Hey all!
I would first of all like to say that i am on probation for staturory rape. I'm not going to lie, I had sex with her, and I knew her age. She had come on to me and I rebuked her before, but the only time it counted, I did not say no. It's not in my nature to molest children and just to let you know, I was 19 and she was 15, but that's another story. I was the older party, I knew it was wrong, and allowed it to happen anyway, so now I'm paying my penance. So now I'm serving 10 years on probation and mandatory Sex Offender Treatment. Well, we originally started with a provider that did not believe in polygraphing unless a specific incident was discovered. However, the powers that be in my judicial circut decided to change treatment providers, and these new providers decided that 100% mandatory maintanance examines were in order. Well, today I took my first maintanance exam and thanks to the techniques I had studied in the book, I passed with flying colors. I just studied the second edition last night before I took the exam and it helped alot. In preperation for the exam, I did not sleep for 30 hours prior. This probably did not help anything at all, but I will tell you this; by the time I got to the chair, I really didn't care about anything he was asking. All I could think about was getting to sleep. When we went over the pretest questions, I could only pick out 1 control question, so I employed countermeasures during the stim test and when he asked the one control question. During all the other questions, all I thought about was getting home and getting in the bed and not getting out.
Whatever I did, it worked. The polygrapher was professional the entire time and said I did excellent. No deception. I really wasn't expecting anything, because I am a pretty honest person, but it was still good to know that I was in control of the "little lie box" and not the other way around. To anyone who is about to endure a polygraph for the first time, I greatly recommend studying the second edition of the lie behind the lie detector and employing the techniques discussed there. I'll keep you updated as to future exams and results. Before I go though, I would like to comment: although I'm happy that i "passed" the test with flying colors, it is, in my opinion an empty victory. Passing a test that, by it's very nature, can not preform its desired function without the use of deception and the need for subjects of the test to believe this deception is not anything to be proud of. As salutatorian of my graduating class and a pre-med student, I always strive to do the best that I can in any endeavor. It disturbs me that such a test is considered to be infallible to many and the results to be unequivocally true. If a deceptive person can pass the exam as easy as an honest one, why do we continue to rely on such tests? Alas, this is a question raised in the book, but one that I felt needed reiteration. Well enough of my ramblings. Good luck all!
What an interesting post. A CONVICTED RAPIST who used "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" to cheat his way through a polygraph required as a condition of his probation.
On top of that he is a pre-med student? Society is suppose to trust this guy with their health and lives? That is scary to say the least.
Well gentlmen, this is a great example of the fruits of your labor....
With which party does the preponderence of blame lie? The probationee, who is merely doing exactly what the polygrapher is doing (LYING), or the judicial institution that values a travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science?
Don't like how polygraph interrogation victims fight back? Get a new job!
(This is venting)
First of all, lets clear up some of the seeming misperceptions of my situation. I do not need to defend myself to anyone, and I felt that the specifics of my case bore no meaning to the topic at hand, however, let me clear something up. As I said earlier, I take full responsibility in the actions I took, but the state saw fit to not only place me on probation for statutory rape CHARGES, but they placed her on probation as well for criminal mischief. I am not a convicted rapist, nor am I a convicted felon on any charges. Secondly, I did not employ countermeasures to cover deceitfulness, rather I employed them to augment the truthful responses I knew I was giving. This forum is in place to express your opinions on the virtues (or lack thereof) and/or value of the polygraph exam; not to sit on a moral high horse and pass judgment. I have spent enough bandwidth responding to the post (L72cueak) and will digress.
(The actual message)
Once again I would like to reiterate the resounding message of this site; the use of a polygraph does not ensure that a person telling a lie will be caught, and rather than the polygraphist complaining about it, they should look into finding a method that is not so reliant on deception itself.
Verbatim,
The most recent round of attacks by the pro-polygraph community merely demonstrates how deeply panicked they are to see their rather lucrative little racket crumbling around their $1,000.00 'activity sensor' pads.
I'll agree that when the subject of polygraphy crosses with post conviction testing, we tread on sensitive ground. No one in their right mind would ever want to facilitate a sex-offender's ability to commit crimes and escape justice/avoid suitable psychiatric therapy. However, the State unknowingly is doing just this by inserting the pseudo-science into the equation. You were wise to come to the table armed with facts.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have posted beach trees. According to the laws of the state that I live in, I am a sex offender. Does this mean that I am going to have sex with a minor ever again. You can bet the farm that I am not. Unfortunantly, all you have to go on is my word. I would love nothing more than for someone to implement a "true" lie detecting system that is not based on vodoo science, however, to my knowledge there is not one.
Responding to what you said in your second paragraph in reference to the fine line we tread between post conviction and the polygraph, I have this to say.
I am in the unique position of being classified as a sex offender and get to see other sex offenders up close and personal. And you know what? It's scary. The fact that some of these guys are being allowed to walk the streets is scary. Do not think that I feel that I am better than these people. A sex offense is a sex offense any way you slice it. I would also like to take this time to state that just because a person is designated as a sex offender does not mean that he/she is a danger to all children. However, in the same category we have those who suffer from pedephillia and other serious mental conditions that allow them to repeatedly harm the youth. The fact that we are using the polygraph to ensure that these people do not reoffend frightens me to no end. Like I stated before, I get to see it from the inside and it's not pretty. Some of the things that I have heard would sicken you and bring you to tears. I will play the devils advocate for a moment and state that the majority of people who commit such crimes are not of the upper echolone of society, nor do many of them rank high in IQ testing. With that said, many believe that they will be caught by the polygraph and make confessions based on that fear. This leaves me with a bitter-sweet feeling towards the test.
On the one hand I am thankful that these people will no longer be able to offend, but on the flip side, where in the constitution does it state that the system may pray on an individuals ignorance to incriminate them?
Not to mention those of a different calibur all together which are devious, deliberate, and of higher intelligence that may very well employ countermeasures to "beat" the test.
When looked upon from both sides, the polygraph is a tool that at best can only fool people into making and admission. It can not and should not be relied upon to produce any "factual concrete evidence" to the perponderance of any situation, criminal or employment based. It is, in my belief, a money making tool (at least in the case of the judicial circut in which i reside) that should have as much bearing on deception as a psychic reading tarrot cards.
So where does that leave us? We come to this forum and discuss the problems of the polygraph, but what is to be done about it. Any insight into actual actions being taken (other than the challenges put forth on this web site) would be greatly appreciated.
(sorry long winded just have a lot of thoughts on the subject!)
If you want to know something more scary. Iowa SOTP program seems to relie on the polygraph more then anything else. Treatment for my son is a joke ( got him a private counselor as well) the tests are a joke and they base everything on a polygraph test.
Seems to me everything is backwords in the heartland.
P.S. L72cueak if your going to use this thread in your defense of your quack job you got another thing coming to you. This guy barely used any counter measures from what I read and saw in this website, all he did was stay calm.
I hardly think a 19 year old having consensual sex with a 15 makes one a rapist. A mistake yes, rape no. Many 15 year old girls are more mature than 19 year old boys.
Practicing a quack profession based on psuedo science such as polygraphy or--just a bad--drug testing puts one much lower in the slime pool.
Kudos to verbatim for not letting these people screw his life up any more than it already is. And a big "thumbs-down" to L72cueak for slapping a label on him that is totally off the mark.
Verbatim's situation is one that is quite common in our country. Statistics show that 1/2 of all high-school students are sexually active. Granted, most of them are doing it with their classmates. Sex between two 15 year-olds is just as illegal as what Verbatim did. So why aren't these kids being arrested, if it is so wrong? Why does society choose to turn a blind eye to these events unless an "adult" is involved? And what magical event occurs on the eve of one's 18th birthday that endows them with the wisdom and maturity to make these decisions but at the same time makes them a "monster" as L72cueak seems to think Verbatim is?
A philosophical question that can never be answered with satisfaction, so I will leave it at that. Keep it up, Verbatim, and good luck to you in your future as a doctor.
anontx,
I'm not here to argue PSOT, just to add a bite of common sense to this thread. You said,
QuoteI hardly think a 19 year old having consensual sex with a 15 makes one a rapist. A mistake yes, rape no. Many 15 year old girls are more mature than 19 year old boys.
I believe 18 in the eyes of the law makes you legal. I think the 15 y/o's parents might agree with me on that. What if it were your daughter or what if she were 14, 13? Where is the line to be drawn?
Verbatim....you really, really confuse me (No, Michelle, aka Thunder Thighs, I am NOT "Confused") Let me get this straight, you did a "bad" thing (by your own admission), and then you took a polygraph test as part of your court ordered probation (if need be, correct me anywhere along the line). You state that this test was a maintenance test (my understanding of maintenance tests is to ensure that you abiding my the conditions of your probation i.e. includes but not limited to things such as unsupervised contact with children). You donot say so (and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that you have religiously followed the demands of your probation and therefore you should be able to take your test and pass it with no problems whatsoever. Here is where the confusion comes in. Why would have wanted to apply countermeasures if you were genuinely being honest in the first place. Regardless if the examiner was able to pick up your countermeasures....if he did, you would most likely have been revoked and sent to the slammer. There are any number of reasons why the examiner allegedly did not notice your CM's, but it just puzzles me why you would even take this chance...given as you said, you are innocent. My friend, the test works, you may believe what you want. It matters not to me. You may very well realize that someday and at this point you are relying on the test to keep you out of jail. You are playing with your own life....so grin and chuckle all you like. Let's see you chuckle when you are revoked.
The second part of this post should be addressed to George (and Gino) as purveyors of this site. This is the very situation that many of the polygraphers have been talking about. Aren't you proud of yourself? This is not a typical example, because of the nature of the offense, the apparent lack of continuing illegal behavior (assuming he is truthful about that). He acknowledges using your information in TLBTLD to help him pass the test. Can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line you are training "bad" people to "beat the test". I know your position and that you think in terms of the greater good, but typically, sex offenders of not of the ilk as Verbatim (again, assuming he is being truthful about the lack of his exploits). Do any of the anti-poly people out there have children and how would you feel if a VIOLENT sex offender who somehow were able to achieve monited probation, contingent on a polygraph) and he uses your "techniques" to escape returning to jaiol and roams the streets of YOUR neighborhood. Please don't tell me about instilling fear. The scenario is real and the things that you do just tend to make it easier for these folks to victimize our children. Just ask some of your supporters on your site and see if they see the logic in my statements. You may realize that your original thought to "right a perceived wrong" has taken a wrong turn and stands to hurt ratrher than heal. Think about it.
Quote from: Guest on Feb 27, 2003, 10:06 PM Why would have wanted to apply countermeasures if you were genuinely being honest in the first place.
Probably because polygraphs results are wildly inaccurate. As a part of your professional research, didn't you read the NAS report?
QuoteRegardless if the examiner was able to pick up your countermeasures....if he did, you would most likely have been revoked and sent to the slammer.
Ah yes but he didn't did he? That's because the types of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are undetectable when properly applied.
QuoteThere are any number of reasons why the examiner allegedly did not notice your CM's...
I just outlined the reason above, but I would be very interested in any other reasons you might care to share why a polygrapher would not detect countermeasures. For god's sake, please don't insult us all with the 'uncalibrated machine' excuse.
QuoteMy friend, the test works, you may believe what you want.
Tell you what-- you stick with your delusional gratuitous assertions and we here at antipolygraph.org will stick to the facts. You JUST finished saying that there are any number of reasons why countermeasures would not be detected, and now you spew the propoganda that 'the test works'. The 'test' works insofar as naive, gullible, or simply moronic subjects believe that another human being can actually read minds... i.e., they are duped into confessing.
QuoteIt matters not to me. You may very well realize that someday and at this point you are relying on the test to keep you out of jail.
Apparently it matters quite a bit Guest!
For the purposes of illustration of my point, let's presume for a moment that Verbatim is reoffending. Verbatim would then simply be relying on the polygraph community's lies, taking advantage of your lies, and remaining free. It's the PO's reliance on your particular line of B.S. that's keeping Verbatim out of jail, free to molest our sons and daughters. YOUR fault polygrapher.
QuoteYou are playing with your own life....so grin and chuckle all you like. Let's see you chuckle when you are revoked.
Please, if you can, point to any case in the United States in which a probationer/parolee was accused of countermeasures and subsequently, based on that accusation alone, sent back to (or just to) jail. Can you, or is this another scare tactic from the polygraphers here?
QuoteThe second part of this post should be addressed to George (and Gino) as purveyors of this site. This is the very situation that many of the polygraphers have been talking about. Aren't you proud of yourself? This is not a typical example, because of the nature of the offense, the apparent lack of continuing illegal behavior (assuming he is truthful about that). He acknowledges using your information in TLBTLD to help him pass the test. Can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line you are training "bad" people to "beat the test". I know your position and that you think in terms of the greater good, but typically, sex offenders of not of the ilk as Verbatim (again, assuming he is being truthful about the lack of his exploits). Do any of the anti-poly people out there have children and how would you feel if a VIOLENT sex offender who somehow were able to achieve monited probation, contingent on a polygraph) and he uses your "techniques" to escape returning to jaiol and roams the streets of YOUR neighborhood. Please don't tell me about instilling fear. The scenario is real and the things that you do just tend to make it easier for these folks to victimize our children. Just ask some of your supporters on your site and see if they see the logic in my statements. You may realize that your original thought to "right a perceived wrong" has taken a wrong turn and stands to hurt ratrher than heal. Think about it.
Turn the mirror around and look into it, Guest. YOU'RE to blame here, insofar as you have sold a worthless bill of goods up the chain of command. Polygraphers cannot discern truth from deception based on the charts alone, they cannot detect properly-executed countermeasures, and any attempts to bluff and bluster otherwise will be met with a multitude of posts just like mine pointing out those sad facts!
Hey Beech, sorry to hear that you were feeling bad....that must be the case because I haven't heard you go off like that in a while. Whew! a scathing retort if I may say....but I doubt if Guest was listening...it seems he /she DID their homework and touched your "fluster" button. Sure hope that you are feeling better....For a while you sounded like Michelle (loved the Thunder Thighs moniker that Guest put on her). And your sad attempt at turning the blame issue around. What are you just angry that YOU did not write TLBTLD? One last question, you do not have any children do you?
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 27, 2003, 11:12 PM
Hey Beech, sorry to hear that you were feeling bad....that must be the case because I haven't heard you go off like that in a while. Whew! a scathing retort if I may say....but I doubt if Guest was listening...it seems he /she DID their homework and touched your "fluster" button. Sure hope that you are feeling better....For a while you sounded like Michelle (loved the Thunder Thighs moniker that Guest put on her). And your sad attempt at turning the blame issue around. What are you just angry that YOU did not write TLBTLD? One last question, you do not have any children do you?
Mr. Butt-cheek-checker,
If you think that's 'going off', you either work with 6th grade girls or haven't read many of my posts (please note: some are lengthy and contain pollysyllabic words).
I have a 2 year old son who is the light of my life. NO idea where you're going with that one, but logic was never and never shall be your forte...
The Blame Issue...... yes i suppose that's what we'll have to call it from now on. And, it wasn't an attempt. The fault clearly and irrevocably lies at your feet.
THANK YOU for the ad hominem attack, and have a nice day
Naw...this is NOT the BT of old!...Wait, wait, I know...you ARE really Michelle and you "accidentally" took too many dex tablets. Hug that light of your life BY and hope and pray that some of the slugs that I see way too often are never near your child...or anyone's child for that matter. As others omn this site just might say, until we "decriminalize" dull knifes (with which to render justice), polygraph, no matter what you think of it, it is provides a modicom (ooh look a three syllable word) of protection in the absence of anything else (in case you haven't noticed, they are letting them out of the jails bud!) maybe, just maybe you would look at polygraph in a different light. One other point (while I have you in a semi-lucid state) Aren't you the guy that said you were NOT antipolygrapher....that you were "only" anti-polygraph? Your diatribe (oops, another one of those 25 cent words) might make one think otherwise.
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 27, 2003, 11:55 PM
. . . provides a modicom (ooh look a three syllable word) of protection . . .
. . . Your diatribe (oops, another one of those 25 cent words) might make . . .
Torpedo,
Get yourself some Immodium AD. Your apparent case of diarrhea is making you go through your "big word of the day" toilet paper WAY too fast.
Thought I'd throw this post in the ring, since you are more into attacking the man (BT, Michelle, etc.) than actually providing any intellectual discussion.
Chris
C'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument. Despite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old...and seeing how he has taken a fair number of pretty mean shots at me (and the Justice League)...I thought I would have a little fun wth him. But fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you. Must be "army justice"
Quote from: Guest on Feb 27, 2003, 10:06 PM
Verbatim....you really, really confuse me (No, Michelle, aka Thunder Thighs, I am NOT "Confused")
Wow -- talk about a juvenile comment. You guys really amaze me sometimes.
QuoteMy friend, the test works, you may believe what you want. It matters not to me.
I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "the test works". The National Academy of Sciences seems to have concluded that even when the "test" "works", it doesn't work very well. Perhaps you'd care to address the scientific evidence on the issue?
QuoteThe second part of this post should be addressed to George (and Gino) as purveyors of this site. This is the very situation that many of the polygraphers have been talking about. Aren't you proud of yourself? This is not a typical example, because of the nature of the offense, the apparent lack of continuing illegal behavior (assuming he is truthful about that). He acknowledges using your information in TLBTLD to help him pass the test. Can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line you are training "bad" people to "beat the test".
Given the scientific evidence that indicates how unreliable polygraphs are, can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line your "test" finds innocent people deceptive and averts suspicion from the guilty?
It is dependence upon your snake oil that enables the guilty to go free, not the actions of whistleblowers who call attention to the flaws in the system.Skeptic
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 28, 2003, 02:02 AM
C'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument. Despite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old...and seeing how he has taken a fair number of pretty mean shots at me (and the Justice League)...I thought I would have a little fun wth him. But fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you. Must be "army justice"
Torpedo,
Every person deserves the right to defend themselves. You did make personal attacks on BT before he made his comments to you.
Unfortuantely, there aren't many on this site who think you are capable of making a "fairly cogent argument." I try my best to read your posts and see what you are trying to convey, but sifting through the playground potshots, personal attacks, poor grammar, and ass kissing of Batman is a tedious job. I really think yo would be better served if you left the schoolhouse slander to the teenagers. Getting a kick out of calling someone Thunder Thighs?? Please . . . .
What I find funny is that you ask me for a definition of justice. Honestly, after what has happened to me, I don't know what justice is anymore. And you should know better than to ask me about justice, since you all constantly label me as "jaded."
Chris
Time for a mother of three children to chime in.
I have a son, 13, and two girls, ages 7 and 3. If any person just minutes into turning 18 or older has sex with any of then, I will do everything in my power to have them prosecuted. I would fight long and hard against the polygraph being used in ANY shape or form in any probation. I know the weakness of the polygraph, and I would hire an attorney just to be certain that this coin toss was not allowed to blindly pretent to be an effective and true control over an offender.
If one of my children have sex with someone under the age of 18 once they turn 18, they deserve the exact same treatment. I find it irrelevant if the younger child is having sex already with kids their own ages. I cannot and will not lay blame or shame at the feet of the younger one, for to do so would be to hold our laws and social controls in contempt.
It has been suggested that a 19 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is nothing more than bad judgement. It has also been said that high school kids are having sex -- most often with other classmates -- and that this is justification for not being so harsh on a 19 year old for having sex with a girl this young. Well, this is what society has deemed to be rational and the norm. Society has said that at some point you must be held accountable and responsible for your activities. For sex, it is at age 18. For alcohol, it is 21. No one grows up in this society and is not fully aware of the consequences of breaking these laws. Therefore, I see no rationalization in any arguement to the contrary.
Bottom line here, it is not up to the children under the legal age of consent (it varies from state to state) to stop from engaging in sexual activity with anyone over the age of 18, but the responsibility of the person over the age of 18 to not give in to or be lured by sexual activity with one under that age.
Quote from: The Shadow on Feb 27, 2003, 09:23 PM
I believe 18 in the eyes of the law makes you legal. I think the 15 y/o's parents might agree with me on that. What if it were your daughter or what if she were 14, 13? Where is the line to be drawn?
Shadow,
In many states, it's "16", not "18".
Skeptic
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 28, 2003, 02:02 AMC'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument.
A fairly cogent argument? No wonder our legal system is in such a shambles-- it is partially comprised of individuals who feel that 'Guest's argument was 'fairly cogent'. Be afraid, be very afraid.
QuoteDespite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old
Please, Torpid-o, you see the pitiful material I have to work with.... perhaps if one of you somehow rise to the level of discourse we used to enjoy here you will once again see that which you so desperately miss.
QuoteBut fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you. Must be "army justice"
Rather ironic, this last statement. Men and women contribute detailed accounts of how their personal and professional lives are totally destroyed through the systematic abuse by the polygraph, and they are labeled 'whiners' by polygraphers. Yet look at the girlish, high-pitched mewling above and tell me the author of same is not one of the biggest whiners to walk the Earth.
QuoteOne other point (while I have you in a semi-lucid state) Aren't you the guy that said you were NOT antipolygrapher....that you were "only" anti-polygraph? Your diatribe (oops, another one of those 25 cent words) might make one think otherwise.
You apparently were distracted by a shiny object before you read that portion of my post that stated:
Where despicable acts by the individual polygraphers who post here merit attention, they are duly noted, commented upon, and generally pointed out by myself or others.
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 28, 2003, 04:40 AM
Time for a mother of three children to chime in.
I do not always agree with you. This time you are right on the money. Your children are lucky to have you. God Bless!
I agree with 95% ofyour post especially the last paragraph.
Bottom line here, it is not up to the children under the legal age of consent (it varies from state to state) to stop from engaging in sexual activity with anyone over the age of 18, but the responsibility of the person over the age of 18 to not give in to or be lured by sexual activity with one under that age.
:)
Skeptic,
I was only using 18 as a reference point, ie: vote, be drafted (if there was a draft (and if you are a male)) etc... I did not intend to infer/imply that 18 y/o was the law of the land.
I do believe Seeker was dead on target with her last post:
QuoteIt has been suggested that a 19 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is nothing more than bad judgement. It has also been said that high school kids are having sex -- most often with other classmates -- and that this is justification for not being so harsh on a 19 year old for having sex with a girl this young. Well, this is what society has deemed to be rational and the norm. Society has said that at some point you must be held accountable and responsible for your activities. For sex, it is at age 18. For alcohol, it is 21. No one grows up in this society and is not fully aware of the consequences of breaking these laws. Therefore, I see no rationalization in any arguement to the contrary.
Bottom line here, it is not up to the children under the legal age of consent (it varies from state to state) to stop from engaging in sexual activity with anyone over the age of 18, but the responsibility of the person over the age of 18 to not give in to or be lured by sexual activity with one under that age.
Quote from: The Shadow on Feb 28, 2003, 09:44 PM
Skeptic,
I was only using 18 as a reference point, ie: vote, be drafted (if there was a draft (and if you are a male)) etc... I did not intend to infer/imply that 18 y/o was the law of the land.
I do believe Seeker was dead on target with her last post:
Shadow,
I agree.
Skeptic
Hmmm. Beech Trees, you are a treasure trove to any number of psycho-analyists. Many of us took note of your attack on me about "working with 6th grade girls"...and then a subsequent comment about "girlish high pitched mewling"...is one left with the premise that you might very well be obsessed with young girls...whew!...I hope not...you are way to valuable on this site. ;) ;) ;D
Quote from: Torpedo on Mar 03, 2003, 01:37 PM
Hmmm. Beech Trees, you are a treasure trove to any number of psycho-analyists. Many of us took note of your attack on me about "working with 6th grade girls"...and then a subsequent comment about "girlish high pitched mewling"...is one left with the premise that you might very well be obsessed with young girls...whew!...I hope not...you are way to valuable on this site. ;) ;) ;D
Torpedo,
Again, you provide no intellect in your posts, and again you favor the ad hominem attack.
No one respects you when you do this, and it is only funny to your schoolhouse mentality.
If you want your posts to get some respect, add some
content. I know it is a novel concept for you. You might want to check out posts of The_Breeze to see how it is done. Even Batman adds content to an argument (although these instances are very infrequent).
Why don't you start by telling all of us how you stand on all issues regarding the polygraph. For example, I'll start:
Pre-emplyment screening -- I'm against it
Security screening -- I'm against it
Event specific testing -- I'm for it
Use of Countermeasures -- I'm against it
Now, Torpedo, if you did the same, we could
discuss some of these issues.
Or if you want to play the playground rank out game, well , then no one will respect or listen to you, and you will continue to tarnish the name "polygrapher."
Chris
Steincj....for your information, I have attempted many, many times to engage in a discussion with various people on this board....in many cases to no avail. Even to the point of changing the names under which I posted and trying another tact in the event those who responded were "poisoned" to my comments. The vast majority of the anti-polygraph community are so narrow minded and mired in their position that they absolutely will not engage in any meaningful discussion. You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them. When people call us "pigs" and "butt cheek checkers" and "cowards" among other childish ad hominem attacks, you have got to expect a response in kind. True enough, my responses may add little to the discussion, but I will not sit back and have people like him attack me with no response forthcoming. Just because you write in favor of him, does not mean he is right...anymore than I am right. I just do not have a champion as he apparently does in you. But if you choose to admonish one...then admonish all.
And for the record:
Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed. We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board. When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.
Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said
Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here. Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.
Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it. I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures. I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it. I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.
I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind. That's okay, I can deal with that. But to "teach" people what to do to defeat polygraph is foolish...IMHO.
I know that I have opened the door and the responses I will get from this will just exasperate me even more. I know I cannot win any of you over. I don;t care if I can or not. When your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.
There are numerous people who write on this board whose knowledge of polygraph is derived from movies and television. In most cases, in case you did not know this, professional polygraphers, bristle at some of the things we see on television. Polygraphers cannot control who or what appears in these media. If an examiner does something untoward and is a member of an association, that association does take action in that regard. If a state has a licensing provision and this type of behavior is prohibited then that organization takes care of the offending person. Unfortunately, there are too many states that do not have licensing laws. Most of the professional organizations have lobbied hard for universal licensing, but some states just won't accept that premise. In my opinion, I harbor serious doubts that when a federal examiner is accused of some transgression, it is true. They are under far too much scrutiny and most simply would not risk their careers to do some of the things of which they have been accused.
Okay, there is some discussion points fromme. Despite what some have said I have stated some cogent points. Like I said, they will not be accepted. I know this...and it matters not to me. I know that when I give an examination, it is the very best that I can provide based on the training that I have received. I can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing. I work hard top protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.
Just wondering torpedo, what was the screen name under which you used to post?
Annoymouse: I prefer not to divulge that information if it is all the same to you. I do not mean to sound discourteous, but I doubt that now has any bearing whatsoever on anything I might write or say now or in the future.
Quote from: Torpedo on Mar 03, 2003, 06:17 PM
Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed. We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board. When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.
For the record, Torpedo, I for one have never, nor will I ever, state that a bad employee should have been caught by the polygraph. I could not in good conscience believe polygraph screening to be largely invalid then turn around and blame the lack of a polygraph for a bad employee slipping through the cracks.
I know such blaming does occur, but I believe it to be wholly naive, since I think a polygraph screen could very well have let the bad employee through, as well (or worse: given a false stamp of approval to the employee).
I am truly sorry that you have the impression no one here will listen to what polygraphers have to say. Unfortunately, from my point of view the evidence polygraphers give here for polygraph testing is weak and unscientific (what scientific evidence there is -- that I've seen -- casts doubt on the efficacy of the polygraph, especially in screening situations). And when claims are made here by polygraphers, they are almost never backed up; this gives the strong impression that most such claims are bluffs, and that the pro-polygraph side is really indefensible.
Please believe that it is my standards of evidence, not dislike of the people presenting it, that fuels my position on this issue. You and I might not like each other in real life, Torpedo, and I'm as willing as any here to engage in a pointless flame war on occasion. But if your side had the stronger evidence, that's the side I would support, from an argumentation standpoint.
Regards,
Skeptic
Since this thread seems to be sliding "off-topic", permit me to steer it back. Torpedo;
1) What is your opinion on the use of polygraphs for maintenance testing of sex offenders?
2) Innocent people will use countermeasures ONLY because the polygraph is just as liable to show they are guilty as it is to show they are innocent. Agree or disagree?
3) In the case of a Florida PCSOT, a questionaire consisting of some 150 questions is given to the examinee. These questions cover everything from traffic violations to sexual activities, sexual fantasies, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, you name it, it's in there. After discussing each of these answers, the examinee is hooked up, and the examiner asks the question "Other than what you have already told me, were you truthful on the questionaire?". So, if there is a response indicating deception, how would you as an examiner decide which of the 150 questions the response applied to?
Quote from: orolan on Mar 03, 2003, 10:32 PM
2) Innocent people will use countermeasures ONLY because the polygraph is just as liable to show they are guilty as it is to show they are innocent. Agree or disagree?
orolan,
I think it is unlikely that the polygraph has only 50-50 odds of labeling an innocent person guilty. What NAS's study does say is that the polygraph is unproven and that it's accuracy is, at best, considerably less than perfect under ideal conditions.
There are also reasons to believe that once one knows about the polygraphers "trick" on a CQT that the test would become more likely to yield a false positive since it would devolve into a R/I type test. The reason the PL control question test was invented was to reduce the false positives from R/I tests.
I still have gotten no reponse from polygraphers testing another polygrapher and about how they sensitize another polygrapher with control questions since they would recognize axactly what they are doing - hence obviating the purpose of the control questions.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Mar 03, 2003, 11:14 PM
orolan,
I think it is unlikely that the polygraph has only 50-50 odds of labeling an innocent person guilty. What NAS's study does say is that the polygraph is unproven and that it's accuracy is, at best, considerably less than perfect under ideal conditions.
-Marty
Sorry about that. I did not intend to say that the odds were 50/50, but I can see how my words convey that opinion. Of course, "considerably less than perfect" is not that great. And what are "ideal conditions"? An examinee who has no anxiety about the test and got a good nights sleep, it's a beautiful sunny day, and the examiner is a decent guy with no pre-conceived notions regarding the examinee's guilt or innocence?
Torpedo,
For once you write with content. I applaud you for that.
Quote from: Torpedo on Mar 03, 2003, 06:17 PM
You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.
Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks. Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.
You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph. I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League). I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you.
Quote
And for the record:
Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed. We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board. When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.
First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments. You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR). I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.
Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.
And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system. I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph. Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible. They can't be wrong, so you must be.
Quote
Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said
Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening. The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)
Quote
Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here. Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.
I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion. The human element of investigation is the most important.
Quote
Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it. I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures. I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it. I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.
This is a circular argument. Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test. That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total. The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.
I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test. How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test? Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing?
Quote
I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind. That's okay, I can deal with that.
Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe. Interesting. I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?
QuoteWhen your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.
Don't worry, I hang my head in shame too, sometimes (but I still won't join your treehouse club).
QuoteI can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing. I work hard to protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.
Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade. After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself. There was no protection in that exam room that day.
Chris
UMMMM!!! Torpedo, did you run out of gas???? Or do you choose to ignore posts that require something besides mud-slinging?
I know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.
Quote from: unknown on May 05, 2003, 02:29 AMI know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.
What is this person's name, and in what court was he convicted of violating the conditions of his parole/probation by using countermeasures on his polygraph?
I too would like to know who and where. There is very little public information on probation revocations and their underlying causes, especially when the probationer has not committed a new offense.
Quote from: unknown on May 05, 2003, 02:29 AMI know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.
The problem with the polygraph is that its
"SUBJECTIVE" not objective. Because of this you would be hard pressed to state unequivocally under oath in a court of law that the reaction measured could only have been produced by one employing a countermeasure and not by some emotional reaction to the question.
Ones probation is not revoke based on assumptions.
Simply put:
PROVE IT.
Well, well, well! It's been quite a while since i have viewed the site, and it seems that a thread that I started last year is still spawning discussion. I am posting this update to let you all know what has been going on. I have taken 3 polygraph tests since the initial one, and all have come up as passed. I have become more confident in taking them, and don't worry any more about them. However, something has been brought to my attention by one of my fellow probationers. He says that he has been doing things that he should not be doing while on probation and passing the polygraph tests by "visualizing a calm place" the entire time he is taking the test. This apalls me! I do not know the extent of his offenses because he did not go into detail, however, the fact that he could beat the polygraph with no knowledge of countermeasures just by his visualization technique worries me greatly. I regulary augment my responses so as to not be accused of probation violations, but to think that this is all it takes to fool this machine... FRIGHTENING! Once again I bring my disdain for this procedure to the table. If we are to rely on a "test" that can so easily be countered to ensure that the probation population remains in check what does that mean? I offer up this scenario. The correctional departments believe in the validity of the polygraph. If a probationer is passing a polygraph, then they must not be doing anything wrong. The reward for passing the polygrapgh is lighter supervision. If a probationer is able to trick the polygraph, in essence he is able to reduce his/her supervision and, if disposed to, offend again. This is alarming. To all of those who would place faith in the polygraph, i have this to say; i believe the time is coming (if not already come) that a person who passes your polygraph can be out in the public offending at will because you rely on faulty methods. This from someone in the trenches with those that would do this very thing.
Verbatim,
Now you find yourself within a moral dilemma. If your fellow probationer is offending, ie molesting children, you owe it to society at large to do something about it. If he is offending by viewing "inappropriate" material like teenagers in bathing suits, than you probably still should do something about it. Do you go to therapy with this guy? Maybe you can bring it up in group in a roundabout way?
Countermeasures are good for preventing people otherwise innocent of being accused. They are not advocated for the use of guilty people to hide their evils. I trust you will do what is right in this situation.
I understand what you are going through, Verbatim. I have three months left now on an indecent exposure charge, and I have been passing all of my polygraphs using the "sting" method.
I have in turn tought a couple of guys to use the method to pass their tests, but I made sure I knew them and their crimes weren't too detestable in nature. The guys that are in there for rape, incest, or other crimes, I think should sweat the polygraphs out. Sure, the polygraph is bogus, but the thought of those guys knowing they could get away with anything gives me chills.
I would tell the group what that guy said to you....unless he is going to rat you out for using countermeasures to pass the polygraph. You didn't tell him did you?
That is something I will never understand. Why do they lump all sex offenses in the same group and give them the same punishment.....polygraph testing, your picture on the internet, and sex offender registration?
Why does the government consider indecent exposure, or trying to pick up a hooker the same thing as a violent rape or raping a child? They are giving them the same punishments and it doesn't make sense.
OkieBoy,
Do any of the methods taught in the "Sting" differ from those taught in TLBTLD? IF so, which ones? You can reply directly to my registered name here or in an open post, it really doesn't matter.
I am curious to know if there are differences, your response would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
PK
Hey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website. You guys make me sick.
Quote from: Fed-up on May 20, 2003, 03:56 PMHey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website. You guys make me sick.
Fed-up,
I suggest you gather a little information before making statements or casting your arbitrary judgments based a comment or question I have posted. I have NEVER participated in, condoned, or even considered child molestation or anything remotely related. Frankly it IS very disturbing to me. Maybe you should read my initial post. I AM A POLICE OFFICER and have been for several years. I was inquiring to okieboy for my own personal research(as if it is any of your business).
Regards,
PK
And what is your "research"? Sounds like you have your mind made up. Makes me wonder what the average IQ is on this site. And I do think that Fed-up had a point about you and "okieboy" being very friendly. But perhaps you are just working undercover and trying to get the goods on the ole okie.
Amused,
I say again, what is your position on the polygraph? Poly-killer is simply one of the many LEO's out there who oppose polygraphs. Does that cause a problem for you? And I don't know what the average IQ is on this site, but I'm sure it dropped a few points now that you have graced us with your presence.
Quote from: Amused on May 20, 2003, 11:24 PMAnd what is your "research"? Sounds like you have your mind made up. Makes me wonder what the average IQ is on this site. And I do think that Fed-up had a point about you and "okieboy" being very friendly. But perhaps you are just working undercover and trying to get the goods on the ole okie.
Amused,
Not that I feel the need to answer to someone who appears to be somewhat "cerebrally challenged", but since I have nothing better to do, and a few minutes to kill, I will.
First, my PERSONAL research is in the area of deception as a whole, including behavior, forensic aspects, etc.
Second, you're right, my mind is made up, but only after personal experience and investigations. Unlike you, who seem to simply spew for the sake of posting.
As far as my IQ, judging by the limited wisdom you have displayed, it's much higher than yours. As far as my question to okieboy, maybe you should read it again, it was cordial and straight-forward. It was not "friendly" and it was not in any way in support of what he or anyone else in that thread, or similar threads, has been convicted of or continue to participate in. If they have problems, they need help, period.
Please, in the future, if you are going to address someone or make accusations, present a valid argument or point. Stop with the senseless dribble. It is the likes of people like you that lower the average IQ on this site.
Regards,
PK
It's once again polygraph time. Updates. I am now placed in a weird situation. On my last polygraph, the examiner ran the polygraph twice. This is not normal. After the second time he stopped the machine and asked me if what I knew about counter measures. I told him exactly what I knew. I felt that there was no reason to hide the fact that I knew what they were and that I could employ them at will. He didn't say anything more, he simply ran the test one more time. After running the test, he told me I could go without saying whether I "passed" or "failed". I assumed that this meant that I passed because he did not ask any more specific questions or ask for a confession. When the polygraph results were reviewed later, they showed no deception. I find this interesting. The examiner, knowing that I could employ countermeasures, made no mention (that I'm aware of) to the treatment provider or probation office about my ability to fool the test. I am inclined to believe that the examiner doesn't want to draw attention to the fact the polygraph can indeed be beaten. Interesting.
Verbatim,
QuoteI am inclined to believe that the examiner doesn't want to draw attention to the fact the polygraph can indeed be beaten. Interesting.
[glb]Interesting indeed [/glb]