of anyone in their right mind that would act the way you did.

Based on the details that you provided within your posts, it seems probable that you knew if you showed up to take the polygraph exams without the completed form, the polygraph examiner would not give you the scheduled polygraph exam. However, it doesn't sound as though things worked out as you had probably hoped for.  

In the end, you still had to take the polygraph, was violated on the terms of your probation, and sentenced to another 5-yrs of probation.

What did you seriously expect the end result was going to be...??


triple x

As has been noted in other posts, therapists, polygraphers, probation officers will do what ever they have to do to maintain their careers.  In the case of my probation officer, that was lie, under oath in court.  She was caught and demoted.  The polygrapher and the therapist are also lieing.  I was told to hand in the form to the therapist, who would supply it to the polygrapher.  Did the therapist do that?  Poly says he did not, finger pointing begins.  Someone screwed up, to cover their ass I get revoked.

As I had told them all from the beginning I would NOT fill out a second form with such detailed personal information until it could be determined what happened to the first form.

Stupid on my part?  Well there is a lot of stupidity to go around.  Therapist and the counter parts should be held accountable for their screw ups.  There is no appeal process for an abusive therapist, probation officer or polygrapher that really works.  At best your given lip service, if that.  At worst your revoked and sent to jail to shut you up.

Sure, I cussed out the polygrapher, for lieing to me, charging me funds without cause.  Does that justify a physical assault by a member of the therapy team?  Even in jail if your assaulted by a gaurd, for any reason, there is a procedure to file a report.  It has been my experience that these reports are taken seriously, the outcome weighs heavily in favor of the gaurd of course.  In treatment, there is no procedure to 'report' ANY abuse from the therapist team members.  They are summarily dimissed and you are promptly accused of:
1.  Victim Stance.
2.  Not making progress.
3.  Kicked out of the program.

Lets just assume for a moment that real abuse of power DOES exist at times and good people pay the price.  What controls on the balance of power in this therapist program?  There are virtually none, that needs to change.  I served my 30 days with my head held high.  Rumor has it my revocation and the subsequent result to my probation officers career made a difference.  Perhaps, but the 'cops' are now extracting their revenge for bringing down 'one of theirs'.  A balance of power is desperatly needed, in some States more than others.

What did I seriously expect?  I expected someone to be seriously HONEST.  Which is what we hear constantly about in therapy.  Being honest with yourself, to others, taking repsonsibility, etc.  Well, I'd like to see some of that.  When you make a mistake, you should be able to 'own up to it' without being overly punished.  That should apply to the therapists as well as the therapees.  Thats the problem, people are afraid to admit to anything within the therapist team work frame.  The logic and therapy that results is a sham, it's far from true therapy.  Therapists, polygraphers, probation officers work for the State, patients are merely 'pawns' to be played for a career move.

Jester,

Collectively your posts are beginning to remind me of the brat child who continually pokes a dog with a stick and then blames the dog when he gets bit.

What you did Jester was take what could have been an honest mistake or simply an oversight and by not just asking for your therapist to call the polygrapher in your presence, allowed it to grow way out of proportion in some attempt on your part to rebel against your probation.

Congratulations it worked; you got revoked. Hold your head high you really showed them.  30 days in jail and 5 more years probation, gee that's almost like winning the Lotto isn't it.  If you continue to make such stellar decisions you could possibly spend the rest of your life on probation for one thing or another.

I've looked through your posts and while you claim that the polygrapher lied to you, I don't see where you proved that he ever had the form in his possession when he said he did not. To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by simple error.

The first time your form wasn't in the polygrapher's possession it was somebody else's fault, EVERY TIME after that it was as much your fault as anyone else's. You failed to take reasonable steps to insure that your history form got where it needed to go. Then you verbally attacked the polygrapher to the point that he felt the need to forcibly remove you from his office. Once again you were probably trying to provoke an assault in order to create a "situation".

I don't have any clue as to your mental stability or your intelligence level, but I hope you don't see these decisions as the smartest things you've ever done. They are probably not any smarter than the decisions you made that made you a  sex-offender in the first place.

Sancho Panza

The question is:

WHO had the form?  Someone is lieing.  Misplaced?  OK, perhaps it will turn up, we can wait.  I never did find out what had become of it, it just showed up at some point.  When the therapist assured me it was handled, I trusted him.  Your right, I should have followed through with some phone calls because you can't trust him, right?   ;D

Thats the fundamental problem.  Good therapy involves building a certain level of 'trust'.  Bad therapy just uses a 'stick', threats, etc.  This is what I'm finding in the current group I'm with.

In my opinion, therapists need more than just a simple 'class' to become certified.  Real therapists are under certain ethical agreements with a governing body, contracted by the State therapists may or may not be fully qualified and certainly don't answer to any general professional group.  In fact, I've actually heard on a number of occasions the disdain expressed for PhD's by casual therapists without a full degree.  I'd like to see that change.

Remeber it was the Judge who said, "Apply for early release."  It was the original probation officer who apologized and said I should not have been revoked.

But when I entered the new group, I was told I would be there five years, they didn't even know exactly why I had been revoked, just another body in the group.  I'm considering filing a motion with the Judge to make the court aware of the current circumstances and the disregard of the courts instructions.

When I got out of my chair and turned my back to exit the office I was doing exactly what I had been told to do, remove yourself from the situation.  They didn't cover what to do when your attacked with your back turned.

Quote from: Jester on Dec 23, 2007, 11:48 PM Good therapy involves building a certain level of 'trust'.  Bad therapy just uses a 'stick', threats, etc.  This is what I'm finding in the current group I'm with.

"Good therapy" involves teaching Jester to accept responsibility for himself and his deeds. In "good therapy", Jester is the only one there to learn anything. "Good therapy involves Jester giving himself over to the process so he can learn NOT TO DO those things that got him into "court ordered" therapy in the first place.

Jester is not a "therapy evaluator" and he is not the "therapy police". Jester is a person who has either been found guilty or pled guilty to criminal sexually deviant behavior and has voluntarily entered into a contract which includes P.O. supervision, Polygraph, and Counseling in order to avoid incarceration. Therapy is not failing Jester, Jester is failing therapy.

Anytime that Jester decides that Polygraph is too much of a hassle or his P.O. is too much of a Jerk, or His Counselor is incompetent, Jester is free to revoke his release contract and return to prison where his life will be more structured; where he can easier manipulate the system to his personal advantage while learning NOTHING, so that after his release he can go make himself another victim or victims and start the process all over again until he gets to ride the big b!t@h as a habitual offender and spend the rest of his life in a "6X10" in Ad Seg or out in general population playing "Drop the Soap" with Bubba and the Buggerettes.  


Sancho Panza

Jester,

Although you continue to argue the point that you were the victim; the fact is, your actions were inappropriate at best.

It's always best to err on the side of caution, and display a positive demeanor, good attitude, and appropriate behavior. All of which you failed to produce; thus the end result.


triple x

Yeah, I get it, you can all pat yourself on the back for standing up for the legal community and go back to sleep now, all is well...

It's OK to for an officer to lie under oath in court, my bad, my fault, I accept full responsibility for pushing an officer to see no other choice.  Machavelli rules!

It's OK for a polygrapher to loose his temper, turn red in the face and physically assault a client.  My bad, I accept full responsibility for pissing him off (even if he was lieing, and he DAM sure was).

Strange thing, when my 'victim' stole a $1000 from me I got pissed off and shoved them and got 5 years probation.  Oh well, I'm just a civilian and don't have the special privileges of a 'therapy team' member.

With the above responses it's no freakin' wonder offenders 'rights' are non-existant.  How about some of YOU people 'taking responsibility' for JUSTIFYING lieing assaulting members of the court.  HELLO!!

A pro polygrapher site carefully disquised as an anti polygraph site.  Well done, sure had me fooled!    8-)

Jester:

(You wrote)

"A pro polygrapher site carefully disquised [sic] as an anti polygraph site.  Well done, sure had me fooled!"

Where do you get that this is a "Pro Polygraph" site; and how do you associate that with being criticized for your behavior? Criticizing the type of behavior that you described (by your own hand) has absolutely no association with anyone's views of polygraph testing.

You were not violated for failing your polygraph exam... you were clearly violated as a result of the nature of conduct you demonstrated. I'm not surprised that you were violated, which has nothing to do with my views on polygraph testing.

Learn to accept a little responsibility for your actions, and stop blaming others for everything that goes wrong in life. You made your own bed... now you have to sleep in it. That's no body's fault but your own.

The key is to learn from your mistakes; accept responsibility; and not blame everyone else involved.


triple x

Jester,
I wouldn't imagine that ANYONE on this site whether they fit into your definition of "pro-polygraph" or "anti-polygraph" wants CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS running the streets unsupervised until they learn to stop their deviant behavior AND conform to societies rules. We may strongly disagree on the way convicts should be monitored, but I haven't heard any say that they should be just turned loose on society without restriction.

If you are looking for a forum to state your case and recieve input. You have done that. My first response to you was to acknowledge your difficulties and offer real suggestions as to how you might alleviate your problems.

However. with each successive post it appears more and more like you are looking for someone to say that you should get a free pass to the street because you think you have been poorly treated, I'm guessing came to the wrong place.

Sancho Panza

If society continues to condone physical assualts and lieing under oath in court, as THIS site has surely done, there will be no reform on ANY issue this site hopes to achieve.

If all you can do is cast 'blame', 'justify' and push the 'victim stance' agenda whats the point of this site?  What can you ever hope to achieve?

Rodney King was a jerk, he brought it on himself.  Clearly the courts ruled that did not justify what was done to him.  Clearly I'm a jerk, but I'm willing to go to jail and stand up and be counted in hopes of making a difference.

There is NO justification, NONE, for a polygrapher physically assualting a client.  What part of that don't you understand?  Following the reasoning that I 'provoked' it, then certainly I was justified in attacking my victim, who 'provoked' it.  Two standards of law at work here?  Well duh, always has been.  What can YOU do to help?  Apparently nothing, as you don't even see the problem.  Drink some more of that 'God and Country' and to 'hell with sex offenders' Koolaid and go back to sleep.

Quote from: Jester on Dec 28, 2007, 10:41 PMIf society continues to condone physical assualts and lieing under oath in court, as THIS site has surely done, there will be no reform on ANY issue this site hopes to achieve.

If all you can do is cast 'blame', 'justify' and push the 'victim stance' agenda whats the point of this site?  What can you ever hope to achieve?

Rodney King was a jerk, he brought it on himself.  Clearly the courts ruled that did not justify what was done to him.  Clearly I'm a jerk, but I'm willing to go to jail and stand up and be counted in hopes of making a difference.

There is NO justification, NONE, for a polygrapher physically assualting a client.  What part of that don't you understand?  Following the reasoning that I 'provoked' it, then certainly I was justified in attacking my victim, who 'provoked' it.  Two standards of law at work here?  Well duh, always has been.  What can YOU do to help?  Apparently nothing, as you don't even see the problem.  Drink some more of that 'God and Country' and to 'hell with sex offenders' Koolaid and go back to sleep.

Apart from the fact that I have already suggested that you are free to revoke your contract and go to jail for your principles ANY TIME you choose; Just what remedy would you deem appropriate for these wrongs that allege have been done to you?

Sancho Panza

Jester,

What does any of this have to do with the lie behind the lie detector? Your issue is process related, has nothing to do whatsoever with the efficacy of polygraphy.

Committing a sex offense has quite a bit to do with exercising power and control over the victim (and others, for that matter). Being on probation/parole is still about power control: the fact that you now have none to very little. That is the reality of the situation you put yourself in. How hard would it have been for you to call the polygrapher the day before to confirm receipt of your history questionaire? No sympathy here whatsoever.

And for what it's worth, this is coming from a sex offender, and I've certainly seen my share of incompetent state employees (and a few really, really good people who cared about me and took a personal interest). So what if a judge was sympathetic to your cause/case? You may not ever have any other dealings with that person. You will, however, be face to face with treatment providers and probation officers until the day your court ordered supervision ends.

I seriously doubt if any court will ever grant early termination. That is too much of a risk to take. The first person released early who re-offends is going to come back to haunt the legal system for all eternity. Of all of the probationers I saw during my time, I would have to say that I was a prime candidate for early release. As soon as I brought it up to probation department, boom, I'm wearing an ankle bracelet for something I reported - over six months prior - to my therapist (who thought it was a funny situation, zero risk whatsoever, but technically a violation). I do agree that what your therapist may deem minor or insignificant in terms of violation can be used by a probation officer to rain brimstone and fire down upon you if it suits his/her agenda. If you run into someone who is dishonest/disingenuous in his/her dealings with you, your case has to be bulletproof. The fact your probation officer got caught, so to speak, was a lucky break for you.

Given that you say you have no or very little problem in "passing" polygraph exams, your best course of action is to shut up, buck up, and do your time like a good little sex offender. Is it fair? No, not by a long shot, but neither is what you did to your victim.

Jester:

Why don't you simply do yourself and everyone else on this message board a huge favor, and find another website that better supports convicted sex offenders and chronic whiners. You are not going to find any supporters and/or sympathizers on this website.

May I suggest the following?

whinnersRus.com
sexoffenders.org
crybabies.org
whatisresponsibility.com


xxx

If you could put your EXTREME prejudice aside long enough to consider some facts and logic there may be a little hope for a reasonable dialog.

My case has everything to do with polygraph.  It is the intimidation factor that is used that is the primary tool of polygraphy, the rest is junk science.  I didn't even know I was supposed to have any paperwork on the first visit, thats why I asked for the form in question.  Which I then recognized and asked to keep.  I was NOT told to fill it out and return with it, THAT is a lie.  My therapist AFFIRMED he had given the form to the polygrapher, I thought nothing more of it.  It was only after I was refused the second time I realized the poly could not be completed without the form.  Which of course means it could not have been completed the FIRST time either!  Yet, I was charged a $100 for both visits.  Once again I was assured the the polygrapher had the form for the third visit, which again he denied having.

Now between the second and third visit I was told to NOT contact the polygrapher, the therapist contacted probation and in the strongest possible terms wanted me to go to a different polygrapher.  Tension was so high by now the poly results would be in question.  The probation officer (same one who lied in court) refused, and INSISTED I return to the original polygrapher.

There was no appeal of any nature.  Probation simply over ruled therapy, as they often do.  The disatrous results of the third visit the therapist saw coming a mile away, but his hands were tied.  He swears he gave the paperwork to the poly, poly says he didn't have it, I went to jail over it.  Only when my lawyers demanded he perform the poly in their office did the paperwork turn up!

I have no sympathy for you either, your prejudice is to extreme to see the facts.  Sex Offender, right him off, his fault, end of story.  You know this hasn't got squat to do with the offense, it has everything to do with how polys are administered.  FEAR, THREATS, INTERVIEWS and a ZERO appeal process with a universal 'scew em' their dangerous to society attitude that justifies lies and assaults.  Classic Machivelli.

I would sue the polygrapher in a heart beat AND the probation officer, if the law allowed for it.  Why?  Not out of anger, but because it's the only thing they understand, it seems to be the only way to bring about reform.

One guy in my group went to jail for four days because of a mistake on the paper work.  He came back to class talking about how his heart was filled with love and he forgave his probation officer, blah blah blah.  I wanted to throw up.  What REALLY was happening was the guy knew if he uttered one word of complaint he would get nailed so hard in 'therapy' he'd never get off probration.  WAKE UP PEOPLE, were talking about a class of folks (sex offenders) who are largely unable to speak for themselves and poly are routinely used to 'convict' them of additional crimes as a 'tool'.  A good tool?  Sure!  Gotta have it, very effective.  An abused tool?  BIG TIME.  Just because I pass the poly's don't mean I trust them, there a farce, total and complete.

Your right, I need to find another site (or a lawyer).  I never seen a bigger group of two faced jerks.

Antipolygraph my a$$, freakin' loosers.

Jester,

What exactly is it that you are trying so hard to achieve here...??

Are you searching for someone that will agree with your views?

Are you seeking someone that will tell you they understand your situation?

Are you looking for someone to say that you were wronged by the system?

Help me to understand exactly what it is that you are looking for.


triple x

Jester,

How do you conclude that anyone here is two-faced? The jerk part I can understand, but where do you get the two-faced part?

Has someone previously agreed... and later disagreed with you?

I suspect your anger and bitterness is being driven primarily by a lack of support staff?


xxx

I didn't come here looking for sympathy.  I didn't come here to hear the same things I hear every month in so called 'therapy'.  Take responsibility, victim stance, quite being negative, etc etc ad naseum.  I came here to report the FACTS of my case in hopes that it might HELP someone with theres.  I came here on the off chance that I might be directed to some one that could help bring about some reform within the system.  Someone with the GUTS to stand up and be counted and risk failure for the better good.

My probation officer apologized, the polygrapher apologized to me, personally.  Just like I apologized to my victim, I took responsibility, I offer no excuse.  But heres the difference:  My apology to my victim also came with a sentence, I accept that.  An apology from those within my therapy group means nothing if it's not accompanied by some form of 'sentence'.  I am STILL experiencing the results of their acknowledged mistakes and am constantly told if I don't take 'responsibility' for 'failing to take a polygrahp' I will never get off probation.  OK, I accept that, I will never get off probation, I may go to jail if I 'keep it up'.  So be it, if thats the only way to affect reform I accept my fate.  I am NOT responsible for 'failing to take a polygraph', nor will I ever change my position.

Well, OK, sentenced long enough I guess I could become just like the fellow who did four days in jail because of a clearical mistake.  My heart is filled with love for my probation officer (but I'll fail the polygraph if they ask me that).  I totally forgive them for ignoring the therapists recommendations (and pigs fly).  All is wonderful and good, and whatever else they demand I say.  I will bow to whatever flag they offer, given enough 'time'.  But that won't make the wrong right...

Jester,

For the record:

I am not a supporter of polygraph testing, especially pre-employment polygraph testing. I personally believe that false positive results are higher than reported by State, Local, and Federal agencies.

However, if a polygraph examiner "bluffs" a damaging admission or confession from a criminal suspect during a polygraph exam, more power to them.

I simply do not believe that polygraph testing alone, short of a confession/admission is a reliable method for detecting truth from deception solely based on a set of charts.

Telling the truth is no guarantee of successfully passing a polygraph exam.


triple x

We certainly agree on that point!  "Bluff" being the key word here, it is the skill of the interviewer that is most significant.  Crossing the line into physical assault is another thing.  Options if they do?  Extremely limited.

Jester,
I am glad you have written here on this site. You are wrong to say that antipolygraph.org is "pro-polygraph." Nothing further from the truth.
You have revealed something very telling about paroled/probationary sex offenders that I believe the anti-crowd should hear in bright bold letters. No matter how folks attempt to help you, you sabotage efforts. You groom people to curry sympathy, and you distort concepts of human behavior and decency to fit into your odd belief system. It sounds to me that you were "bounced" out of your polygraph examiner's office for being scary and threatening. You make me nervous just reading your posts, much less if I had you in my face cussing me. This "bounce" is not assault, it is a business' self defense----no different than if you were at a night club acting like a horses ass and cussing a bartender.

Incidentally, every time you mention in passing your offense for conviction, you brush it off with a sort of yea yea yea, I'm sorry..so punish me, I'll go to BS treatent and pretend to feel sorry for my victim...blah blah blah ad naus.  Nice attitude...defiant, remorseless, loveless, and self righteous. You appear to be quite the catch. So you were convicted for a sex offense because you "shoved" someone? Sounds like a classic----and I mean CLASSIC sex offender distortion. You infer that your instant offense has nothing to do with your supervision----which is dead wrong. Your offense of conviction has everything to do with your supervision. An example of such relevancy would be if your instant offense had a component of violence, that your treatment and supervision will be very keyed toward your ability to control your rage. How is that anger thing coming along? Your entire outlook on probation has a theme of contempt for the system, rather than self-contempt. Such ignoring of one's self and the behaviors which get one's self into trouble are classic earmarks of a personality disorder----typically nicknamed narcissistic personality disorder. As someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound. It shouldn't suprise many that  narcissism explains why an individual would say, engage in sexual activity with children or force sex on an unwilling lady in the first place. I mean everyone could agree that such a crime requires the individual to be extremely selfish, to say the least. Therapy is a powerful thing as it helps give folks great insight into their development and corresponding behaviors----be it a sex offender, or a professional sky-diver-----therapy holds power over self. You don't seem to appreciate that, like some of the more inspiring offenders I have seen.

A talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy, but a truly evolved individual will understand it. A child molester should become a child protector. You don't strike me as a child protector----hell, you can't seem to protect yourself.

QuoteWhat does any of this have to do with the lie behind the lie detector? Your issue is process related, has nothing to do whatsoever with the efficacy of polygraphy.

The relevance is that this site provides sex offenders with advice from the ebook TLBTLD to lie, manipulate, and disengage their responsibilities that were assigned to individuals such as Jester for having committed a sexually deviant crime against a weakling. The book is quite unambiguous about placing victimhood on anyone who is to be tested. The probelm with about 75% of sex offenders is that they tend to be very receptive to the notion that nothing is their fault and they are themselves victims. Think of TLBTLD as being a can of gasoline and many (not all) sex offenders having egos made of embers. George, Gino, and others don't care to ingest such facts. The amount of sex offender polygraph testing in the US equals or exceeds that of applicant screening testing----and so it stands to reason that the amount of readers of TLBTLD consist of half convicted sex offenders---give or take. The inductive reasoning practiced on this site has implications that put kids at risk. Period. :'(

The site's owner once expressed doubts about the volume of sex offenders visiting this site, and I suspect he regularly engages in wishful thinking. I tested an offender last Spring that, in a surge of angry passion, attempted to bite the penis off of his 6 year old nephew. While on parole, he was a George Maschke fan, and avidly antipolygraph. Rather than disclosing his thoughts and behaviors, he merely reiterated his contempt for polygraph----over and over and over. He very much was distracted with polygraph and only after some years in treatment did he finally admit to having sexual feelings for very small boys (duh). For some time he found an advocate in this site.....spending far too much precious time (barrowed sister's laptop)on selfish pursuits and no effort on self-evaluation. Oh, I almost forgot, he was also chatting with kids online----but "not for sexual reasons"---he only wanted to better understand his own lost childhood by befriending kids. Needless to say, he failed every test, caused mny sleepless nights nights for all involved, and learned nothing about himself. Scary.

I mention the above offender because his righteous indignation reminds me so much of Jester. I don't mean to imply that they are similar in any way other than their capacity for misguided contempt of the corrections/CJ system. It is a high order of projection and displacement of anger-----"blame the blamer" if you will.

I am told by a detective that NAMBLA even has a link to this site. Congrats on the new Co-Op! George and Gino, I believe a ribbon cutting ceremony is in order. At some point, administrators will have to stop telling themselves that they are heroes in some kind of crusade. Ignoring the facts at the peril of kids for self-serving satisfaction is psychopathic.

I have served my time, therapy was of great benefit to myself.  The time I'm serving now is not related to my original offense, in my opinion.

I think at some point you have to weigh time served against the crime committed and come to the conclusion enough is enough.  I also understand some people need to be monitored for life, there are indeed some scary people within my group.  As the Judge noted, I was told to apply for early release.  Probation had no intention of allowing that to happen from the beginning.  They have in effect over ruled the Judge.  Solution?  Let the Judge know through filing a motion.  File a motion and piss off the therapy team, justice is difficult to find.

You cannot paint all sex offenders with the same brush.  Not all victims are minors, as has been suggested.  I hesitate to talk about the details of my offense because I DON'T want to leave the impression that some how it was justified, it was not.

It is not justified being revoked essentially because of clerical errors due to the therapy team.  For revocation to take place you need two things:
1.  An inexcusable offense.
2.  A substantial offense.

While failing to take a polygraph is substantial, the circumstances in my case were hardly inexcusable.  Digusting?  OK, I'll give you that.  Provoked by errors?  Most certainly.  Assaulted by the polygrapher?  Not justified, as he acknowledged and apologized for.

As a polygrapher at what point would you assault a client?  I was doing what I learned to do in therapy, walk away.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 28, 2007, 11:03 PMJester,

What does any of this have to do with the lie behind the lie detector? Your issue is process related, has nothing to do whatsoever with the efficacy of polygraphy.

Committing a sex offense has quite a bit to do with exercising power and control over the victim (and others, for that matter). Being on probation/parole is still about power control: the fact that you now have none to very little. That is the reality of the situation you put yourself in. How hard would it have been for you to call the polygrapher the day before to confirm receipt of your history questionaire? No sympathy here whatsoever.

And for what it's worth, this is coming from a sex offender, and I've certainly seen my share of incompetent state employees (and a few really, really good people who cared about me and took a personal interest). So what if a judge was sympathetic to your cause/case? You may not ever have any other dealings with that person. You will, however, be face to face with treatment providers and probation officers until the day your court ordered supervision ends.

I seriously doubt if any court will ever grant early termination. That is too much of a risk to take. The first person released early who re-offends is going to come back to haunt the legal system for all eternity. Of all of the probationers I saw during my time, I would have to say that I was a prime candidate for early release. As soon as I brought it up to probation department, boom, I'm wearing an ankle bracelet for something I reported - over six months prior - to my therapist (who thought it was a funny situation, zero risk whatsoever, but technically a violation). I do agree that what your therapist may deem minor or insignificant in terms of violation can be used by a probation officer to rain brimstone and fire down upon you if it suits his/her agenda. If you run into someone who is dishonest/disingenuous in his/her dealings with you, your case has to be bulletproof. The fact your probation officer got caught, so to speak, was a lucky break for you.

Given that you say you have no or very little problem in "passing" polygraph exams, your best course of action is to shut up, buck up, and do your time like a good little sex offender. Is it fair? No, not by a long shot, but neither is what you did to your victim.

Thank you Mr. T.

While you have pulled no punches about your impressions of the system and your experiences, you've never equivocated about your own responsibility. Most of us are convinced there isn't any single issue which by itself causes someone to sexually assault another person - especially someone they are supposed to care about - it takes a sufficient combination of issues + access and opportunity. If you have managed to maintain some awareness of and manage the constellation of issues that led you to make the choice to offend, then you are perhaps giving your victim, family community and maybe even this website what they deserve and need from you. For that you deserve some respect.

Personal responsibility is the solution we are all hoping for, but that exists in authentic form only in the context of accountability to others. If sex offenders are going to read and post at this site, they should know that their message will be received with much more respect and credibility when it is coupled with clear statements of personal responsibility. Accountability to others exists, unfortunately, in the context of some minimal description of the circumstances and details. The alternative to personal responsibility is, of course, to cause chaos, blame others, and externalize all responsibility.

So, thanks Mr. T for setting that example here. It does no good to set low expectations around persons who are capable of harming others. I do not believe that people often succeed at faking like good little sex offenders. Do you?

Jester:

You would be wise to learn from Mr. T. He's pretty clear about the fact that he's a sex offender, and has even told this site about his crime. That cannot be easy, and I hope he's not proud of it (there are some things you're not supposed to be proud of). I also hope he's not blunted and calloused (that's the opposite of empathic) to its impact on his own sense of self, because any pretense at self-respect in the context of denial of harm to another human would simply be grandiosity, arrogance and narcissism (dangerous stuff).

Mr. T seems to know that the offense is the context for these other problems and experiences, and his statements indicated he hasn't neglected to think about what happened to the victim. Mr. T seems to know that fairness is a fallacy, and I would guess that he also knows that trust is not necessarily an objective of treatment. Trust is, after all, the Humpty-Dumpty of all problems – once shattered, all the kings horses and all the kings men... (HD was even warned of his recklessness and arrogance).

I would disagree with you Jester, Mr. T, or anyone else if they were to suggest that treatment or supervision for sexual offense crimes  is in any way about retribution, serving one's time, or paying some "debt to society." How does one repay the loss of innocence and safety? So, you ask, if its not about "fair" and not about "trust," what's it about? Your treatment and supervision are about what do you need to learn about yourself, what does your victim and your community need from you, in terms of attitudes and behaviors, so that we can all be safe while you are living in the community. Safe does not equate trust. In fact, "safety" is sometimes inverse to our sense-of-safety and trust. Think about it. People who don't know anything about you or your crime might "feel" safe, because of what they don't know. On the other hand people who know of your crime might feel "less safe," because of what they know, while they are actually safer because they know not to trust you under certain circumstances. Its paradoxical. If you don't get the joke yet, then you haven't spent enough time benefiting greatly (that's lawyer talk) from treatment.  The joke is this: people will be safer and trust you more when you remind them that you are not safe and that they shouldn't trust you (under certain circumstances).

I'd also suggest you will not be making your ongoing polygraph experiences any easier by reading this site.

alright - enough sunshine.

Happy New Year everyone.

Be Safe.



r

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 29, 2007, 07:50 AMJester,
I am glad you have written here on this site. You are wrong to say that antipolygraph.org is "pro-polygraph." Nothing further from the truth.
You have revealed something very telling about paroled/probationary sex offenders that I believe the anti-crowd should hear in bright bold letters. No matter how folks attempt to help you, you sabotage efforts. You groom people to curry sympathy, and you distort concepts of human behavior and decency to fit into your odd belief system. It sounds to me that you were "bounced" out of your polygraph examiner's office for being scary and threatening. You make me nervous just reading your posts, much less if I had you in my face cussing me. This "bounce" is not assault, it is a business' self defense----no different than if you were at a night club acting like a horses ass and cussing a bartender.

Incidentally, every time you mention in passing your offense for conviction, you brush it off with a sort of yea yea yea, I'm sorry..so punish me, I'll go to BS treatent and pretend to feel sorry for my victim...blah blah blah ad naus.  Nice attitude...defiant, remorseless, loveless, and self righteous. You appear to be quite the catch. So you were convicted for a sex offense because you "shoved" someone? Sounds like a classic----and I mean CLASSIC sex offender distortion. You infer that your instant offense has nothing to do with your supervision----which is dead wrong. Your offense of conviction has everything to do with your supervision. An example of such relevancy would be if your instant offense had a component of violence, that your treatment and supervision will be very keyed toward your ability to control your rage. How is that anger thing coming along? Your entire outlook on probation has a theme of contempt for the system, rather than self-contempt. Such ignoring of one's self and the behaviors which get one's self into trouble are classic earmarks of a personality disorder----typically nicknamed narcissistic personality disorder. As someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound. It shouldn't suprise many that  narcissism explains why an individual would say, engage in sexual activity with children or force sex on an unwilling lady in the first place. I mean everyone could agree that such a crime requires the individual to be extremely selfish, to say the least. Therapy is a powerful thing as it helps give folks great insight into their development and corresponding behaviors----be it a sex offender, or a professional sky-diver-----therapy holds power over self. You don't seem to appreciate that, like some of the more inspiring offenders I have seen.

A talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy, but a truly evolved individual will understand it. A child molester should become a child protector. You don't strike me as a child protector----hell, you can't seem to protect yourself.

QuoteWhat does any of this have to do with the lie behind the lie detector? Your issue is process related, has nothing to do whatsoever with the efficacy of polygraphy.

The relevance is that this site provides sex offenders with advice from the ebook TLBTLD to lie, manipulate, and disengage their responsibilities that were assigned to individuals such as Jester for having committed a sexually deviant crime against a weakling. The book is quite unambiguous about placing victimhood on anyone who is to be tested. The probelm with about 75% of sex offenders is that they tend to be very receptive to the notion that nothing is their fault and they are themselves victims. Think of TLBTLD as being a can of gasoline and many (not all) sex offenders having egos made of embers. George, Gino, and others don't care to ingest such facts. The amount of sex offender polygraph testing in the US equals or exceeds that of applicant screening testing----and so it stands to reason that the amount of readers of TLBTLD consist of half convicted sex offenders---give or take. The inductive reasoning practiced on this site has implications that put kids at risk. Period. :'(

The site's owner once expressed doubts about the volume of sex offenders visiting this site, and I suspect he regularly engages in wishful thinking. I tested an offender last Spring that, in a surge of angry passion, attempted to bite the penis off of his 6 year old nephew. While on parole, he was a George Maschke fan, and avidly antipolygraph. Rather than disclosing his thoughts and behaviors, he merely reiterated his contempt for polygraph----over and over and over. He very much was distracted with polygraph and only after some years in treatment did he finally admit to having sexual feelings for very small boys (duh). For some time he found an advocate in this site.....spending far too much precious time (barrowed sister's laptop)on selfish pursuits and no effort on self-evaluation. Oh, I almost forgot, he was also chatting with kids online----but "not for sexual reasons"---he only wanted to better understand his own lost childhood by befriending kids. Needless to say, he failed every test, caused mny sleepless nights nights for all involved, and learned nothing about himself. Scary.

I mention the above offender because his righteous indignation reminds me so much of Jester. I don't mean to imply that they are similar in any way other than their capacity for misguided contempt of the corrections/CJ system. It is a high order of projection and displacement of anger-----"blame the blamer" if you will.

I am told by a detective that NAMBLA even has a link to this site. Congrats on the new Co-Op! George and Gino, I believe a ribbon cutting ceremony is in order. At some point, administrators will have to stop telling themselves that they are heroes in some kind of crusade. Ignoring the facts at the peril of kids for self-serving satisfaction is psychopathic.

EJohnson,

Allow me to express my admiration.  Your message is objective, articulate, convincing, and expresses the unmitigated truth of what is really going on here.  It is far better than I could have done.  

To the bitter losers who manage the "buffet" of half-truths and mis-information that is this website, you openly brag of providing assistance to terrorists and child molesters, while demonizing the dedicated police officers and federal agents who use everything at their disposal (including the polygraph) to protect you.  You should read every word of EJohnson's post carefully, then sit back and digest what it is you are REALLY doing.

Your bruised egos have sent you over to the dark side and worse, you are doing everything in your limited power to take the casual reader of this website with you.

Mr. Maschke and company.  You are no better then the child molester who comes here looking for his solid gold "Get out of Jail" card, or the Al Quaida terrorist who curls up at night with his copy of TLBTLD conveniently translated into Arabic.

Sleep well tonight...

Nonombre

Eric, nonombre,

The odiousness of a parolee or probationer's crime can in no way compensate for the fact that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). Reliance on such pseudoscience for purposes of public safety -- whether it be screening of law enforcement applicants or of convicted felons -- makes for bad public policy.

There is no way of preventing those who are subject to polygraph screening from discovering that the "test" is a pseudoscientific sham. While polygraph screening may have short term benefits in the form of admissions obtained and deterrence, the truth about polygraphy is (and will continue to be) readily available to anyone who seeks it and will inevitably undercut any such utility. Rather than bemoaning the existence of this website and the public availability of information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures, those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees should re-consider their misplaced reliance on the lie detector.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 29, 2007, 12:43 PMI have served my time, therapy was of great benefit to myself. The time I'm serving now is not related to my original offense, in my opinion.

I think at some point you have to weigh time served against the crime committed and come to the conclusion enough is enough.  I also understand some people need to be monitored for life, there are indeed some scary people within my group.  As the Judge noted, I was told to apply for early release.  Probation had no intention of allowing that to happen from the beginning.  They have in effect over ruled the Judge.  Solution?  Let the Judge know through filing a motion.  File a motion and piss off the therapy team, justice is difficult to find.

You cannot paint all sex offenders with the same brush.  Not all victims are minors, as has been suggested.  I hesitate to talk about the details of my offense because I DON'T want to leave the impression that some how it was justified, it was not.

It is not justified being revoked essentially because of clerical errors due to the therapy team.  For revocation to take place you need two things:
1.  An inexcusable offense.
2.  A substantial offense.

While failing to take a polygraph is substantial, the circumstances in my case were hardly inexcusable.  Digusting?  OK, I'll give you that.  Provoked by errors?  Most certainly.  Assaulted by the polygrapher?  Not justified, as he acknowledged and apologized for.

As a polygrapher at what point would you assault a client?  I was doing what I learned to do in therapy, walk away.

Jester, did you reoffend ????- sexually assault another individual?  Otherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.  

I think at some point you have to weigh time served against the crime committed and come to the conclusion enough is enough

Jester - What about the victim?  Just because you said you are sorry - do you think your victim(S) don't relive that offense every day of their life? :'(

And GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

Bravo Eric!  Your comments are real and hopefully some of the AP folks will think twice about what they are doing here.

This is an interesting discussion.  Someone just reading this site for the first time would likely come away with the impression that George Maschke is helping Sex Offenders escape detection from their crimes.  But, in other threads, the same poly examiners crying the blues about this site say that all reading TLBLD  and following it's advice will do is create the chance for false positives, which of course, doesn't help the Sex Offerder at all.

Too bad there isn't a little Smiliy for a two faced individual, because that is exactly what I am seeing here.

Boys, (and girl) you can't have it both ways.  This site can't help sex offenders escape detection and at the same time have the information regarding the use of counter measures be false.

Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Dec 29, 2007, 10:35 PMThis is an interesting discussion.  Someone just reading this site for the first time would likely come away with the impression that George Maschke is helping Sex Offenders escape detection from their crimes.  But, in other threads, the same poly examiners crying the blues about this site say that all reading TLBLD  and following it's advice will do is create the chance for false positives, which of course, doesn't help the Sex Offerder at all.

Too bad there isn't a little Smiliy for a two faced individual, because that is exactly what I am seeing here.

Boys, (and girl) you can't have it both ways.  This site can't help sex offenders escape detection and at the same time have the information regarding the use of counter measures be false.

Did you read Eric Johnsons post?  Not only are we talking about the polygraph but the entire containment approach on sex offenders.  Because of this site which contains a Post Conviction Polygraph Program thread, a narcissistic sex offender (JESTER!!!!) may believe he can beat the polygraph and re-offend.  WTH NP4M tries to slam the polygraph examiners while encouraging a sex offender to DENY everything!  If he re-offends and has a polygraph he will be caught but guess what - THERE IS ANOTHER VICTIM!

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 29, 2007, 07:18 PMEric, nonombre,

Rather than bemoaning the existence of this website and the public availability of information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures, those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees should re-consider their misplaced reliance on the lie detector.

I see, hmmm...

and if there is in fact a hot link to this website from the pedophile "North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website, this is okay with you? ;)

The misconceptions about polygraph regarding convicted sex-offenders by sex offenders the founder of this site and his anti polygraph crowd used to be mildly entertaining but in my opinion you are starting to do some serious damage and put the public at risk by your coddling of convicted sex offenders.

Psssst Mr. Mashke, Sergeant, Jester, triple X, I'm going to tell you a secret that probably all of the polygraphers that post on this site and almost all the therapists engaged in Sex Offender treatment already know.

Come a little closer, I don't want everyone to hear this. Polygraphing Sex Offenders is not about detecting lies. If it was, every time some child molestorfailed an exam he'd find himself back in jail. That just doesn't happ en.  Post conviction polygraph testing for sex offenders is really about facilitating the truth and monitoring progress. People have a natural tendency against admitting to things that portray themselves in a negative light. That reluctance is magnified when their behavior is vehemently condemned by society. In order for treatment to be effective the therapist must explore the full spectrum of fantasies and behaviors to best determine how to focus their treatment efforts. Polygraph provides both an avenue of discovery and a deterrent to behavior that might violate the probation contract or the therapy contract.

Polygraph helps provide access to problem areas that might otherwise go undiscovered. It is not unusual for a sex offender to be convicted for a crime unrelated to his primary Paraphilia. If for instance, a subject was convicted of flashing a woman at Wal Mart and the therapist treated him for that problem, he might completely miss the fact that the offender was attempting to expose himself to a young boy a couple of aisles away rather than the woman who reported him.   If polygraph helps reveal this Paraphilia, who benefits? Society and the subject both benefit because it increases the probability of his successful treatment.

For example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003) "This study of data collected on disclosures made by 180 convicted sexual offenders (most were convicted of crimes against children) during the course of four different treatment/polygraph programs found that 39% had a history of sexually assaulting adults, 31% had sexually assaulted both male and female victims, 36% had engaged in bestiality, and two-thirds of the incest offenders had assaulted victims outside the family. Complete information is necessary for treatment providers and supervising officers to develop meaningful and relevant treatment and supervision plans, and for imminent, situational risk factors to be managed and contained."

A Colorado DOC position paper cites their statistics thusly:
"The Department of Corrections (DOC) Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program (SOTMP) now utilizes polygraph assessment of sex offenders to determine the extent of their deviant history. Results of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior. This is new information which is not contained in the offender's criminal justice records."
Hmm seems like there is some indication that treating a sex-offender based only on his conviction offense might just miss the boat.

Once again, because some people have trouble with simple details, Sex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph. The polygraph examiner does not decide who goes back to jail. Any issues that arise out of a polygraph examination are reviewed by the therapist who makes his decisions based on the subject's progress in treatment.

Here is another secret, c'mon scoot in close guys. If a subject fails a polygraph for probation or parole, he does not automatically go back to jail. For example a subject indicated deception on a question about drug use, that information would be reported to the P.O. who would then increase surveillance, call for a surprise UA, or conduct a search of the subject's residence. If there is some corroborating evidence a subject might be revoked. Once again this is not the polygrapher's decision. The revocation would be based on the subject's activities not the polygraph. The knowledge of pending polygraph examination provides a deterrent to engaging in activities that could lead to revocation or failure in therapy.

And the last big secret for today.....wait for it.... This is gonna knock your socks off...

CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

A study entitled Post-conviction Sex Offender Polygraph Examination: Client-Reported Perceptions of Utility and Accuracy
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
Issue Volume 17, Number 2 / April, 2005

"Post-conviction polygraph testing of adult sex offenders in treatment has been a somewhat controversial subject. This study (n = 95 participants who took 333 polygraph tests) explored how sexual offenders enrolled in outpatient treatment programs perceived their polygraph experience. Participants reported a relatively low incidence of false indications of both deception (22 of 333 tests) and truthfulness (11 of 333) tests, suggesting that clients agreed with examiners  opinions 90% of the time. The majority of clients reported that polygraph testing was a helpful part of treatment. Finally, about 5% of participants reported that they responded to allegedly inaccurate accusations of deception by admitting to things they had not done."

Don't forget Convicted Sex Offenders who are subject to post conviction polygraph tests have voluntarily entered into a contract to obey and cooperate with ALL of the terms set out in their release and therapy contracts. ANY TIME THEY DECIDE THEY ARE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY THEY ARE FREE TO REVOKE THEIR CONTRACT AND RETURN TO JAIL.

They are not entitled to any relief from the individual terms of their contract just because they don't agree.   Yes they can get revoked for failure to cooperate with the polygrapher just like they can get revoked for failure to attend treatment or refusal to provide a sample for U.A. and none of that has anything to do at all with whether or not you or they agree with the value of polygraph, treatment, or drug analysis.

In conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

There is considerably more evidence that Post Conviction Polygraph for Sex Offenders provides more benefits to the treatment program, the offender, and society than any statements to the contrary on this site.

Your stated position that you do not support sex offenders lying to polygraphers conflicts with the words in your book and the existence of a forum for sex offenders on your site to whine about the mean old polygrapher. This conflict is just another example of "The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector"


Sancho Panza.

SP,

I don't think your condescendingly sarcastic "revelation", quoted below, was truly news to anyone. I know it was not to me.

QuoteCome a little closer, I don't want everyone to hear this. Polygraphing Sex Offenders is not about detecting lies. If it was, every time some child molestorfailed an exam he'd find himself back in jail. That just doesn't happ en.  Post conviction polygraph testing for sex offenders is really about facilitating the truth and monitoring progress.

I am somewhat surprised you were willing to admit that polygraphs are used as interrogation intimidators and not as lie detectors.  It hardly speaks for the accuracy of the polygraph as a detector of deception that even polygraph examiners don't use them for that purpose when dealing with the scum of the earth, i.e., sex offenders.  Using the same logic that allows you to claim George is a supporter of sex offenders by providing information on the polygraph, it could be argued that by admitting to any sex offender reading your post that the polygraph is not used to detect lies, but is instead used simply to intimidate sex offenders into being honest during their interviews, you have reduced the efficacy of the polygraph and therefore must likewise be a supporter of child molesters.  I do not agree with your logic, and I am not saying you are a supporter of child molesters, but it is hard to avoid the irony.

It seems clear to me you are admitting that the polygraph is not the proper tool for detecting deception, but it can be effective at scaring people into making admissions, provided they believe that polygraph can detect deception.  I don't think many people on this site would disagree; I certainly would not.  That being the case, I can certainly see why you and other pro-polygraph people are upset about the existence of polygraph and countermeasure information in general, and the existence of this site in particular.  If it becomes widely known that the polygraph does not actually detect deception its utility as an interrogation intimidator will be greatly reduced.  However, I think it is unfair to place the blame for that eventuality with anyone or anything other than lack of scientific basis of the polygraph and its lack of accuracy in detecting deception.

If an agency or a person is using an instrument or a process that purports to detect deception but is actually incapable of doing so, it stands to reason that the truth regarding that instrument or process will eventually become known.  Attempting to keep that truth a secret by working to vilify anyone who publicly provides that information is misleading, because you have to be aware that a person can believe that the polygraph is not useful as a detector of deception without that person being a supporter of terrorists, or sex offenders, or whatever other despicable criminals you attempt to link to anyone who speaks out against the polygraph.

I think that you and other pro-polygraph people are intentionally guilty of the logical fallacy of bifurcation in that you work quite diligently to promote the idea that a person is either in favor of the polygraph and therefore pro-law and order and against such things as sex offenders and terrorists; or a person is against the polygraph and therefore a supporter of such terrible things as sex offenders and terrorists.  I think it is clear that there can be and is at least one other option; that a person can believe the polygraph is not an accurate detector of deception and as such it should not be used for any process as important as pre-employment screening for government and LEO jobs.

If anyone is interested in understanding this point of view rather than simply being content to belittle anyone with whom they do not agree I can certainly try to explain it, at least from my point of view.

In my experience, the polygraph is not an accurate detector of deception.  I told the truth and was called a liar by three different polygraph examiners, for three different reasons.  I am aware that for people who believe in the accuracy of the polygraph, it can function quite well as an interrogation intimidator.  To me, that has nothing to do with its utility as a detector of deception.  In my point of view, the polygraph is no different than Tarot cards, or crystal balls, or the classic urban legend about a suspect being hooked up to a colander and a photocopier.  Any of those things may produce a confession or a damaging admission if the subject believes they are capable of accurately detecting deception, but none of them are actually capable of detecting deception.

If Tarot cards were being used to screen sex offenders because for some reason sex offenders believed Tarot cards were able to accurately detect deception, and for that reason the sex offenders tended to not only abide by the conditions of their release, but also to answer truthfully during their interviews, I would probably be skeptical of the utility of such a program.  Since the Tarot cards cannot, in fact, detect deception, I'm sure I would wonder how anyone could possibly know if the sex offenders were actually telling the truth.  If I were to post my doubts about the ability of the Tarot cards to detect deception, I'm sure there would be people who wouldn't hesitate to claim I must be a supporter of sex offenders.  I think it is clear how unreasonable that argument would be.  I think it is equally unreasonable for anyone to opine that I am somehow a supporter of sex offenders because I post my belief that the polygraph is not capable of detecting deception and therefore should not be used in that capacity.

The polygraph is not simply used as an interrogation intimidator – it is also regularly used as a detector of deception.  As already stated, I do not believe it is capable of detecting deception.  Using it in that manner is simply wrong.  How many outstanding police applicants are disqualified for no reason other than a failed polygraph?  How many security threats, traitors, and spies are allowed to continue undermining our national security because their deception goes unchecked by the polygraph?  How many sex offenders are allowed to continue offending because they lie on their polygraph exams and are not caught in doing so?  I don't know the answers and neither does anyone else, because the accuracy of the polygraph as a detector of deception is so variable as to be virtually worthless.

To many people, the polygraph is an interrogation prop and nothing more.  Using it in that capacity is not objectionable, at least not to me.  Unfortunately it is only useful in that capacity if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception, which I have already stated is something I do not believe it is capable of doing.  

If you wanted to use Tarot cards to screen sex offenders, and I or someone else wrote that Tarot cards are not capable of detecting deception, would you be able to reasonably conclude that I must be a supporter of sex offenders?  Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that I must not believe Tarot cards are capable of detecting deception, and as such should certainly not be relied upon for such an important process as screening sex offenders to make sure they are not violating the conditions of their release?

Sergeant,

The vastness of your misunderstanding of my words is understandable based on your previous posts. Your colossal mischaracterization of my statements was expected based on your limited view of the subject matter under discussion.

Thank you for reminding us all once again that the main problem that you and Mr. Mashke have with polygraph actually stems from your inability to pass one. (or three)

Sancho Panza

Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Dec 31, 2007, 07:47 AM
Thank you for reminding us all once again that the main problem that you and Mr. Mashke have with polygraph actually stems from your inability to pass one. (or three)

Sancho Panza

I guess that would qualify as the TRUTH Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector

Sancho Panza

When those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees resort to such pseudoscientific nonsense (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018) as polygraph "testing" to help ensure compliance with terms of probation or parole, it sends a clear message to the probationer or parolee that those responsible for his supervision aren't taking their responsibilities seriously. The probationer or parolee might well ask, if the government doesn't take my supervision seriously, why should I?

It is not the availability of information about polygraphy on AntiPolygraph.org, or this site's inclusion of a forum for open discussion of post-conviction polygraph programs, that sets the stage for the "disengagement" of which Eric Johnson has complained, but rather the through-the-looking-glass policy of relying on such bogus methods as lie detectors for determining whether probationers and parolees are complying with the terms of their release.

Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Dec 30, 2007, 02:24 PM

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 29, 2007, 07:18 PMEric, nonombre,

Rather than bemoaning the existence of this website and the public availability of information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures, those responsible for the supervision of probationers and parolees should re-consider their misplaced reliance on the lie detector.

I see, hmmm...

and if there is in fact a hot link to this website from the pedophile "North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website, this is okay with you? ;)

Mr. Maschke,

Your failure to answer my question has in itself provided an clear and unmitigated answer.

Either your hate for polygraphers has TRULY blinded you to all reason or you have a deep connection to NAMBLA and the other child molesters who peruse this website you would rather not speak of...

I feel so sorry for you... :'(

QuoteSancho Panza

Nice nic. Do you happen to fit the character? A squire who serves his master faithfully? Are you greedy but kind? Faithful but cowardly? You started out good on this thread and I agree with your early words. But somewhere along the line you strayed into the rhetoric and BS.  

QuoteFor example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003)

LOL. A rehash of a study actually conducted in 2000. Never understood why the Academy published it and charges for access, since the Colorado DOJ released it to the public domain when it was completed.
The 180 offenders studied are hardly a representative sampling of the average sex offender. All 180 were men with boy victims that were between 6 and 9 years old. Only a polygraph supporter would take a narrow study like that and assume it applies to all 700,000 convicted sex offenders in this country ::)

QuoteResults of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior.

Right. Since we're assuming these 180 offenders are the 'same' as all sex offenders that means there are some 114 million victimized children we don't know about? That would constitute EVERY child in the USA. So what's the catch? It's what they call a "victim". Every time an offender saw a photo of a child and had a sexual thought, that was a victim. If they looked at the same photo several times, that was several different "offenses". Even masturbation to an erotic fantasy constituted a "victim" and an "offense".

QuoteSex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph.

Nope. They go back to prison for getting kicked out of therapy...because they failed the polygraph. Kind of like saying people don't die from the bullet, they die from the tissue damage and loss of blood.

QuoteCONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

Runs counter to the general perception of more than a few around here that George's board has become a haven for all sex offenders, doesn't it? I doubt they're here because the support that voodoo. Besides, if an offender lies his a** off denying all manner of vile deeds and fantasies and scores NDI on all of it, do you honestly think he'll then say he lied about it all? Of course he wouldn't ::) He would extol the virtues of the machine and then laugh about the utter ignorance of not only the polygrapher but the person who asked him if it 'helped'.

QuoteIn conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

Care to give us a citation? I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.

Quotenonombre

I guess if i was you I would use "no name" for a nic. Want to explain to the rest of the members here just how you happen to know what other sites the NAMBLA site has links to? What, you go there but promise that you only read the articles? ;D

QuoteDonna.Taylor

A pleasure Ms. Taylor. I don't recall seeing too many women getting involved in discussions here.

QuoteOtherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.

Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left :) Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.

QuoteAnd GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

What culpability? Here's the deal. If Jester is inclined to commit a new offense, it makes no difference if this site exists or not. No amount of polygraphing is going to stop him, whether he knows it's pseudoscience or not. True therapy will help him identify the precursors to a re-offense and help him deal with them. But only if he wants it that way.

QuoteEJohnson

Quite the fanclub, EJ ;)

QuoteAs someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound.

Whoooo. An expert :o
I spent 10 years sitting in on group therapy sessions as an "informed observer". A veritible revolving door of new faces every month. And I have a very close friend who has spent the last 15 years supervising sex offenders on probation and parole for the DOC of a large state. Can't say that Jester's overall behavior is indicative of those offenders, and neither does my PO friend. Yes some exhibit a combative attitude towards "the system", but such is the nature of all criminals with all crimes. Likewise a sense that it's "not my fault". And I can't say I ever met a car thief remorseful about the fact his victim had to take a cab for two weeks while the insurance company worked out the details. You see, this behavior you talk about isn't reserved for sex offenders. It's prevalent for all offenders.

QuoteA talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy

Freudian slip, EJ? ;D You talk the talk pretty good, but have you ever walked the walk? Sex offender therapy is all things and no things. A true therapist will not have an outline for all offenders. Something that works for one offender may have little if any value for another. And even if something works for 'most' offenders that doesn't mean it works for all. The polygraph is such a therapy "tool". It will scare the bejeezus out of some to the point they'll tell all. Not really a bad thing. But that has to be weighed against the utterly arbitrary nature of the exam and the people giving them. A greater number are scored deceptive simply because if the examiner scored everybody NDI and there were no new offenses or violations being 'fessed up to somebody high up might wonder why they even need the poly. No poly, no food for the polygrapher. Face it. As an examiner it's in your best interest to produce results that insure your continued usefulness to the therapy system.

QuoteMr. Truth

Glad to see you still hang around here :D
I agree with your statement to Jester. After the initial screwup it was as  much his own fault as the others. A simple phone call. Having had the same antagonistic attitude against "the system" I know exactly what his thoughts were. But I learned quickly that the system holds all the cards, even when they're wrong.

Hi orolan. How's it goin? I see you are your usual sarcastic self. Are you still on papers for a sexual offense? Are you still engaging in such embarrassing things as comparing sexual offenses with car theft---as you did in a prior post---STILL MINIMIZING AFTER 10 YRS? Are you still running wild while dodging and manipulating the system? Sweet. You are kind of like a Duke of Hazard....er..that is if they molested children...er...whatever, bad comparison.

I noticed you credited nonombre with stating there is a NAMBLA link to this site, but it was a lawman friend of mine who told me such, not nonombre. My detective buddy is  an interesting fellow with a grueling beat. He probes the internet for people who , rather than having sexual relations with a consenting adult, would rather have sexual activity with a coerced, pre-pubescent girl or boy. In other words, he pursues those individuals who typically have a severe social or physical disability and feel so out of control by the speeding bus of society, that they resort to trying to control the weak will of a "little one" in order for pure selfish satisfaction. Can you relate? Sure. I probably was a little verbose there, you get the picture----heck, you have even stated that you know sex offenders intimately having been in long term treatment for committing sexually illegal act(s.)

Where was I...oh yes. I agree with you that persons who are arrested for a non sex crime but have long distant sex crimes for which they did not undergo treatment but were convicted for is extreme. I am not a fan of such retro-activated treatment in many cases. There are some exceptions in my opinion though.

Suprise! Another person proclaiming the riches of the greedy and robber baronesque polygraph examiners. I know school teachers that made far better livings than examiners. You remind me of my 6 year old who thinks daddy is rich 'cause he saw me with some twenty dollar bills in my pocket. As far as being "useful"....one need only look at your track record as a paroled/probationary offender---on the post some months ago where you taunt your pursuers as being online chatting, and doing whatever strikes your fancy despite your rules of supervision-------and somehow you seemed to justify such dangerous behavior as being owed you for "being forced" to undergo strictures that sex offenders commonly undergo. You further boasted (unproven mind you) claims of beating your tests----and that your examiner "must not be very talented." I am sorry that it is very difficult to give a rule breaking, admitted manipulator/child molester the benefit of the doubt. I am afraid your brag will have to be given the same weight as Elvis' black belt.

No one can argue your fair penmanship, and your talent for sarcasm. But your posts speak far more about your mental state as a convicted sexual predator than as a person who seeks to entertain. I hope your victim(s) do not read your posts and recognize your trademark chattering. Perhaps you have done enough hurting people, yourself included.

Orolan
Nice Nic. Do you happen to fit the character? Do you consider yourself the Lord High Wizard of Summer? Do you cast spells? Do you command a dragon? Do you use your Enchantica collection to entice adolescents with esteem issues into your sphere of influence?

After reading your feeble attempts at sarcastic one-liners I believe you are most certainly more akin to a windmill than a dragon.

I suspect you may be just another one of those convicted sex offenders who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay school taxes because you aren't allowed on the playground.

Sancho Panza- perhaps the voice of reason in the face of insanity or perhaps a fine cigar.

Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Jan 01, 2008, 09:44 PM

QuoteSancho Panza

Nice nic. Do you happen to fit the character? A squire who serves his master faithfully? Are you greedy but kind? Faithful but cowardly? You started out good on this thread and I agree with your early words. But somewhere along the line you strayed into the rhetoric and BS.  

QuoteFor example: According to a study conducted by the Colorado Department of Corrections and Published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989:411-427 (2003)

LOL. A rehash of a study actually conducted in 2000. Never understood why the Academy published it and charges for access, since the Colorado DOJ released it to the public domain when it was completed.
The 180 offenders studied are hardly a representative sampling of the average sex offender. All 180 were men with boy victims that were between 6 and 9 years old. Only a polygraph supporter would take a narrow study like that and assume it applies to all 700,000 convicted sex offenders in this country ::)

QuoteResults of the first polygraph examination revealed on average for each offender: 163 additional victims, 504 additional offenses, and 4 additional categories of sex offending behavior.

Right. Since we're assuming these 180 offenders are the 'same' as all sex offenders that means there are some 114 million victimized children we don't know about? That would constitute EVERY child in the USA. So what's the catch? It's what they call a "victim". Every time an offender saw a photo of a child and had a sexual thought, that was a victim. If they looked at the same photo several times, that was several different "offenses". Even masturbation to an erotic fantasy constituted a "victim" and an "offense".

QuoteSex Offenders do not go back to prison because they failed a therapy polygraph.

Nope. They go back to prison for getting kicked out of therapy...because they failed the polygraph. Kind of like saying people don't die from the bullet, they die from the tissue damage and loss of blood.

QuoteCONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS SAY THAT POST CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IS A VALUABLE ASSET TO THEIR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

Runs counter to the general perception of more than a few around here that George's board has become a haven for all sex offenders, doesn't it? I doubt they're here because the support that voodoo. Besides, if an offender lies his a** off denying all manner of vile deeds and fantasies and scores NDI on all of it, do you honestly think he'll then say he lied about it all? Of course he wouldn't ::) He would extol the virtues of the machine and then laugh about the utter ignorance of not only the polygrapher but the person who asked him if it 'helped'.

QuoteIn conclusion  Oregon and New York both cite statistics that show a significant reduction in Sex Offender recidivism since they implemented post conviction polygraph examinations.

Care to give us a citation? I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.

Quotenonombre

I guess if i was you I would use "no name" for a nic. Want to explain to the rest of the members here just how you happen to know what other sites the NAMBLA site has links to? What, you go there but promise that you only read the articles? ;D

QuoteDonna.Taylor

A pleasure Ms. Taylor. I don't recall seeing too many women getting involved in discussions here.

QuoteOtherwise, if your sentence was over, you would not still be in S.O. Therapy.

Don't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left :) Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.

QuoteAnd GM - just because you believe polygraph is pseudoscience doesn't negate your culpability!

What culpability? Here's the deal. If Jester is inclined to commit a new offense, it makes no difference if this site exists or not. No amount of polygraphing is going to stop him, whether he knows it's pseudoscience or not. True therapy will help him identify the precursors to a re-offense and help him deal with them. But only if he wants it that way.

QuoteEJohnson

Quite the fanclub, EJ ;)

QuoteAs someone who spent 5 years with large caseloads of sex offenders, I can attest that such personality types abound.

Whoooo. An expert :o
I spent 10 years sitting in on group therapy sessions as an "informed observer". A veritible revolving door of new faces every month. And I have a very close friend who has spent the last 15 years supervising sex offenders on probation and parole for the DOC of a large state. Can't say that Jester's overall behavior is indicative of those offenders, and neither does my PO friend. Yes some exhibit a combative attitude towards "the system", but such is the nature of all criminals with all crimes. Likewise a sense that it's "not my fault". And I can't say I ever met a car thief remorseful about the fact his victim had to take a cab for two weeks while the insurance company worked out the details. You see, this behavior you talk about isn't reserved for sex offenders. It's prevalent for all offenders.

QuoteA talking moron can repeat mantras of therapy

Freudian slip, EJ? ;D You talk the talk pretty good, but have you ever walked the walk? Sex offender therapy is all things and no things. A true therapist will not have an outline for all offenders. Something that works for one offender may have little if any value for another. And even if something works for 'most' offenders that doesn't mean it works for all. The polygraph is such a therapy "tool". It will scare the bejeezus out of some to the point they'll tell all. Not really a bad thing. But that has to be weighed against the utterly arbitrary nature of the exam and the people giving them. A greater number are scored deceptive simply because if the examiner scored everybody NDI and there were no new offenses or violations being 'fessed up to somebody high up might wonder why they even need the poly. No poly, no food for the polygrapher. Face it. As an examiner it's in your best interest to produce results that insure your continued usefulness to the therapy system.

QuoteMr. Truth

Glad to see you still hang around here :D
I agree with your statement to Jester. After the initial screwup it was as  much his own fault as the others. A simple phone call. Having had the same antagonistic attitude against "the system" I know exactly what his thoughts were. But I learned quickly that the system holds all the cards, even when they're wrong.

QuoteDon't have much experience with the judicial system, do you? I can name you an offender just released from prison two months ago for a cocaine conviction. Because he had a sex offense 27 years ago for which he served 18 months probation, he was ordered to undergo sex offender treatment during his parole period. Fortunately for him he only had two months left  Courts and parole boards around the country impose sex offender conditions including treatment on any offender with a sex offense at any time in their past.

Orolan - You are a narcissistic SO trying to justify your existence.  As for my experience with the judicial system: I retired from Adult Probation and Parole; during this time (5+ years) I was a supervisor at a Community Correctional Center that housed adult male sex offenders (Like you and Jester).  So as for experience with SO's and the judicial system – yeah I have been there and done that.  The difference is your view is one sided from the 'poor me' stance.

If a SEX OFFENDER reoffends in a different arena – say selling cocaine, they usually do not redo sex offense therapy.  However, if during the investigation the officers find pornography or other deviant items they could request that the Board of Pardons or the Judge to add SO therapy.  Also, if the offender did not SUCCESSFULLY complete sex offender therapy and his sentence expired - and in a short timeframe he reoffended then I can also see them requiring SO therapy.

If SO therapy is required there has to be a specific reason.  Maybe on the situation your related the Judge felt that the individuals 'altered state' because of the drugs puts him in a position to reoffend (you know the term 'cycle')

Regardless of if you like or dislike polygraphs, this site promotes not telling the truth – tell only what you want them to know.  Any SO (and there are many) that visits AP is encouraged to not be open and honest in their dealings.  This issue is the biggest threat.  This means hiding behaviors which puts a SO in cycle to reoffend.  That is where culpability on AP comes into play.

There were two other things you mentioned that I will address: 1) Polygraph examiners don't care if a person is returned to prison or not.  We are there to complete an unbiased examination.  Your PO makes life decisions for you.  We have no interest regarding sending you back to prison or in keeping you out to 'MAKE MORE MONEY' from you.  It is a sad fact, but when you go away, there always is another SO that is released. 2) OROLAN: I'm aware of both states making a point of saying that treatment reduces recidivism, which is true. But I'm not aware of either categorically stating that the polygraph alone causes a reduction in recidivism. Enlighten me.  Orolan, How can a therapist treat a sex offender in denial?  ...enter the polygraph.  Reduction of recidivism is a fine balance of the containment approach (Judicial, PO, TX, and Polygraph)

Now for Orolan, I have no more time for your words of wisdom.  Best of luck and please stay away from children! ;)

BTW: this is a chat room/message board (and violation for most SO's)!

Donna.Taylor:

Just like there are good probation officers and bad ones, please be precise enough in your commentary to give the impression you know the difference between SOs under court supervision and those who are not. I, for one, am not, ergo, I have no limitations with respect to being here. And yes, my email address is registered as well. Just like I am. Feel safer because of that?

Others:

In the beginning, I feared the polygraph, not for it "detecting" any lies I may have been tempted to try, but for the work I had to put into it beforehand, that is, divulging everything I could think of with respect to sex. That is a humbling and humiliating experience. What alienated me from this part of the treatment program? As I have said in numerous other posts, it was for being consequenced for being scored deceptive on things I was telling the truth about. The fakery behind the process, specifically, being punished for what I didn't do, is what royally pissed me off and opened my eyes to the charade know as polygraphy.

I believe it is the height of stupidity for anyone to think that the polygraph is reliable enough to catch spies or determine if anyone, sex offenders included, is being deceptive or truthful. If you, as the test subject, believe it works, then it is effective, just as if you believe that tarot cards work, then that method is also effective. But, we all know it is BS behind the "science."

I always like the state-sponsored DOC studies that claim some rate, count or average can be used as a broad brush for all offenders. Wasn't there another study (if Orolan reads this, from sexcriminals.com, the woman who is a PO in Florida) that claimed something around 800 victims per offender? The math makes these studies look stupid (along with those citing them), when the extrapolated victim count starts to exceed the total population of potential victims.

Jester:

I understand where you are coming from, and my recommendation to you is based on having been there, done that as far as the rules, process, and people are concerned. The reality is that you have very little control over your situation. What you can control is how well you follow the rules and not get hung up on paperwork. Pass the polygraphs and move on.

Probation officer lied under oath, thats a fact.
Polygrapher lied in a letter to the court, thats a fact.
You can argue the point till the cows come home, just assume for a moment I'm right, they DID in fact LIE.  Just can't handle it can you?  Blows your mind, quick, point out the flaws in the one bearing the message you detest.

They both apologized, but nothing has changed.  How many other polygraphers lie?  To the court?  To the probation dept.?  To therapists?  It's fair game to lie to a client, not sure where to draw the line there.  THAT fact needs to be understood by anyone taking a polygraph, the polygrapher will lie to you without hesitation.  So will cops.  And then they simply 'turn off the lie' and suddenly start telling the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' when it's time to do so?

I submit it is not that easy, when you spend a good part of your day lieing for a living, it has to be difficult to simply 'turn that off'.

Of course, this part of the subject matter is routinely dismissed in this discussion.  It's far more politically correct to point fingers at a sex offender, talk about taking responsibility.  Yeah, lets talk about 'taking responsibility'?  It's OK for an officer of the court to lie under oath?  Is that the general response here?

OK, back to finger pointing, the truth is to difficult to deal with, sweep it under the rug...  I did my time, the time I'm doing now is a direct result of corruption within the system, you just can't handle the truth.

Fact is, a LOT of sex offenders go to jail or back to jail for failing a polygraph.  They are removed from treatment and revoked for 'failure to complete treatment', not for 'failing a polygraph', merely semantics at work here.  In my case for 'failing to complete a polygraph'.  So many of you just don't get it, your prejudice against sex offenders is SO high you've lost your ability to be subjective, logical, rational.  Not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts I suspect, perhaps in time, society will see that.

The ignorance expressed here by some is remarkable.  You assume all sex offender victims are children.  You assume all sex offenders are banned from the internet.  You assume all sex offenders get what they deserve, no matter what the circumstances.  Your assumptions are based on hysteria, media hype and flawed 'studies' that appear to uphold the highest level of legal reality and constitutional rights.  Right, like the courst NEVER make a mistake and EVERYONE ever sent to jail deserves to be there.  Simply put, some of you are severely deluded.

Jester, you stated that the polygrapher lied in a letter to the court.
This is the first time you have mentioned this "Fact" in any of your posts. You seem to have a habit of adding more of these supposed "facts" as time goes by.

You're really just making this up as you go aren't you?

Prejudice implies an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. Hostility towards convicted sex offenders is not irrational at all.

Society is hostile those who commit acts injurious to society. The existence of laws and legal punishments is evidence of that hostility.   I don't particularly like criminals. I will admit a certain dislike of convicted sex offenders.  I especially don't like convicted criminals who portray themselves as victims while ignoring the trauma they cause the REAL victims of their crimes.

As a consequence of their voluntary criminal acts, convicted sex offenders are punished. Some are given the opportunity to remain outside of prison while they try to alter the behavior and/or thought patterns that somehow allowed them to justify the crimes they committed.

These are given a set of rules to go by. They are told follow ALL of these rules or go back to jail. They are given the opportunity to consider whether or not they can follow all of the rules and must promise that they will follow ALL of them.

Many do follow all of the rules and do fine, but some, like you, begin to look for excuses and justifications for not following the rules. Some try to manipulate their therapists and failing that they create a minor conflict trying to get bounced to another program in search of a therapist they think they can manipulate. Some try to create mountains out of mole hills to shift focus away from their aberrant behavior and towards the system.

The main problem that I have with all that is that is that NO ONE forced them to make the promises they made to get out of jail, but once they hit the street they try to figure a way to both break the promise and avoid going back to jail.

You in my opinion are trying to do exactly that. If your word is NO GOOD on the contract you signed, why would you expect to be believed here?

Once again, If you don't think you can follow all of the rules you promised you would follow, tell you P.O. you want to revoke your contract and go back to jail. Show the world you have the courage of your convictions.

Sancho Panza

Mr. Truth Just to see where you are coming from I went back and read your original post i this forum. The one where you discuss and freely admit your crime. I have a certain amount of respect for someone who is prepared to "own" his behavior.

The one thing that really stood out in this reading is that way that you focus the negative consequences of this crime towards what it cost you rather than what it cost your victim to wit: " I can assure you there is nothing you can say to make me feel worse than what I've done to myself in that regard. What a colossal blunder. It cost me a military career and over a million dollars in lifetime retirement benefits."

You stated that you successfully completed your jail time and probation but you didn't express much empathy for the real victim. You may have failedyour program in that regard.

Sancho Panza

Lieing is lieing.  Be it a letter to the court, a phone call, in  person or all of the above.  Substantially altering the facts, minimizing the details, casting blame on others are all variations of a lie.  I've offered to many details all ready and won't add to that.  You can believe, or not, I don't care.

In the matter of the polygrapher the Judge chose to believe his 'testimony' while rejecting the probation officer.  Not everyone, including myself, agreed with the Judge, in the end that is the only person that matters.  One HUGE requirement of 'therapy' is that you acknowledge your mistake, admit it, if you don't, you may not be released, ever!  I have steadfastly refused to change my testimony in this matter.  To do so when be would mean I have to lie, which then sets me up for failing a polygraph, grounds for termination.  And yet, the State will not accept a polygraph concerning the specific issue as to if I am lieing or not as it concerns this matter.  Polygraphs, as used by the State, are primarily for their prosecution of a case.  If along the way they become helpful for therapy, well, thats OK too.

Quote from: Jester on Jan 03, 2008, 08:01 AMMr. Truth Just to see where you are coming from I went back and read your original post i this forum. The one where you discuss and freely admit your crime. I have a certain amount of respect for someone who is prepared to "own" his behavior.

The one thing that really stood out in this reading is that way that you focus the negative consequences of this crime towards what it cost you rather than what it cost your victim to wit: " I can assure you there is nothing you can say to make me feel worse than what I've done to myself in that regard. What a colossal blunder. It cost me a military career and over a million dollars in lifetime retirement benefits."

You stated that you successfully completed your jail time and probation but you didn't express much empathy for the real victim. You may have failedyour program in that regard.

Sancho Panza

Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry, but for what it's worth: victim was/is my daughter. After she graduated from college, she moved in with me and my (new) wife, lived with us for about 18 months. Numerous talks with her, believe me when I say I have owned up to her and aired things out to her content. She felt bad for me because she could see the pain it caused me to dredge this up again, and I always told her not to worry about how I feel about this. Her mother has practically disowned her for having contact with me.

The analogy I like to use in describing the anger many SOs feel towards the polygraph is based on a science fiction book by Larry Niven. Footfall is about an alien race that attacks Earth. The aliens look like elephants, they have a warrior creed and herd mentality, part of which is that when they surrender, the lie down and go belly up. Once a warrior has made that conciliation towards his attacker, the battle between them is over, and the warrior now belongs to the attacker.

Humans, who were more than pissed off about being viciously attacked, did not recognize the surrender gesture, and kept attacking the vanquished aliens. That was a breach of etiquette to the aliens, and being attacked after they had surrendered sent them into a rage/killing frenzy.

To wit: I went belly up and surrendered all, but was still "attacked" by failed polygraphs. Thank you, polygraphers, for motivating me to find out why I could not crack the code on passing the polygraph. I left no details uncovered, I lived like a hermit for weeks on end to limit any and all contact. And for what? To be scored NDI on having any sexual contact with anyone other than my wife, and on the same exam, being scored DI for having sexual contact with anyone under the age of 18. The test is bullshit, that is the best technical description I can offer, based on a PhD in math and a couple of other graduate degrees (engineering and science, we don't really need to go down the design of experiments/reliability models road now do we?). And thank you, taxpayers, for paying my way through West Point. So there, I didn't lie about what I did, I took responsibility for what I was allowed to do, I own my crime, did the time, and have made peace with my victim (who had forgiven me). I'm a threat to society? Being splattered on the Internet (SO registry) escapes me too.

I know what I did deeply affected my daughter. And many others. There is no amount of sorry that can ever repay or make amends for that. There are still consequences to be dealt with down the road (meeting her future husband, grandchildren, funerals for other family members, etc.). I got the message the loud and clear. End of personal laundry airing.

Mr. Truth you wrote "Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry,"

You will notice that I did not relate any specifics regarding your crime and I applauded you "owning" your behavior.

If you can genuinely empathize with your victim you have progressed beyond what many convicted sex offenders ever achieve. You must admit that the consequences you listed in your post were definitely focused toward their effect on you rather than your victim.

 I do not agree with your  attacks on polygraph but I recognize and appreciate your accomplishments in treatment.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: Jester on Jan 03, 2008, 11:57 PM

Mr. Truth you wrote "Sorry, not here to air 100% of my dirty laundry,"

You will notice that I did not relate any specifics regarding your crime and I applauded you "owning" your behavior.

If you can genuinely empathize with your victim you have progressed beyond what many convicted sex offenders ever achieve. You must admit that the consequences you listed in your post were definitely focused toward their effect on you rather than your victim.

 I do not agree with your  attacks on polygraph but I recognize and appreciate your accomplishments in treatment.

Sancho Panza

Something you may wish to consider...

You have showed more respect and consideration to a convicted sex offender than you have to me, a law enforcement officer who has always been civil and respectful in all of my posts, simply because you don't agree with my point of view.

As with others who support the polygraph, I understand it must be difficult for you to accept that not all antipolygraph people can be pigeonholed into the category of "liars who got caught lying and are now bitter about it."  The fact is that I am a veteran of more than eight years in the army and army reserve, and more than ten years on the police department.  I am respected by peers, supervisors, and subordinates, and my integrity is beyond question.  I told the complete truth on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs and didn't withhold any information.  I failed the first three for three different reasons and was called a liar each time.

My perfectly reasonable conclusion after those experiences?  That the polygraph does not detect deception or honesty with any reliable rate of accuracy.  I don't see how any reasonable person could go through similar experiences and come to any other conclusion.

Quote from: Jester on Jan 04, 2008, 12:42 AM
You have showed more respect and consideration to a convicted sex offender than you have to me, a law enforcement officer who has always been civil and respectful in all of my posts, simply because you don't agree with my point of view.
.

Until your latest post I had yet to read anything from you or about you other than you said you are a police officer, I think in Connecticut and your position on Polygraph which I believe is somewhat skewed by a bad experience. 10 years puts you well past the "I'm gonna be a cop until I can find a job" group. Law Enforcement is a respectable profession and I think that anyone who is willing to strap on a gun and a badge and place themselves physically between Society and those that seek to do it harm is worthy of respect. Would you agree?

You are rigid and unreasonable in your contention that polygraph is worthless because it has an error rate. Have you ever had or seen a misfire on the range? Was the misfire caused by the error rate of the ammunition manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the firearm manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the operator who failed to perform some necessary function to reduce the error rate? Are you following your standard of it's worthless unless it's 100%? Have you stopped carrying a sidearm? Have you ever junked a car because the battery's error rate reared it's ugly head or routinely toss all 4 tires because 1 had a flat? Do you have children? Do you disown them if they get a C on their report card? After all a C approximates 70% accuracy or conversely a 30% error rate. Are you aware of anyone who ever took a TB screen that indicated positive and had to go take a more specific test only to find out the did not have TB? Should we ban TB screening?

Do some of these analogies seem silly to you? No more silly than your contention that polygraph has to be 100% or worthless. Any research scientist would laugh at that position or at least shake his head and chuckle to himself.

If you want to argue that polygraph accuracy rates need to improve, I'll agree with you. There is always room for improvement.  If you want to take an opposing position as to whether polygraph should be used, we can do that. But if you want to be respected, you need to reconsider your 100% or worthless position. It doesn't pass the silly test.

Quote from: Jester on Jan 04, 2008, 12:45 PMUntil your latest post I had yet to read anything from you or about you other than you said you are a police officer, I think in Connecticut and your position on Polygraph which I believe is somewhat skewed by a bad experience. 10 years puts you well past the "I'm gonna be a cop until I can find a job" group. Law Enforcement is a respectable profession and I think that anyone who is willing to strap on a gun and a badge and place themselves physically between Society and those that seek to do it harm is worthy of respect. Would you agree?

You are rigid and unreasonable in your contention that polygraph is worthless because it has an error rate. Have you ever had or seen a misfire on the range? Was the misfire caused by the error rate of the ammunition manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the firearm manufacturer? Was it caused by the error rate of the operator who failed to perform some necessary function to reduce the error rate? Are you following your standard of it's worthless unless it's 100%? Have you stopped carrying a sidearm? Have you ever junked a car because the battery's error rate reared it's ugly head or routinely toss all 4 tires because 1 had a flat? Do you have children? Do you disown them if they get a C on their report card? After all a C approximates 70% accuracy or conversely a 30% error rate. Are you aware of anyone who ever took a TB screen that indicated positive and had to go take a more specific test only to find out the did not have TB? Should we ban TB screening?

Do some of these analogies seem silly to you? No more silly than your contention that polygraph has to be 100% or worthless. Any research scientist would laugh at that position or at least shake his head and chuckle to himself.

If you want to argue that polygraph accuracy rates need to improve, I'll agree with you. There is always room for improvement.  If you want to take an opposing position as to whether polygraph should be used, we can do that. But if you want to be respected, you need to reconsider your 100% or worthless position. It doesn't pass the silly test.

You may not have bothered to read any of my prior posts and known that I am a police officer, but you certainly have not responded to my posts with the same civility and lack of condescending sarcasm you found in those posts.

I have never said that since polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate.  I have said that the polygraph is worthless because it does not detect deception – there's a difference.

If you handed me 100 rounds of brand "X" ammunition and I fired it all, and 75 of those rounds failed to fire because of a bad primer, I would certainly doubt the quality of brand "X" ammunition.  I failed three out of four polygraphs while telling the truth; how rigid and unreasonable is it of me to believe that telling the truth has little or nothing to do with passing a polygraph?

Claiming that my position on the polygraph is based on the mere existence of an error rate is an example of a straw man argument, a common logical fallacy.  By making my position out to be an illogical extreme it is far easier to refute.  The fallacy lies in the fact that the original position has not been refuted – only the straw man of your own construction has been torn down.

My actual position is that, in my experience, I told the truth on four polygraphs, did not withhold any information, and failed the first three.  I also failed for three different reasons, which is even more disturbing.  If I had some sort of reaction to questions about drugs, it would be logical for me to show a reaction to drug-related questions on all four tests.  But after failing my first test for drug-related questions, I never again showed a reaction to any questions about drugs, even though it would stand to reason that, having failed a polygraph for supposedly lying about drug use, I would be even more likely to show a reaction in subsequent polygraphs.

It would also make sense that if I had some sort of reason for reacting to questions about fighting, or about stealing, that I would have those reactions in all of my tests.  But that didn't happen, either.  As far as I can tell, the polygraph examiner in each of my first three tests picked a random subject, questioned me about it, and then took a wild guess as to whether I was being truthful or not.

If the polygraph worked I would have passed all four of my tests.  There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that for most other people in most other situations the polygraph has a high degree of accuracy, even though neither the instrument nor the examiner could tell the difference between truth and deception on any of my first three polygraphs.  I don't even believe the polygraph examiner could tell the difference in my fourth polygraph, even though I told the truth on that one as well.  I figured it was just my turn for the coin toss to land on "pass" that time.

Regarding my experience, I don't see how anyone could legitimately expect a high degree of accuracy from the polygraph.  Even if you believe I was lying, then you would have to believe that I managed to successfully lie about fighting and stealing on my first polygraph, I managed to lie successfully lie about using/selling cocaine and stealing on my second polygraph, I managed to successfully lie about using/selling cocaine and fighting on my third polygraph, and I managed to successfully lie about everything on my fourth polygraph.  Alternately, if you believe I was telling the truth, then I failed three out of four polygraphs for no reason whatsoever.  Either way, the polygraph is a miserable failure and is clearly unable to detect truth or deception.  Not because it is unable to claim 100% accuracy, but because it is unable to credibly claim any sort of reliable accuracy whatsoever.

Excuse me, but this is what you have said regarding the error rate of polygraph

This means it is logical to conclude that there is a chance (however small or large you believe it to be) that a truthful person could be deemed deceptive on their polygraph exam.  This is the crucial point that renders the polygraph worthless. ...
Polygraph supporters would have you believe that their admission of less-than-complete accuracy subsumes false positives along with false negatives, and that there is no substantive difference between the two.  That is simply not true.  Just as with the fictional medical test for the XYZ disease, once the possibility of a false positive exists, the ability to draw any conclusions from a positive or a negative test result no longer exists. July 31st 2007

However, when you add in the false-positive rate the polygraph, as you have discovered, becomes worthless. April 27 2007

The false-positive rate for polygraphs is disputed, of course.  Supporters of the polygraph say it is very low, while people like me believe it is very high.  I know of no one who asserts that it doesn't exist.  And the false-positive rate is what, in my opinion, renders the polygraph worthless as a scientific test  April 25 2006.

Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless.  This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph. ....
However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.
April 1 2006

In my opinion, what renders the polygraph utterly worthless is not that it and its operator fail to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects.  What renders the polygraph worthless is that in addition to failing to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects, it also erroneously "fails" or labels as deceptive a certain percentage of truthful subjects.  October 25 2005

However, the actual accuracy of the polygraph, which includes an unknown false-positive rate, renders it worthless.   Oct 23 2005

Anything less than 100% accuracy in the truthful vs. deceptive assessment is worthless August 3 2005

But as soon as you allow for even the most remote possibility that a subject can tell the absolute truth and still be judged to have "failed" the test, in my opinion the entire test process instantly becomes virtually worthless.  Actually, it's worse than worthless, because people and governmental agencies will still rely on it even though it generates data which can only be considered useless....
If polygraph "tests" were fifty percent accurate at detecting actual falsehoods (not just at measuring physiological changes in one's body, but at actually detecting deception) and also had a ZERO percent chance of rendering a false positive, then I would be more willing to support it.  June 17, 2005

Now that we have established that you think that polygraph is worthless if it has a false positive rate. Let's talk about error rate. Error rate is a combination of 2 types of errors Type I errors, False Positive Error, and Type II, False Negative Error. Both exist in any scientific process. You statisticians correct me if I have this backwards I haven't had a statistics class in over 30 years. Now let's look at your example from July of 2007,

You Wrote "Let's assume that a medical test exists for the XYZ disease, but this test is only successful at detecting the presence of the disease about 75% of the time.  The other 25% of the time, the test will not be positive, even if the subject does in fact have the XYZ disease.  Some people would conclude that the test is useful, even though it is not 100% accurate.

However, there is some crucial data missing.  In order to determine if the test for the XYZ disease is actually useful, we would have to know if it ever showed a positive test result for a person that did not have the XYZ disease.  
If the test never showed a positive result for a subject that did not have the XYZ disease, then it is indeed a useful test.  It is useful because after the test is completed the doctor (and the patient) may draw a definite conclusion at least part of the time.  If the test result is positive the doctor could conclude with 100% accuracy that the patient is suffering from the XYZ disease.  Negative test results would be less conclusive, since the doctor would not be able to rule out the presence of the disease.  

However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero. It wouldn't matter if this occurred in 1% of the tests or in 99% of the tests; the mere possibility of a false positive is sufficient. It would be a useless test because no matter what the result, there would be no legitimate conclusions that could be drawn from the test data.  A positive result would mean that the person has the XYZ disease or that the test is a false positive.  A negative result means that the person doesn't have the disease or that this is part of the percentage of cases where the result will be negative even though the disease is present."


I decided to use this example because your flawed reasoning conflicts with what most people know about the TB skin test. This particular test has a false positive rate that fluctuates between 10% and 70% depending on the exposure and vaccination history. If you were to go tomorrow and take this test and come back a few days later with a positive result. NO ONE would assume you have TB, They would just ask you to take a more specific test.
In screening tests whether they are TB or Pre-employment polygraph there are certainly steps that you can take to reduce the false positive rate, but the unavoidable truth is that if you decrease the false positive rate, you increase the false negative rate.  In the TB skin test in order to reduce the number of false positives you run a significant risk of failure to diagnose someone that really has the disease. So the consequences of a False Positive you have to take another test. Consequence of a False Negative, you die a horrible death. Where exactly would you place the error rate if you had to choose?

Requiring that polygraphers construct a test that would reduce the false positive rate to 1% would significantly increase the false negative rate allowing unacceptable candidates to pass through.

I would submit that the consequences of your alleged false positives are that you had to apply a couple of more places for a job. Conversely if your polygraph had been a False Negative and you were actually an undesirable person for Law Enforcement, the consequences would involve pinning a badge and gun on the wrong guy.  If you are the guy doing the hiring you would probably be willing to miss a few good candidates in order to protect your agency from letting a bad apple make it through. Face it. Those pre-employment tests you took weren't for you. They were for your agency.

As to your concern that you aren't receiving sufficient respect and civility, that is certainly my error.  In my defense, I would like to say that in my experience most police officers are self actualizing and thick skinned. In fact, most mature, stable people are. I have respectfully acknowledged your position and your commitment to service. What else should I do to salve your injured feelings?

Sancho Panza
PS Assuming you actually told the truth on all 4 tests and even if you were a "false positive" on three out of 4 times you took the test, I don't think that is statistically sufficient to claim a 75% false positive rate due to uncontrolled variables. I think all you have done is claimed/cited 3 examples of an unquantified false positive rate.   Once again  Statisticians correct me if I am wrong, it's been a long time since high school.
SP

Well, you certainly seemed to find the motivation to go back through my old posts.  

In my opinion, the false positive rate is a separate issue from the accuracy rate.  Accuracy involves accurately recognizing deception or truth.  A false positive not only involves failing to accurately recognize truth or deception (which is inaccurate), but also goes a step further (beyond mere inaccuracy) and wrongly labels one as the other.

Mea culpa for not remembering my post from August 2005.  I'm amazed you were willing to go through 2.5 years of my old postings on this board in order to try to prove your point.  I did not recall ever stating that, and you have proven me wrong.  Allow me to congratulate you on your dilligence, and then to humbly ask that I be allowed to restate my point of view every two and a half years or so.  

The example you presented from July 2007, regarding an analogy to the "XYZ" disease, was meant to show that even in the vernacular used by polygraph examiners (i.e., no test is perfect but that doesn't mean the polygraph isn't very good) the polygraph does not measure up as a valid test.  If you care to go back to that post and read the next two posts after the one you cited you can see that for yourself.

I can assure you that you have not hurt my feelings.  As I have pointed out to others, recognizing the presence of discourtesy and sarcasm does not mean that I am offended by it.  I merely pointed out that you have been more conciliatory and gracious to a convicted sex offender than you have been to a veteran law enforcement officer who happens to have a different point of view than you.  Why is that?  I believe it is because many pro-polygraph people have an easier time believing that anti-polygraph folks are sex offenders, liars, and cheats who don't like the polygraph because it catches them when they lie.  The idea of a respected, decorated, honorable, and honest law enforcement officer speaking out against the polygraph, with a very solid and reasonable foundation for his beliefs, is more difficult to deal with.  It might even make you question how many other people who failed their polygraphs despite protestations of innocence were actually telling the truth...

It is telling, in my opinion, that instead of responding with a reasonable counterpoint to my opinion you choose instead to delve through years worth of old posts in the hope of finding an example of contradicting posts.  I believe that is just another example of the argumentum ad hominem (attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's position), for which many polygraph supporters on this web site have become well known.

Along the same lines, am I to believe that the following paragraph is sincere, and is without sarcasm and condescension?  

QuoteAs to your concern that you aren't receiving sufficient respect and civility, that is certainly my error.  In my defense, I would like to say that in my experience most police officers are self actualizing and thick skinned. In fact, most mature, stable people are. I have respectfully acknowledged your position and your commitment to service. What else should I do to salve your injured feelings?

That does not seem to be the case.  And, just to be clear, recognition that the paragraph contains sarcasm and condescension does not equate to a complaint of being harmed by that sarcasm and condescension.

Delving through your old posts took about five minutes to find the quotes that were used in my post. It wasn't a matter of hoping they would be there because based on the nature of your arguments I was pretty confident as to what I would find.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I would humbly offer that you are mistaken as to what the phrases "false positive rate" and accuracy rate mean. To put it very simply, accuracy rate means that which remains after the error rate is removed. In other words accuracy rate is the converse of error rate. [Accuracy rate plus error rate equals 100%] You have confused the term accuracy with validity, which is the term given to describe whether or not a process actually measures what it purports to measure.

If your most recent comments concerning the intent of your XYZ analogy are correct then you shouldn't have used the phrase "However, if the test sometimes showed a positive result for the presence of the XYZ disease when the disease was not actually present, the utility of that test would be zero." in your post.   Your subsequent posts were certainly ample proof that you were attempting to hold polygraph to an illogical and unreasonable standard of "Zero false positive or worthless"

When I quoted your posts, I wasn't responding to your opinion at all, I was responding to your declarative statement "I have never said that since polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate." If I had just used the words "yes you did say that" you would have responded with something along the lines of "No I didn't" and we could have proceeded with point/counterpoint ad nauseum. By responding to you with your own words that contradict your declarative statement we don't have to be bothered by whether or not you said something, we can move on. You can restate your point of view as often as you like. You can change it if you like, but you shouldn't deny it when proof exists to the contrary. Pointing out that you make contradictory statements is not argumentum ad hominum. You always seem to fall back on that accusation whenever someone is critical of your logic. You accused me of using a straw man argument which means that I misrepresented your position. I simply pointed out that #1. I did not misrepresent your position and #2. Your position uses flawed logic by the use of analogy. In order for the "straw man" accusation to succeed I would have to fail in my argument that a zero false positive rate is an illogical and unreasonable standard and that you have taken the position that "polygraph testing is worthless because it is not 100% accurate".  I submit that the TB skin test analogy establishes my argument that zero false positive is illogical and unreasonable and that your own words establish that my comments regarding your position are accurate.

Of course I respond to you differently than I do sex-offenders. If you went to a call at a mental health facility would you interact with the patients the same way you would with the doctors, I expect Sex-Offenders to act like the broken toys they are. When they show some signs that they are moving along with repairs, I think it is important to acknowledge and recognize their progress. Think about the first time one of your kids colored a whole page "inside the lines" did you make a big deal out of it? Did you hang it on the refrigerator?  If you didn't you should have. But if you had a college student home for the weekend and they colored a whole page "inside the lines" I don't think you would or should show the same reaction.

Now if you would care to point out some discourteous statement that I have made to you, I will certainly look at it. If I have committed some social faux pax, I am a big enough boy to acknowledge and apologize if it is called for. But before you wave your 10 years of dedicated respected law enforcement experience (which I have already respectfully acknowledged) in my face one more time, I feel the need to inform you that I have roughly three times the years in law enforcement you claim to have and at my retirement ceremony, the only uniform gear I wore that didn't have seniority on you was my boots and trousers.  Now if you want to swap war stories and "been there done that's" we should probably find another forum because I would bet that we have both seen things that would make the majority of the people on this forum lose their lunch and that is not  what this board is about.

Sancho Panza