Hey, all. I have a scenario I need help with.
6 years ago, I committed a sexual offense, and was convicted. I touched my step-daughter inappropriately on her butt. DA offered me a year in county as a condition of 3 years probation. Being guilty and acknowledging my wrongdoing, I took it. Judge jumped the plea deal, gave me 4 in prison, 6 on probation (bifurcated sentence - Wisconsin law) on a first-time offense (meaning that I'd never even had a speeding ticket before). Judge's reasoning was that I had other victims, and where he got this idea, neither myself nor the prosecution knows.... supposedly, I molested an older cousin when I was young (when the detectives later asked said cousin, she denied anything ever occurred - and it's in a detective's report, black and white), a brother I never had (I only have sisters), a younger neice who physically could not have been the age the judge said she was when I supposedly molested her (and who vehemently denies I ever touched her) and an older sister, who was actually sitting in court on my behalf (along with the aforementioned niece and cousin), trying in vain to tell the judge that he was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Anywhoo, it's an appeal-able issue, and yes, I'm appealing my sentence structure.
So, I take the occasional poly for maintenance purposes. I pass them, because I do nothing wrong, and I know how to prevent false-positives, thanks to valuable info on this site. I am considered low risk by every measure, and enjoy freedoms most other offenders do not enjoy because I am doing well.
I have two children from a previous marriage - one teen, one pre-teen. I have not been able to see or even contact them due to probation and parole rules. However, I was recently told that I can have have contact with them, as long as I pass a Sexual History Polygraph.
For those that don't know, this type of polygraph is strictly voluntary in Wisconsin. It is not a court or probation rules mandated affair, unlike the maintenance polygraphs. I can take it if I want, or not. Considering what is at stake, I am strongly thinking about doing so, for two reasons: I have nothing to hide, and I know I can prevent a false positive. My probation agent wants to know if there are any other instances of sexually inappropriate contact with anyone that they aren't aware of during the course of my life.
HOWEVER... I want the results... both the polygrapher's report, and the polygram. I want these things for Family court, and possibly as an instrument of proof of innocence, so to speak, in my appeal of my sentence on the issue of the other supposed 'victims'. Polygraph results in appeals is a very murky issue, but I'd be happy to blaze the trail if it means a reduction is my sentence. But, I know of several instances where polys have been used in visitation or custody cases.
My agent says that he will only accept the results from the polygrapher that the local probation office uses, and no other polygrapher. When I asked why, he said "cuz we know the guy". Probation and Parole absolutely will not honor any other polygrapher's results, I was told. I told my agent that since this is voluntary, and not being done through their contract with the polygrapher, that I want the results. I was told I can't have the results because they don't own the copy of the results (about as nonsensical of an answer as one could ever possibly give). I reminded my agent that I'm paying for the poly out of my own pocket, that I have to travel to the polygrapher's office some 60 miles away to take the 'test', and actually present the money on my own, and that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE GUY, but I was told emphatically that I will absolutely not get the results, see the report, see the polygram, ect... I will only be told if I 'pass' or 'fail'.
I have yet to contact 'their' polygrapher to ask about this on my own. Seems like a lost cause, but I might do it, just to cover my bases, possibly get something on record.
I have the option of going to court on the visitation issue, at which point either I or probation, or a GAL may suggest a polygraph - at which point, the results would be court record, and I have all the access to them I want, regardless of my probation agent's posturing. Also, my divorce judge is also the same judge who sentenced me and who would hear my initial appeal on my sentence... which is my way of sneaking the 'i didn't touch other people' passed-polygraph info into his brain regardless of whether poly results are allowed in appeals or not.
But I really loathe the idea of using 'their' poly guy. I'd like this poly to be as independent as possible (if their ever was such a thging). Even though I can prevent false-positives, and I'd be telling the truth on the poly, god only knows what could happen with 'their' guy at the helm... and regardless of who ends up doing my poly, I want the results for court and/or 'independent' review, come what may. The fact that they will only honor 'their' poly guy's results is very worrisome and telling. I don't think they want anyone, at any time ever, to be able to review or question either the methods or technique, let alone the results, of their poly guy. It could open the door to question every 'failed' test ever administered at my local probation office, perhaps?
Anyway, I want an independent poly guy, and the results of my poly. Anyone see a way to get there? Have any advice or legal pointers? Ever seen a situation like this, or can point me to someone who can help me?
QuoteMy agent says that he will only accept the results from the polygrapher that the local probation office uses, and no other polygrapher. When I asked why, he said "cuz we know the guy".
*Joe McCarthy, sound familiar?
MagicSteve,
I am puzzled that the judge would give you such a harsh sentence and not require you to undergo sex offender treatment, which would have involved a Sexual History polygraph exam. Your minimizing of the sexual assault as "inappropriate butt touching" seems to indicate that you could benefit from therapy. I think this would carry more weight in allowing visitation. In fact, someone saying that you could have visitation by simply passing a sexual history exam seems strange to me.
That being said, most on this website would dissuade you from submitting to polygraph testing as it may not help you and even make things worse.
However, to answer your request for help: you could hire a competent examiner to give you a sexual history exam. It would have to be with someone who is certified to conduct PCSOT. You could keep the results for yourself. If they are unfavorable, then you could just forget the whole matter. If they are favorable, you could use them to rebut the conclusions of their polygraph examiner should the results be diverse. If you go this route, I would advise against any kind of efforts to manipulate the charts; if caught in a review, it will be most counterproductive. A note of caution: your contracted examiner will most likely maintain confidentiality since you are the paying party--but bear in mind, that this person could be subpoenaed to testify at your intended appeal.
If all else fails, you could release the Kraken and send Joe up their way!
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 06, 2016, 01:20 PMQuoteMy agent says that he will only accept the results from the polygrapher that the local probation office uses, and no other polygrapher. When I asked why, he said "cuz we know the guy".
*Joe McCarthy, sound familiar?
MagicSteve,
I am puzzled that the judge would give you such a harsh sentence and not require you to undergo sex offender treatment, which would have involved a Sexual History polygraph exam. Your minimizing of the sexual assault as "inappropriate butt touching" seems to indicate that you could benefit from therapy. I think this would carry more weight in allowing visitation. In fact, someone saying that you could have visitation by simply passing a sexual history exam seems strange to me.
That being said, most on this website would dissuade you from submitting to polygraph testing as it may not help you and even make things worse.
However, to answer your request for help: you could hire a competent examiner to give you a sexual history exam. It would have to be with someone who is certified to conduct PCSOT. You could keep the results for yourself. If they are unfavorable, then you could just forget the whole matter. If they are favorable, you could use them to rebut the conclusions of their polygraph examiner should the results be diverse. A note of caution: your contracted examiner will most likely maintain confidentiality since you are the paying party--but bear in mind, that this person could be subpoenaed to testify in your intended appeal.
If all else fails, you could release the Kraken and send Joe up their way!
Couple things... I have sucessfully completed treatment, and never was a sexual history polygraph required. This poly is 100 percent voluntary, with zero consequence for not taking it (other than not seeing my kids) No minimization of my crime, either - grabbed my step-daughter's butt twice in a 10 - minute time span. The prosecutor (that bastion of conservative views on sex crimes, snicker ) stated on the record, at my sentencing, that my crime was 'a case of inappropriate touching where the defendant didn't know he went too far'. It is in the transcript, and will be brought up in the appeal.
Taking a poly with a different PCSOT examiner has it's merits, but I like the idea of using their guy as a condition in my family court case, for a few reasons - one, by using it as a part of an active court case, the results would be court record, which I have access to, two, my divorce/sentencing judge (one and the same) would be aware of my passed poly result, in preparation for my appeal, and either way the poly goes, I'd have what I wanted to have an independant guy refute a failed test/affirm a passed one.
Doing it twice- using my own guy, then using theirs- is costly and ineffective, unless I'm doing it with a purpose that suits my cause.
Also, I am 100% confident in my ability to prevent a false-positive.
Anyone know of any precedent in this area?
Wisconsin does seem to do things differently. I wonder how effective their treatment program is overall? If it has demonstrated efficacy, it could support the argument against polygraph usage in the treatment model.
Your ability to prevent a false positive will not help you if your attempts at purposeful non cooperation are detected (everybody slips up once in a while). Being able to point to specific events of PNC, could make all your plans moot. During routine maintenance exams, it's not so important. But, this would be a high stakes exam with elevated visibility. Good luck with it, I hope you get to see your kids.
P.S. I reemphasize that most would dissuade you from taking the polygraph, which is my position as well.
MagicSteve,
I have a considerable amount of PCSOT experience.
You said: "Even though I can prevent false-positives, and I'd be telling the truth..."
In a nutshell, you're toast.
PCSOT is a racket, in my opinion, but let that go.
Second opinions on a SO polygraph "test"? Forget about it. The DOC makes the rules.
If your story is true, I suggest you resign yourself to counting down the days of your sentence.
Polygraph ain't science -- it's religion.
FWIW, try taking your treatment seriously.
Quote from: danmangan on Jan 06, 2016, 07:09 PM
FWIW, try taking your treatment seriously.
I see what you are saying about the poly in general, but what in the name of all that's good and right makes you think I haven't taken my treatment seriously? I have completed it, twice! You don't know anything about me as a person, the details of my case, or the true changes I have made as a person to prevent myself from ever being in a position, on a cognitive level, to do anything of that sort again. I must say, that was insulting, and for no reason.
I think that persons on this site take too much of a radical approach. Yes, polys are a racket. Yes, they are fraudulent. I get that, 100%. But, do you have kids? Are you being told that you can't see them unless you pass a poly? Unless I can do some legal maneuvering, I'm stuck doing a poly in order to see them. As a father, and as a human being who knows and understands the responsibility of taking care of his responsibilities, I can do no less than to do whatever I need to do to be in a position to take care of what needs to be taken care of. I will take this poly at some point - that is a fact. I'm asking for ideas to make this as much in my favor as I can. The typical 'polys are BAD... AVOID THEM' approach is not needed. I already know they are bad, and that they should be avoided... but I cannot avoid this. I have a responsibility as a parent. Hard-liners, and those who wish to form opinions on incomplete information (like the guy I quoted), step aside, please. With the wealth of knowledge on this site, and the incredibly intelligent folks on this site, I expected more than the typical approach I see on here. I must say, I am disappointed.
There are those of us - people in my position, people taking maintenance polys, people applying for alphabet soup organization jobs - who MUST take polys. 'Avoid it' is not an option. As a fellow human being, who is mired in the stupidity that is law enforcement's reliance on this 'test' and who has been woken up to the reality of the poly, I'm requesting assistance from those similarly situated. I'm not trying to avoid responsibility, or cheat my way out of anything. I'm not guilty of anything other than poor judgement 7 years ago, and I paid a too heavy price for that mistake, that lapse in judgment. I am trying to do what's right as a human being by being there for my kids, and trying to find a way to use the poly to my advantage in a necessary appeal of a sentence. there are certain legal mechanisms in place to avoid injustice, and I am exercising one of them to fix a gross injustice - and trying to use their own fraudulent 'test' to do so, in the process. With all the hard-liners on here, I'd figure at least a few of them would salivate at the possibility of using their own fraud against them to right a wrong.
I misjudged, much like the guy I quoted.... and I must say, spoken like a true polygrapher.That is exactly the approach I'd expect you to take. The DOC doesn't make the rules, the courts do. If I make the poly a condition/part of my family court case, then I have access to the results, because the results will be submitted to the judge, the opposing party, the GAL, you name it. 'Oh, he passed' or 'Oh, he failed' won't suffice... there will need to be documentation... and once that documentation is brought forth? It is court record - and I have unfettered legal access to it. Nothing the DOC can do. And, the DOC can't restrict my access to the courts, at all, on any issue whatsoever.
I need sharp minds, not closed ones.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 06, 2016, 03:58 PMWisconsin does seem to do things differently. I wonder how effective their treatment program is overall? If it has demonstrated efficacy, it could support the argument against polygraph usage in the treatment model.
Your ability to prevent a false positive will not help you if your attempts at purposeful non cooperation are detected (everybody slips up once in a while). Being able to point to specific events of PNC, could make all your plans moot. During routine maintenance exams, it's not so important. But, this would be a high stakes exam with elevated visibility. Good luck with it, I hope you get to see your kids.
P.S. I reemphasize that most would dissuade you from taking the polygraph, which is my position as well.
A few things.... treatment has been statistically proven to be a wash, with no discernible difference in recidivism rates between the treated and the non. As for noticeable or detectable use of counter-measures, no polygrapher in the world can detect mental counter-measures. I'm safe there. And, for those who are slightly confused as to Wisconsin SOT/Poly procedures, you have to pass one poly to complete treatment - and a maintenance poly counts as your one poly. And, my sexual history poly is not a heightened-awareness, high-stakes affair; I take it, and if I fail, I take it again if/and/or when I choose. This is the opposite of high pressure, in fact. Nothing gets taken away if I fail... i don't lose my freedom... no restrictions are placed on me... this is 100% completely my call.
But, I won't fail. The other part of the reason I want the results so bad is to force the poly guy to give me a fair assessment. If I have no access to the results, he could say I failed, even when I didn't - and no one could know the difference. With the results being available for further review, their poly guy would theoretically be forced to give a fair assessment of my chart. He can't just say whatever he wants, when the chart will not back it up.
MagicSteve, if you're adamant about getting a self-sponsored sexual history exam with full access to all of the data, start by reaching out to PCSOT examiners in your state.
Here's a link to the Wisconsin listing on PolygraphPlace.com: http://www.polygraphplace.com/docs/c-15-s-Wisconsin-examiners.html#Brookfield
It's possible you may find an examiner who's asleep at the wheel and not monitoring this site, as your claims of countermeasure prowess will certainly work against you.
If you can make your way to NH, I'd administer a sexual history exam -- which often ends up as a battery of individual polygraph tests -- and provide you with the full package of supporting documentation, charts, video, etc.
You would need to explore the logistics well ahead of time, as such testing is time consuming, expensive and stressful.
Quote from: danmangan on Jan 07, 2016, 09:36 AMMagicSteve, if you're adamant about getting a self-sponsored sexual history exam with full access to all of the data, start by reaching out to PCSOT examiners in your state.
Here's a link to the Wisconsin listing on PolygraphPlace.com: http://www.polygraphplace.com/docs/c-15-s-Wisconsin-examiners.html#Brookfield
It's possible you may find an examiner who's asleep at the wheel and not monitoring this site, as your claims of countermeasure prowess will certainly work against you.
If you can make your way to NH, I'd administer a sexual history exam -- which often ends up as a battery of individual polygraph tests -- and provide you with the full package of supporting documentation, charts, video, etc.
You would need to explore the logistics well ahead of time, as such testing is time consuming, expensive and stressful.
Thank you for your honest response. I can certainly look into that.
It doesn't take 'prowess' to prevent a false positive. One doesn't even need to do anything. Just the full knowledge that the poly is crap, that examiners lie, and innocence is plenty enough to pass. I've seen it done pretty much that way dozens of times, even with people who I knew were lying. Confidence is key. If you know you will pass, you will pass. People fear what they do not know, and you should fear nothing in terms of the poly. I know poly's like I know my own name. Knowledge of procedures, tactics, science (or lack thereof) and history is 'counter-measure' enough.
As for examiners being 'asleep at the wheel'... do you think anything i've said about myself, or 'my' case has been fact? All of it - or none of it - may be true, either of me or anyone else. I'm not an imbecile, just looking for info on an issue that may or may not even be specifically relevant to whatever I have written about on this site. Remember how, in my initial post, I gave you a 'scenario' that i wanted to run by you all? There was a logistical reason for that.
Would it surprise you to find out that I don't even live where 'I' said I do? And, for all of my knowledge and ability to determine loopholes in the rules pertaining to the DOC and sex offenders, and laws pertaining to polys and family court, would it surprise you to learn that I'm in a legal profession, working on behalf of someone else?
Not only polygraphers can disseminate to accomplish a goal.
MagicSteve, reread my original reply to your post.
I said, "If your story is true..."
You're certainly not an imbecile, but quite possibly a troll.
QuoteI need sharp minds, not closed ones.
You might start with sharpening yours to realize there is no difference between "butt grabbing" and inserting your finger into a vagina.
Ark, maybe it's all theater on MagicSteve's part, but in my view he comes across in a fashion similar to that of the more egocentric entitlement-minded sex offenders I dealt with while doing PCSOT for over five years at a state prison.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 12:15 PMQuoteI need sharp minds, not closed ones.
You might start with sharpening yours to realize there is no difference between "butt grabbing" and inserting your finger into a vagina.
About a decade in state prison's difference, depending on the age of the victim. Also, the mental state of the offender... butt grabbing, as it were, could be constituted as a grooming behavior, whilst vaginal penetration would never be seen in the same light. Different approaches, both legally and therapeutically. Different risk-factors, different risk groups, so on and so forth. Does not matter what jurisdiction.
Even in therapeutic circles, as in treatment groups, there is a difference. It is widely acknowledged that not all victims of various crimes (or even the same crime) suffer in quite the same way. I know of one offender who called himself a monster in one treatment group, saying that his inappropriate touch crime was on par with an offender who anally raped a 3 year old boy while holding a sword to his throat... His therapist scolded him in front of the whole group, acknowledging that while his crime was immoral, it lessened the scope and severity of the other guy's crime to say that his touch crime was on par, and lessened the impact of the penetration crime.
Butt grabbing and vaginal penetration? Apples and oranges. Read case law, look at sentence structures. Single offense offenders vs. long-term offenders, even in the same sub group, are treated differently. The scenario I proffered? The initial purported sentence - virtually probation - is actually on par with the norm for that type of crime. If it had been a vaginal penetration scenario, then the minimum would have been 3 years in. There is actually a matrix the judges use to calculate these things. If the scenario had involved multiple 'butt - touchings' over a period of time? Then, the sentence the scenario defendant received might have been appropriate, had the 'defendant' had a prior criminal history. Other factors, like age of the offender at first contact, come into play, as well.
Lots of variables that make 'butt grabbing' and vaginal penetration quite a bit different. Probation agents, judges, lawyers, therapists - they know. the law, as in statutes, recognize this. Even members of the community, when fully appraised of facts and details of cases, scratch their heads at the current witch-hunt type laws. I have helped and seen enough of these type of offenders reintegrate into society to know. Experience makes the best teacher, does it not?
Here is a comparison that I can make that is valid. Saying that 'butt touching' and vaginal penetration is the same is equal to saying that all child sex offenders are pedophiles.
I guess that an individual who knows what he/she is talking about, and uses facts to support logical arguments, is egocentric? Strange world we live in. No wonder people hate lawyers! Whether I was an offender or not, the information would still be valid. It would be less valid if I were an offender? That is illogical. I have dealt with offenders who deal with scorn because they educate themselves. Knowledge is power, so I guess that an offender that knows what we do is a danger or is self centered/entitled/egocentric or is minimizing? He is somehow a danger or isn't taking his treatment seriously? Anyone who knows about current therapy models for SO's knows that beating them down is no longer appropriate. In a nutshell, the mode of operation is 'You are good people who did a bad thing - let's find out why', or 'Your crime is a symptom of a larger problem in your life - let's fix that problem'. So, by educating themselves, offenders are helping themselves. It's all cognitive, folks. Thinking errors. Most offenders aren't lifelong criminals. Thinking or believing that because offenders are smart, and know the ropes, that they are manipulating or not serious about recovery is ridiculous... especially coming from a polygraph examiner, whose job it is to deceive people. That's distorted as hell.
You, Mr. Mangan (according to treatment models), are in your cycle, and are a greater risk to offend than most offenders I have dealt with. You willingly lie and deceive people, using justifications to make what you do acceptable. You would be viewed as egocentric and would be at least a moderate risk by most statistical models used to gauge risk (COPMAS assessments, Static-99 and the like) because of your unrepentant ways. You claim to know the wrong in what you do, yet you still do it. Offenders, with low impulse control, share the same characteristics. Not saying you are a SO, but I'm making the valid comparison to show you exactly how two people, with similar distortions, are viewed differently just because one person made an immoral mistake. ONE MISTAKE... yet you choose to be immoral as a career, and you are better than the guys who made one mistake, and work hard as hell to correct their behaviors?
I have not said anything in this post that is not true and is not otherwise accepted by law enforcement/social workers/the DOC/therapists/lawyers at large.
To cap that, I proclaim polygraphs to be fraudulent and nonsensical (staying on topic, of course).
QuoteButt grabbing and vaginal penetration? Apples and oranges.
Not to the victim.
MagicSteve, go to the "Recommended Reading" page of my web site www.polygraphman.com, follow all four links, and then tell me how my practice is immoral.
Moreover, I tell all of prospective clients up front, when they call, that polygraph is a crap shoot, has no proven scientific basis, and can be defeated by following simple instructions freely available on the internet.
My practice is based on supply and demand. It's that simple.
When it comes to polygraph, I strongly believe that an informed consumer is better served than an ignorant one.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 02:07 PMQuoteButt grabbing and vaginal penetration? Apples and oranges.
Not to the victim.
You spoke to every victim of both types of crimes, of every age, socioeconomic standing, in every region, where the crimes were commited under all types of different circumstances by offenders of every age, socioeconomic standing, in every region (so forth and so on), and made a comparison based on statistical analysis , or even common sense?
Your statement is pure hyperbole. Hyperbole has no place in a logical argument, and only feeds the witch-hunt mentality.
We can go by what victims report, not what the media machine tells us what to believe. Even victims of the same crime, committed at the very same time, report different reactions or feelings about their experience. Victims of violent rape report less impact on their lives than victims of inappropriate touch do, at times. Personal experience is subjective. In my scenario, if the 'butt touch' victim had nightmares and such, it would have an impact on the perpetrator's sentence - that is why they take victim impact statements, and use them for sentencing purposes. If a violent rape victim refused to make a statement, didn't need counseling, and just wanted to put the crime behind him/her, it would make it's way into the sentencing hearing -
as a mitigating factor for the defense, and the perpetrator could/would receive a lighter sentence. These are the realities of american jurisprudence.
And Mr. Polygraph, I apologize. Kudos to you for your honesty to your clients... but if you feel the way you do, why choose to administer polygraphs? Curiosity gets the best of me, sometimes.
QuoteYour statement is pure hyperbole. Hyperbole has no place in a logical argument, and only feeds the witch-hunt mentality.
In all of your verbose ramblings, you never once mentioned the trauma you caused your step daughter by your sexual assault which you minimize as "butt grabbing." Your lack of victim empathy shows you are indeed a dangerous individual. The judge saw through you and gave you an appropriate sentence.
The purpose of this website is not to assist sex offenders to utilize countermeasures to beat the system or circumvent treatment and monitoring. I hope you take Dan's advice to take your treatment seriously.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 03:39 PMQuoteYour statement is pure hyperbole. Hyperbole has no place in a logical argument, and only feeds the witch-hunt mentality.
In all of your verbose ramblings, you never once mentioned the trauma you caused your step daughter by your sexual assault which you minimize as "butt grabbing." Your lack of victim empathy shows you are indeed a dangerous individual. The judge saw through you and gave you an appropriate sentence.
The purpose of this website is not to assist sex offenders to utilize countermeasures to beat the system or circumvent treatment and monitoring. I hope you take Dan's advice to take your treatment seriously.
I am not an offender. That is hardly the point at this point. I have, and do, work with offenders.
I offered up a scenario that has elements of bits and parts of various offenders I have encountered and worked with. I can't use anyone's complete case; to do so would be unethical. I wanted feedback on a specific issue, basically trying to double-check a premise with a group of people that I typically find to be knowledgeable on polygraph issues. Instead, I got extremist ramblings, hyperbole, cynicism, ridicule, and opinion instead of fact.
When someone feels backed into a corner, they lash out. I get that, as I understand the psychology behind it. No one has done anything to refute my statements of truth, however... interesting, when you look at everything said in this thread in its proper context. Because you thought/think I was/am an offender, you attacked me, instead of trying to use logic and facts to argue a logical point.Question yourself as to why that is, and why you instantaneously think negative of people who have committed sex offenses. In my professional opinion (and I occupy a position in which I offer up professional, licensed opinions), you need to do some soul-searching, and figure out why you have such a negative opinion of offenders. Someone close to you a victim, perhaps? Or, maybe even yourself? You latched on to the victim impact aspect like a rabid dog, and quickly formed a hard and fast response to that, and one that defies common sense and logic. Psychologically, that is very telling.
Also, nowhere in my scenario did the offender try to circumvent or 'beat' the polygraph. A misstatement by you. The scenario offender was truthful, and was merely avoiding a false-positive by using mental stimulation. How is that deemed nefarious? I guess everyone who peruses this site are doing so with ill intent, then... or is that just limited to people with sex offenses on their records? What's good for the goose, and all that...
Please respond, if you are going to, with the logical portion of your brain, instead of the 'emotional' you.
Quote
I am not an offender.
Dan was correct. You are a troll. This conversation is over.
And Mr. Polygraph, I apologize. Kudos to you for your honesty to your clients... but if you feel the way you do, why choose to administer polygraphs? Curiosity gets the best of me, sometimes.
I do what I do because there is a clear need for what I call open-book polygraph "testing."
The open-book model refers not only to my dealings with the test subjects themselves, but with secondary consumers of polygraph "testing" such as therapists, probation/parole officers, chiefs of police, and, of course, suspicious spouses or significant others.
That said, a considerable (and expanding) part of my practice is pure consulting, as opposed to simply administering examinations.
I hope to eventually transition to an all-consulting polygraph business model.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 05:08 PMQuote
I am not an offender.
Dan was correct. You are a troll. This conversation is over.
Obviously, I touched a nerve point with you. Too close to home, perhaps? Or did I merely reach a point where you have to exit the conversation because you literally have nothing on which to counter logic and truth with?
I believe it is the former, but it is probably the latter. The fact that I am not an offender now works against me? So, what... you don't like anybody, then? were you more comfortable attacking me when you thought, in your distorted view, that I was lesser than you by being an offender?
I still want to know if my loophole idea to get polygraph results through family court proceedings for DOC offenders taking sexual history polygraphs has merit. There is literally no law on this, and I or those that work for or with me could be blazing a very important trail here. This could have system-wide consequences, possibly changing the way PCSOT examiners operate, or opening a door in which post conviction polygraphs are finally subject to independent review. Please, logical arguments, here
I exit the conversation because you are a liar and a troll.
Quote from: danmangan on Jan 07, 2016, 05:15 PMAnd Mr. Polygraph, I apologize. Kudos to you for your honesty to your clients... but if you feel the way you do, why choose to administer polygraphs? Curiosity gets the best of me, sometimes.
I do what I do because there is a clear need for what I call open-book polygraph "testing."
The open-book model refers not only to my dealings with the test subjects themselves, but with secondary consumers of polygraph "testing" such as therapists, probation/parole officers, chiefs of police, and, of course, suspicious spouses or significant others.
That said, a considerable (and expanding) part of my practice is pure consulting, as opposed to simply administering examinations.
I hope to eventually transition to an all-consulting polygraph business model.
That is very unique, and admirable, considering the far-reaching consequences polygraphs have on those subjected to them. You are right to consider the needs of secondary consumers. It also explains your very obvious - and very vocal - presence on this site.
The strange thing is, the other professionals I run into don't often know the actual limitations of the polygraph 'test'. Honestly, I could probably throw some work your way on the consulting aspect. You are a little too far away to send actual clients to, I am afraid... but if what you say about your practice is true, I would. You are a rare bird.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 05:33 PMI exit the conversation because you are a liar and a troll.
I have lied about nothing, though I admit I did present myself as an offender in the beginning, for purely legitimate logistical reasons. Other than that, I was - and am - seeking validation and/or information on a pet theory I have that pertains to a situation I came across in the course of my duties. If you have anything to add to that, please, use your knowledge base to assist me. You are a long-standing member of these boards, and a respected one, at that. If you have nothing to add, then peace be with you.
The strange thing is, the other professionals I run into don't often know the actual limitations of the polygraph 'test'.
In my opinion, most of them know. They just don't want to face the truth about the "test."
Ironic, no?
QuoteI have lied about nothing, though I admit I did present myself as an offender in the beginning
"I used to be extremely indecisive, but now I'm not quite so sure."
Ark v. troll
Good times.
If only we could get some high-profile American Polygraph Association PCSOT heavyweights to chime in on MagicSteve's original post and the resulting thread...
Quote from: danmangan on Jan 07, 2016, 05:58 PM
If only we could get some high-profile American Polygraph Association PCSOT heavyweights to chime in on MagicSteve's original post and the resulting thread...
I know this is off topic, but when I saw the word 'heavyweights', I thought of WWE - type wrestlers... who perpetuate falsehood. The comparison to polygraph examiners, and their chosen profession, is accurate. I don't believe it gets anymore 'fake' than polygraphs and the people who administer them.
I don't believe that PCSOT examiners - or any examiner, save Mr. Mangan - would chime in. Whatever they have to say probably wouldn't be very relevant, considering they have to hold on dearly to one point of view. They are pretty invested in the lie. Hard to have civil discourse when you hold a rigid point of view.
Quote from: MagicSteve on Jan 07, 2016, 05:40 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Jan 07, 2016, 05:33 PMI exit the conversation because you are a liar and a troll.
Troll (according to the urban dictionary):
'One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.'
For the record, I was unaware of the popular definition of troll until I decided to look it up. I assumed you thought I lived under a bridge and collected tolls or something of that nature...
Improper usage of the word Troll. I did absolutely none of that. Also, strange that the definition refers to males exclusively as being trolls, which is neither here nor there.
I am curious to know why you felt it was necessary to attack a position you know little about with troll-like attacks. I am serious here. Once you assumed that I was an offender, you quit listening, became buddy-buddy with Dan in your incorrect assessment that I was an 'egocentric' child molester, and simply went into attack mode. Why was that? That is a serious question. You quit listening the second you thought you were dealing with someone convicted of a sex offense.
Don't give up hope, MagicSteve. Over the years this site has enjoyed many spirited and meaningful discussions with members of the polygraph indu$try. Maybe word will get out about this thread and we'll be pleasantly surprised...
You are a liar, you even lie about lying. You have zero credibility.
So it seems that MagicSteve appears here claiming to be a convicted offender, and then later claims to be a licensed professional working with convicted offenders (doing some undercover field research, maybe). Then declares polygraph to be fake and aligns with Dan Mangan (who published a "scientific study claiming ~100% accuracy for a technique that he also published a claim that it can "nullified the effects of countermeasures").
Also, Mr. Mangan and others should be aware that the APA does not "certify" PCSOT examiners. There is a subtle but important distinction between earning a certificate of training from an approved trainer and actually being "certified." Representing a certificate of training as "certified" is - in my view - questionable (some might even say it is misleading).
The whole thing does seem troll-like. The question, as I understand it, is whether MagicSteve (the offender) could gain access to his polygraph report if it were submitted to the court as material or exhibit in a legal proceeding. The answer seems obvious. What is not so obvious is whether the examiner will submit the test data. An examiner who submits a test for consideration in a legal proceeding will probably be prepared to submit the data for review by the opposing counsel's expert. Whether that review is objective or subjective is another matter.
Keep in mind that printed polygrams are not actually the data. The printed graphs are actually just a picture of the data - but they are not actually the data. The actual data is a bunch of numbers in the recored time series data, for which some examiners will look at the pictures interpret subjectively and for which we can also compute probabilistic calculations - using empirical or theoretical reference distributions - to determine a statistical classifier. Note that all scientific test results are probabilistic (i.e., they are neither deterministic - for which we could expect the kind of perfection that is immune to human behavior and random chance - nor an direct physical/linear measurement (which require both a physical substance to measure and a unit of measurement) - for which we would use a physical measurement and not a test. Keep in mind that scientific tests are needed and used to measure and evaluate those super interesting things that are often (nearly always) quite difficult or impossible to actually measure physically.
My guess - assuming MagicSteve is a convicted offender - is that you want the data to learn whether the analysis and test result is replicable.
BTW the claims, as I understand them, are that you would be truthful but would use mental countermeasures to protect against a false-positive. This seems to ignore the presently conflicted literature indicating that mental CMs are weak and that truthful people who attempt CMs are more likely to be classified as deceptive. Also - assuming you actually did this and pass - it doesn't address the obvious possibility that you pass because of being truthful.
Another guess - assuming MagicSteve is not a convicted offender but a licensed professional who posed undercover as an offender so that you could gain answers to some question (which may or may not be the question that was actually posed to this discussion) - is that you want the data to learn whether the test data analysis and result are replicable or are simply subjective.
I think there is a fairly clear trend in the scientific literature that objective replicable procedures and analysis have outperformed unstructured, subjective, and clinical methods.
So if you really want to understand whether examiners are simply making up test results or are providing objective and replicable probabilistic test results (which are of course still not deterministic and still not perfect) then it might be good to contact some of the folks who can help you understand the science of the polygraph and not just the hyperbole.
So whereas folks like Dan are at once willing to pretend (publish claims of) perfection and also criticize others for imperfection, most of the polygraph profession is more concerned with the mundane task of merely understanding the level of confidence and margin of uncertainty that can be attributed to polygraph test results.
MagicSteve if you are a therapist or other kind of licensed professional and you want to learn about the polygraph test then I invite you to someone for information that will help you to get beyond the drama, hyperbole and self-promotion of some consulting bidn'ess built on published claims of perfection and a non-existent certification. At the very least - in addition to learning the criticisms against old-school polygraph, you might benefit from some information about how science and probability theory play a role in the polygraph test today.
.02
rn
Ray, how accurate, exactly, is PCSOT polygraph "testing"?
What PCSOT-specific studies in peer-reviewed scientic journals can you cite to support your claims?
I have been out of the loop for a bit, because I thought things in Texas have been resolved; it seems I was wrong, but the current situation is not germane to this string.
I am assuming that where we are talking about is the Wisconsin system of PCSOT. I don't know much about this system, so I can't make any educated suggestion or judgements. I will say, I know some good and honest examiners up there. They are well qualified and are fair independent and unbiased, as far as I know. That being said, I am very sure there are examiners up there, I am sure, who aren't; that can be said in any profession.
Regardless, I would be very suspicious of any PO forcing you to go to "their guy," because they know this, or that examiner, and they make threats off that.
Remember what he said, "I know the guy." Now, this could be an innocent statement; but it also gives rise to suspicion in that, "I know the guy" could indicate a closer relationship than one would hope for. Given this, if he is using the examiner because he "knows him," this could also mean that if a pattern of sloppy work became apparent, it would be ignored in favor of the friendship which exists between PO and examiner.
On the other hand, to be fair, "I know the guy" could also mean, "this is a square guy, he will do you right, and fair."
Having said that, PO's and therapists that are trying to do you right, will typically let you pick another examiner. After all, you want to hang yourself, so be it. You may turn up with an examiner who is not in the business for the right reasons.
My suggestion, hire a lawyer, Know your rights, and trust no examiner who won't give up his charts. If an examiners is doing nothing improper, than the examiner has nothing to hide.
Be immediately suspicious if your test is "inconclusive'" and you hear that a lot in group. There is a Firm in the DFW area, that was once found to have a 45% inconclusive rate. What happens when you are inconclusive? You have to retake the test. I will let you do the math from there and draw your own conclusions.
PCSOT, started with good intentions, but then it became the money maker that employment tests used to be before 1988. After it became a money maker, it started becoming a racket.
Fact is, without PCOST, the polygraph industry would die, period. This is one of the reasons the industry is so protective over it. Problem is, at least in Texas, they are protective over the territories, or as my intern examiner instructor called them, "fiefdoms," (his words, Texas examiners) more than they are protecting the actual integrity of the industry, and the integrity of the test. Anyone wanting to do the right thing and not engage in their little fiefdom type system, will be silenced, slandered, libeled, threatened with physical harm, and punished in kangaroo courts, outside the eyes of the general public and any accountability. Basically, and I know this is funny coming from a guy named Joe McCarthy; and yes, I get the irony; any voice of descent or whistle blower, will be Mudd. If you don't get the reference, study your history.
I am going though this again, right now.
In fact, the Texas Polygraph industry is so corrupt, I feel the only way to fix it at this point is to suspend the practice until the FTC can be brought in to examine the private polygraph associations and PCSOT licensing.
Oh wait, there is no licensing or enforceable standards of practice for PCSOT in Texas. The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners runs that show. Something I have already proven using their own news letter. JPCOT is also quite secretive in how things get run there too.
In the document TALEPI_JPCOT EMAIL, you can see the tricks Mr. Hendricks suggests people employ. It should be noted that Mr Hendricks is current JPCOT Chairman, as one can also see, a very, very familiar name as well, Maria Hubbard. And lets not even get me started with her right now.
What I am saying is not unethical, it is the truth. This is their own documentation. And it is just the tip of the Texas iceberg.
In closing, if you think the system in Wisconsin is corrupt, It would probably be a breath of fresh air for me.
The Texas PCSOT system, is not only corrupt, it is dysfunctional, with 100% lack of State Government oversight. It should be noted that Examiner run oversight of the polygraph industry, PCOST excluded, had to be taken away from polygraph examiners, because they could no longer be trusted to self regulate the industry. Hey, don't take my word for it, look it up for yourselves.
There needs to be actual LAWS, which regulate PCSOT. There needs to be government LICENSING, and oversight, that does not include internal industry oversight. Moreover, laws need to be put in place that puts approving examiners for these tests, in the hands of the licensing board, and out of the hands of the providers and PO's.
There are some who will accuse me of protecting sex offenders, this is not the case at all. I am protecting the consumer. Let me explain.
In parts of Texas, they are polygraphing DWI probationers. How many of us know at least one person who has been though that? Only takes one drink. Parts of Texas has also started testing repeat drug offenders from what I hear. There is also talk of testing domestic violence probationers. This only takes, what is in Texas, a big racket, and makes it HUGE.
No laws to govern it, little to no oversight, monopolies, anticompetitive behaviors from trade associations acting as "gate keepers"
Think it won't be you sitting in my chair someday? Think again, because we all think it won't be us, until it is.
Right now. I wouldn't trust the Texas Polygraph Industry, under the guidance of the Texas Association of polygraph Examiners, with an E-meter, much less a polygraph instrument.
What is really sad is, I have to come here to air these issues because there is no place else to go for help or relief. How sad is that? I have to come here, to AP, after all the fuss about coming to AP in 2008, there is still no place else to go to, so I can be heard, and to expose unethical practices in an industry that claims to protect the truth and ethics?
I don't want to have to come here. I don't want to have to do this at all. I don't want to have to be forced to choose this over being a doormat.
Every time, I think things in this industry is changing for the better, TAPE and its officers does something that makes me see, this industry will die in my life time; and it won't be because of what I am saying here. It will because of what I am saying here in an effort to save it, and the industry either couldn't or wouldn't listen.
It is the lack of oversight, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and anticompetitive nature of this industry that will bring us down. That is the God's honest truth.
Every time I see hope, I am reminded in Texas, that some of what Dan says might have a point. I hate that TAPE and Hubbard make me feel that way, and I am starting to hate others for allowing it to happen.
I have said my peace
Sad I have to do it here
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on May 07, 2016, 07:43 PMPCSOT, started with good intentions, but then it became the money maker that employment tests used to be before 1988. After it became a money maker, it started becoming a racket.
Speaking as a full member of the American Polygraph Association and credentialed PCSOT examiner, I wholeheartedly share Joe's opinion.
As I have said so many time before, polygraph is primarily all about one thing: MONEY.
In my view, the APA's motto --"Dedicated to Truth" -- is a punchline, not a credo.
Quote from: danmangan on May 07, 2016, 09:00 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on May 07, 2016, 07:43 PMPCSOT, started with good intentions, but then it became the money maker that employment tests used to be before 1988. After it became a money maker, it started becoming a racket.
Speaking as a full member of the American Polygraph Association and credentialed PCSOT examiner, I wholeheartedly share Joe's opinion.
As I have said so many time before, polygraph is primarily all about one thing: MONEY.
In my view, the APA's motto --"Dedicated to Truth" -- is a punchline, not a credo.
Dan, I said it
became a money maker. I do not think, and call me silly for having a lingering belief in the good intentions of humanity (hanging on by a thread), I don't think it started that way.
It is a good management tool, and believe in the test so much, I bet my future on it.
I believe it still can be the good thing it was intended to be and everyone can still make a living, offering a fair test, at a fair price. That is capitalism right?
The establishment in Texas hates capitalism. Texas runs, (words of Don Ramsey before I opened my doors) on a fiefdom system. Sorry TAPE, not my words. And for a period of time, he was a victim to that system. He is a better man than I will ever be in many ways though. One of the many things I wish would have rubbed off on me was his infinite patients. It seemed that nothing ever bothered that man outwardly.
I am trying to get there with a gavel and chisel, but there is a lot of stone to clear.
Anyway, fiefdom. The examiners exercise such tight control, and the money goes back and forth, there is a lot of quid pro quo.
I firmly believe the only way this will get put into line, is another EPPA.
Funny how a lot of examiners now say EPPA was the industries own fault, because we didn't regulate ourselves. In the future, examiners like me will be saying, it was the industries fault because we couldn't regulate ourselves, and we destroyed the lies of people who tried to warn us.
I don't want things to go down that road. I am yelling to get peoples attention to stop the direction we are in; sadly, no one is listening. You want it to fall apart. I just want it to be honest.
A few pages back, Ark replies:
Quote:
Butt grabbing and vaginal penetration? Apples and oranges.
Not to the victim.
So you speak for the victim? Who gave you that authority? I'm a victim of sexual molestation when I was a child, and you do not speak for me in any way shape or form. Nor am I victim because YOU say so. That is my choice and never will be any one else's. Because of asshats like you I suffered immeasurably as a result of what people like you think I needed thanks to your projected trauma on me as a young child. You want to know who hurt me more? People like you. Your cognitive distortions are tantamount to your mental fuckery.
americanslave,
So those who attempt to have victim empathy are the ones who abuse you? Perhaps you love your perpetrator so much that you have to hold others accountable.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jun 24, 2016, 04:43 PMamericanslave,
So those who attempt to have victim empathy are the ones who abuse you? Perhaps you love your perpetrator so much that you have to hold others accountable.
So what you are saying is that a victim of any action absolutely has to make as big a deal out of it as you think they should? I have a client who grabbed a girl's butt. The girl thinks nothing of it... but my client went to prison for it. The girl made no victim witness statement, no statement in court, refused counseling.... the victim leads a successful life filled with great personal relationships, and has moved on - so if the act is not meaningful to the victim, why is it so meaningful to you that it absolutely has to have meaning?
Factors such as perpetrator relation to the victim, the act committed, the age of the victim, how many times the act(s) were repeated (if at all) and other factors mitigate or aggravate how 'victimized' a sexual assault victim feels.. and that's not even counting how the victim feels about it on a personal level, based on their personal disposition.
Apples and oranges, remember? And just because you believe things occur in a certain way does not mean that they, in fact, do. Real life proves otherwise. Shades of gray everywhere. ::)
QuoteI have a client who grabbed a girl's butt.
If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Oct 19, 2016, 09:49 PMQuoteI have a client who grabbed a girl's butt.
If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies.
Without knowing the age of the parties, the level of or lack of consent, or any other details?
It is technically construed as rape when a man has sex - consensual sex - with an intoxicated woman. Even when the man is also intoxicated. Even when the woman is the instigator, and says so.
In this situation, wouldn't he guy also be pushing up daisies?
The point I'm illustrating is this: victimization is in the eye of the beholder. What if your daughter consented? What if she asked for that contact to happen? You can't stand up for ' victims' blindly when 'victims' don't even want to be stood up for. It is complete nonsense
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Oct 19, 2016, 09:49 PMQuoteI have a client who grabbed a girl's butt.
If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies.
Ark, are you saying that you would murder the aforementioned "client" -- or arrange for that individual's killing -- if said person grabbed your daughter's ass?
Please clarify your statement.
Ark, it's been a while.
Please explain your most recent comment:
"If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies."
Are you describing a so-called honor killing? People are wondering.
Poor fellow has so many "shades of gray everywhere"; I thought a dichotomy would provide some relief.
Sure, Ark, whatever you say.
In other news, have you seen the latest APA magazine? I'd like to know what you think of the article "Five Minute Science Lesson:
Prior Probabilities and the Algebra To Calculate 'Em", authored by Ray Nelson.
We (the polygraph community) look forward to your observations and commentary.
Sorry, but I am a little too busy to write detailed comments about simple a-priori certainty estimations. I would suggest reading up on Jacob Bernoulli.
Ark, I'm not asking for a detailed write-up -- just a realty check.
Here's a siimple question for you: Does the aforementioned article advance the case for polygraph "testing" in a significantly meaningful way?
A simple yes or no will do.
Sorry for the late reply Dan, I'm traveling a lot these days. I do not think the article would have much utility for the practitioner. For the practitioner/researcher, a-priori probability can influence a researcher's beliefs about something before looking at any data. For example, you could procure data from a 'scientist' who is 90% sure that a parameter lies between a certain interval and gradually narrow the interval to form a prior distribution as is oft employed in Bayesian statistics, where the posterior distribution is a weighted sum of the likelihood and the prior. Assuming you have good reason to believe your 'scientist', you can then assign heavier weights to the prior.
Thanks, Ark.
Sounds like a-priori probability research findings ginned up by like-minded polygraph advocates -- the same cabal that programs the indu$try's magical Monte Carlo modeling centrifuge in their super secret statistical alchemy facility -- is just another SWAG: a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble...
I didn't get the memo on the"super secret facility." What gives? Do I need a special ring and grip for this information?
Evidently, Joe, one needs exactly that.
Here's a line item from the APA web site's description of member benefits:
Access to the Research Center, its progressive research, and its publications in areas of techniques, validity, scientific issues, current practices, assessments, surveys of attitudes and problems facing the polygraph profession, where its publications and papers have been presented at APA seminars as well as at other criminal justice and related conferences
Research Center? Really? Does the APA let just any member analyze the research data, look at the sourcing of same, and study their proprietary cookbooks?
Somehow I doubt it, but I'll ask for unfettered access anyway.
Hey, I wonder where the APA's "Research Center" is.... Is it at the headquarters in Chattanooga? Does it exist in the cloud? Is it on Ray Nelson's laptop? Hmmmm....
Maybe an APA researcher will chime in. They follow this forum like bored housewives follow soap operas.
Dan, research is a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is that we are reaching the asymptote on CQT laboratory research. University research, while sporting firm ground truth, totally lacks ecological validity. Most of the participants are airhead undergrads whose only real concern in life is why so many people unfriended them on Facebook. Juxtaposed with someone facing prison time, the ecological validity of laboratory research is sanguine at best. I suppose it's theoretically possible to enhance ecological validity in the lab (imposing imprisonment on participants), but you would then become a villain from a Batman movie.
On the flip side, establishing ground truth in the field is severely challenging; depending on confessions or convictions does not cut it, especially since one cannot know of the false negative examinees who were never subjected to post test interrogation.
If there is ever to be any movement on the CQT, establishing confident levels of ground truth in field studies is paramount--anything short of that is to continue the dance that has been going on for a half a century.
CIT research is very rich and ongoing and has expanded to Event Related Potentials, especially the P300 wave and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging work with neural imaging. Although still relatively nascent, the only field data thus far is from Japan and fragments from Israel, so the same challenges lie ahead.
Has Ray done something to wrong you in a past life?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 28, 2016, 12:15 PMIf there is ever to be any movement on the CQT, establishing confident levels of ground truth in field studies is paramount--anything short of that is to continue the dance that has been going on for a half a century.
Ironically, it is this state of perpetual stagnation that enables the polygraph indu$try to keep riding the gravy train. As long as there are ample believers in pro-polygraph dogma, the cult-like attraction will continue. For the polygraph indu$try, ignorance is bli$$.
I am currently on parole for two convictions of Aggravated Sexual Assault, child under 14. In the state of Texas. One occurred in 1986, the other in 1987. I am not guilty of the alleged offense of 1987. However, I recently failed a instant case polygraph regarding this allegation. After serving 22yr's, I was released under mandatory supervision in 2009. Since that time I have taken and passed several maintenance polygraphs. And underwent counselling. Was released from counselling (Dallas County) approx. 2012. And was placed on yearly maintenance. In 2016 I moved from Dallas Co. To Henderson Co. Texas. In 2017 I was required to take my yearly Maintenance polygraph. This examine consisted solely of questions concerning Alcohol/Drug use. No questions concerning my sexual conduct since my previous polygraph. Which I find unusual because that's the purpose of the maintenance polygraph. I failed this polygraph due to alcohol use. ( Drinking wine to help me sleep nights). Because of this I was placed back into sex offender treatment. Which I strongly opposed, to no avail. Due to the conduct of SOTP provider I was placed under. I filed a grievance against her with the Counsel of Sex Offender Treatment. Due to this grievance I was removed from her class in 2017. Am currently attending a weekly class under a second SOTP. Time for my yearly maintenance polygraph is at hand. However, I am currently being forced to take a sexual history polygraph. Which has never been required. I fear this polygraph because I am being forced to disclose information concerning my previous sexual conduct during my entire life span and I am 59yr's old. My fear is that some of my previous sexual history, if disclosed, could be used against me even though statue of limitations has expired and no other complaints have occurred. My question, at this point is, is this legal? Is it legal to be forced to disclose information concerning my past offences that were never brought to light. And in my opinion, should stay way.
You need the advice of an attorney with experience in these types of cases. Treatment providers claim that recovery cannot occur unless all past deviant behaviors have been illuminated. But others would be more in favor of your incarceration. Absent some kind of legal agreement with prosecutors, you could be in jeopardy for any admissions of crimes. Even if the criminal statute of limitations have passed, there could be civil litigation. Your other alternative is try to beat the test; the ethic of this strategy I'll leave to others to hash over.
Randall,
I agree with Animal's comment above that you need the advice of an attorney with experience in such matters. I am not one. However, you'll be interested in a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that a convicted sex offender in a post-conviction polygraph program cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sexual history that could tend to incriminate him:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/05/15/federal-appeals-court-rules-certain-mandatory-sex-offender-polygraph-questions-unconstitutional/
This ruling is not binding in Texas, which is under the 5th Circuit, but the facts and arguments that led to this ruling will no doubt be of relevance for others in similar situations.