I must take the polygraph as a result of my therapy, not directly through my parole officer. Some of the stipulations generally applied to everybody in the therapy class involve not being allowed to watch PG-13 or R movies, not allowed to channel-surf on television, not allowed to drive to a location I haven't been before without prior approval from parole officer and therapist (this one would really make job interviews difficult since it usually takes a day or so to hear back from both), and other such ridiculous terms we must agree to.
I made a mistake with a girl four years younger than I was, with her being on the wrong side of 17 in Texas. I'm not trying to run around and rape children left and right now. But I haven't abided by all these nonsense rules admittedly. So sorry that I watched Jurassic World, I know that it is a crime against my community and absolutely sickening. That's why I need to seek help passing the polygraph test.
waldenrefugee,
The injunctions placed upon you are to help you steer clear of triggers that may prompt faulty thinking similar to that which led to your decision to be tempted by jail bait.
In my opinion the consequences resulting from a Jurassic Park mea culpa would not be severe. Mostly likely, the admission would be perceived as progress in your treatment. Nobody here in this forum is going to advocate you trying to beat a polygraph exam while withholding information detrimental to your recovery.
Arkhangelsk,
In my opinion, any therapist who relies on polygraphy is a quack, and the value of any such "treatment" is dubious. Moreover, it does not appear, based on waldenrefugee's post, that he is suffering from any disorder from which he needs to recover.
Note that even if waldenrefugee admits to having watched Jurassic Park, it's unlikely to help him pass the polygraph. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. To a polygrapher, such an admission could be taken as a sign that the examinee must be holding back something more significant.
In view of polygraphy's complete lack of scientific underpinnings, the high risk of a false positive outcome, and the severe consequences attending thereto, I think it is prudent for everyone subjected to polygraph screening, including those in post-conviction sex offender treatment programs, to educate themselves about the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Sexual relations with girls younger than 17 is usually considered a form of paraphilia in need of psychotherapy. I think his best path forward is to be positive and learn from his therapists about making better decisions.
I think that when a therapist compels a person in his charge to submit to such a fraudulent procedure as polygraph "testing," it sends the clear message that the therapist doesn't take the "treatment" seriously. So why should the person being "treated" take it seriously?
Forgive me George, but your intense disdain for the polygraph sometimes results in collateral damage in your judgement. Polygraph or not, I don't think having waldenrefugee in perpetual brown study about how to get over on his polygraph is a good place for him to be. He needs to move forward with his life and stop having sex with underage girls.
QuoteArkhangelsk,
In my opinion, any therapist who relies on polygraphy is a quack, and the value of any such "treatment" is dubious. Moreover, it does not appear, based on waldenrefugee's post, that he is suffering from any disorder from which he needs to recover.
Note that even if waldenrefugee admits to having watched Jurassic Park, it's unlikely to help him pass the polygraph. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. To a polygrapher, such an admission could be taken as a sign that the examinee must be holding back something more significant.
In view of polygraph's complete lack of scientific underpinnings, the high risk of a false positive outcome, and the severe consequences attending thereto, I think it is prudent for everyone subjected to polygraph screening, including those in post-conviction sex offender treatment programs, to educate themselves about the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
I completely agree with all assertions made and opinions expressed in the quoted material.
Doc, do you think waldenrefugee should continue to withhold his violations because his therapist is a quack for using the polygraph?
Ark,
The one overriding and absolute consideration is that waldenrefugee needs to be fully aware that his therapist is a quack to the extent that he/she depends upon a polygraph examination as a basis for determining his (or anybody's for that matter) compliance and/or treatment plan.
If one relies upon quackery in the execution of one's professional duties, it is not unreasonable that one would receive all the respect due a quack.
How waldenrefugee decides to interact with the quack will likely be determined by what he considers to be in his best interest. I have no basis for an opinion/specific recommendations on this latter matter.
I agree that the polygraph is folly in this regard. But, I fear that we may be tossing waldenrefugee out with the bath water.
waldenrefugee
So. if I got this right, you need help passing a polygraph because to avoid jail time for having sex with a minor, you agreed to follow some nonsense rules which you broke and now if you admit to watching Jurassic World your examiner is going to press you on the porn you also watched?
And you are in Texas? You truly need help.
Pailryder
Quote...and now if you admit to watching Jurassic World your examiner is going to press you on the porn you also watched...
I don't recall waldenrefugee admitting to watching porn. Did I miss something or is this exactly the sort of polygrapher BS that George warned about occurring in a real life setting if waldenrefugee were to bring up watching Jurassic World to his polygrapher?
Yes getrealalready
This is exactly the type of polygraph BS walden should expect. Once his examiner gets the porn admission they will move on to the sexting. You ignore one nonsense rule, you probably ignore them all. Human nature 101.
Quote"...This is exactly the type of polygraph BS walden should expect. Once his examiner gets the porn admission they will move on to the sexting..."
Straight from the horse's....er.....mouth. Be careful out there, polygraph examinees and those who would recommend blindly going along with the process. Be prepared--this is what you should expect to come your way...He/she gives you human nature 101; you give him/her human nature 102...
getrealalready
You need to get real. If waldenrefuge, an admitted, convicted, sexual offender, doesn't like his parole officer, his quack treatment provider, bs polygraph examiner and the probation restrictions that he agreed to, how is he going to like the restrictions at a Texas Department of Corrections facility?
Pailryder,
Sorry pal, but you miss the whole point.
This is not about liking or disliking the people/types you mention or even the Texas Department of Corrections, but it is about trust...what sort of a moron would trust his well being to someone who has devoted his professional life to quackery or to another who uses second-hand quackery to make decisions about the examinee's compliance and treatment? Certainly no rational person that I know comes to mind...
Thank goodness there is a glimmer of hope regarding this matter and hope for better things yet to come...
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/05/15/federal-appeals-court-rules-certain-mandatory-sex-offender-polygraph-questions-unconstitutional/
Edited to fix hyperlinking. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 15, 2016, 10:36 AMForgive me George, but your intense disdain for the polygraph sometimes results in collateral damage in your judgement. Polygraph or not, I don't think having waldenrefugee in perpetual brown study about how to get over on his polygraph is a good place for him to be. He needs to move forward with his life and stop having sex with underage girls.
Arkhangelsk,
There's nothing to forgive. I appreciate your candor. However, I don't see where my judgment is damaged. Rather, I think those with damaged judgment are the public officials and therapists who rely on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Jul 17, 2016, 04:06 AMI don't see where my judgment is damaged.
Maybe I'm wrong George, but the fact that his treatment provider uses polygraphy appears to impede your consideration of the notion that, despite this failing, he may none-the-less be able give waldenrefugee some effective psychotherapy and thus reducing the chances of him spending the rest of his life in prison.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 17, 2016, 06:48 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 17, 2016, 04:06 AMI don't see where my judgment is damaged.
Maybe I'm wrong George, but the fact that his treatment provider uses polygraphy appears to impede your consideration of the notion that, despite this failing, he may none-the-less be able give waldenrefugee some effective psychotherapy and thus reducing the chances of him spending the rest of his life in prison.
So, Ark...do you approve of the bogus pipeline if it serves the (perceived) greater good?
I was more focused on this one instance rather than the greater good. Suggesting that this fellow develop the skills to ensure he can beat the polygraph and get over on his "quack therapist" may alleviate his immediate legal worries, but may not serve him well in the long run. The faulty thinking that makes it okay to have sex with minors is something that is hard for some to auto-correct.
Previously, when I stated that admitting to viewing Jurassic World could be taken as a sign of progress in the treatment, I was referring to bringing it up directly to the therapist long before the polygraph appointment is made; not under post test interrogation.
As Pailryder noted, his violations could be more egregious than watching Jurassic World, and if this is the case, he should be directed to consult with his attorney. Having him stuff these things into a secret box and successfully fooling his therapist and polygrapher, IMHO would just keep him in a dark bad place which would eventually consume him.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 17, 2016, 06:48 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 17, 2016, 04:06 AMI don't see where my judgment is damaged.
Maybe I'm wrong George, but the fact that his treatment provider uses polygraphy appears to impede your consideration of the notion that, despite this failing, he may none-the-less be able give waldenrefugee some effective psychotherapy and thus reducing the chances of him spending the rest of his life in prison.
I don't deny that there may be something of value in the therapy waldenrefugee is compelled to undergo. But I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that such is the case.
Note that I haven't advised waldenrefugee whether or not to make any admissions or to use polygraph countermeasures. But I think he would be wise to make informed decisions regarding these questions.
Ark,
I still have to completely disagree. Although there clearly are some good examples of past error in judgment (perhaps unrelated to or perhaps peripheral to and which can be isolated from future performance) not preventing successful future and overall performance (e.g., Michael Phelps continuing to win Olympic gold medals, set world records, and become the greatest swimmer of all time after Cannabis use, DUI occurrences, etc), I don't believe that is the case with the psychotherapist using polygraph results as a basis for diagnosis and subsequent treatment.
In the scenario we have been discussing, the polygraph results and conclusions that are offered by the polygrapher and accepted by the psychotherapist are foundational to and determine everything (diagnosis/treatment) that follows. Error accepted which is foundational to all that follows presents a fatal flaw in this flow of events. If one is serious about obtaining a reliably successful outcome, this introduction of early error has to be eliminated or the process should be discontinued.
As George has also suggested, I offer no judgment on the value of psychotherapy for intended purposes in the absence of lie detection-introduced error, but I am steadfast in maintaining the worthlessness (and perhaps worse than worthless depending on what actions follow the introduction of error) of such a procedure in the presence of this foundational error.
That's a chilling indictment of the current sex offender treatment paradigm Doc. If its foundation is indeed flawed, then not only are millions of dollars in resources being wasted, but more insidiously, a false sense of security has been bestowed upon gullible communities.
Ark,
I believe the foundation is indeed badly flawed, and I agree with your assessment of some of the negative consequences stemming from these flaws.
As somebody that has served time on a sex offender unit in the state of Texas, let me offer a little awareness here that might support Doc's argument.
I would estimate about 40% of the inmates there that I did time with were men that were between 17 and 25 when the offense was committed and their sexual partner was between 14 and 16. I'm sure this will start a shitstorm in here, but I don't view a consensual relationship between a teenager of eighteen and one of fifteen as morally reprehensible. But now we are permanently seen as the worst of monsters in our communities. I'll probably end up back in prison for not finding a job honestly, so this polygraph likely won't matter one way or the other. Who wants to hire a sex offender, regardless of the explanation behind it? You aren't human now. You are a scarlet letter or in this case, three scarlet letters; RSO.
QuoteAs somebody that has served time on a sex offender unit in the state of Texas, let me offer a little awareness here that might support Doc's argument.
I would estimate about 40% of the inmates there that I did time with were men that were between 17 and 25 when the offense was committed and their sexual partner was between 14 and 16. I'm sure this will start a shitstorm in here, but I don't view a consensual relationship between a teenager of eighteen and one of fifteen as morally reprehensible. But now we are permanently seen as the worst of monsters in our communities. I'll probably end up back in prison for not finding a job honestly, so this polygraph likely won't matter one way or the other. Who wants to hire a sex offender, regardless of the explanation behind it? You aren't human now. You are a scarlet letter or in this case, three scarlet letters; RSO.
waldenrefugee,
I'm sorry for your situation and I can somewhat empathize. Our justice system, particularly in the southern U.S., needs some revamping. The laws are outdated and we (the U.S.) send more non-violent offenders to jail than anywhere else in the country. In high school and college, many teenage males who are 18 and 19 have girlfriends who are a few years younger. It is natural. Most women like older men, and most men like younger women. How can someone be jailed for something like this? These relationships are generally consensual between two adolescents, no matter who is legal age and who is not. Women mature faster than men anyway, so the boy and girl are usually on the same level of maturity.
I personally am now in a very tough situation. I have a good education, good job, high level security clearance, and until recently had no arrests and no criminal history. However, a certain southern state decided that me trashing a motel room constituted felony vandalism, and I was booked and charged. Instead of just receiving a bill from the motel, like every other hotel/motel does when you have incidental expenses, they called the cops and a warrant was issued for my arrest. Now I'm in jeopardy of losing my clearance, thus my job, being unable to get any other job with a criminal record, all my professional credentials, right to vote, freedom, and the list goes on. All for something that could have been settled in civil court or with a bill to me. I've lawyered up and am fighting this tooth and nail, hoping to settle this pre-trial and get an expungement.
This is not the first hit on my security clearance. I also have a previous clearance denial from a failed polygraph based on false accusations, a security violation, a foreign contacts from very unfriendly countries which I reported, all this within the past 6 years. This felony charge is probably the final straw and I can soon kiss my clearance goodbye.
I lost all faith in our justice system years ago. And the recent incidents of police shootings only perpetuates my distrust in our system. Anyway, these laws need to change. The taxpayer dollars do not need to be spent on jailing people for silly victimless crimes, or crimes that can be settled with a bill without any permanent damage to the accuser.
I meant to say that the U.S. sends more non-violent offenders to jail than anywhere else in the WORLD.
Where I live (WI) there is a charge known as "criminal damage to property". It can be a misdemeanor or felony depending upon the amount of damage.
I suppose that the line between what is considered a civil matter and a criminal charge can be very fuzzy indeed, and the decision is probably based heavily on the responding officer's judgement call.
I don't know what effect a felony of this type would have on your TS clearance. In the IC, I suspect that it could be problematic. :-/
QuoteAs somebody that has served time on a sex offender unit in the state of Texas, let me offer a little awareness here that might support Doc's argument.
I would estimate about 40% of the inmates there that I did time with were men that were between 17 and 25 when the offense was committed and their sexual partner was between 14 and 16. I'm sure this will start a shitstorm in here, but I don't view a consensual relationship between a teenager of eighteen and one of fifteen as morally reprehensible. But now we are permanently seen as the worst of monsters in our communities. I'll probably end up back in prison for not finding a job honestly, so this polygraph likely won't matter one way or the other. Who wants to hire a sex offender, regardless of the explanation behind it? You aren't human now. You are a scarlet letter or in this case, three scarlet letters; RSO.
Sexually active teen males need to become more aware of the major "watershed" they are passing once they turn 18. ::)
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 15, 2016, 01:52 AMSexual relations with girls younger than 17 is usually considered a form of paraphilia in need of psychotherapy. I think his best path forward is to be positive and learn from his therapists about making better decisions.
Who usually considers sex with a 17 year old a form of paraphilia? That statement alone is pure quackery. No respectable therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist would ever consider that a paraphilia, especially when he is only four years older. There is nothing abdnormal or pathalogical about it. To delve further into such a statement, no respectable mental heath provider would even consider hebephilia or ephebephilia treatable, unless it was leading to other more severe mental health concerns. All of the above are considered normal and aren't listed as disorders in major diagnostics manuals. The problem we are facing with so called "sex offense therapy" is that it isn't providing treatment for disorder, but simply for undesirable actions or behaviors. In some states it's so ideological and non-scientific that it would best be compared to praying the gay away.
QuoteI meant to say that the U.S. sends more non-violent offenders to jail than anywhere else in the WORLD.
That don't just send more non-violent offenders to jail than anywhere in the world, we simply have the world's largest inmate population and incarceration rate. In face, per capita, we have fewer free citizens than any nation on the planet. When you add in all detainees, parolees, probationers, etc we are hands down the least free nation on Earth. We are also the most heavily policed and spied on. Our legislatures pump out more laws in one year than most contries do in a decade. Land of the free? I think not.
When it comes to sex offenses, it alone is a multi-billion dollar a year business. Currently, there are close to one million registered sex offenders in the US, and some therapists believe it'll increase in the next 10 years to where 1 in 10 adult men will be registered sex offenders. Imagine the windfalls that will be pumped into the failing US economy. If you want to know what value all these strick draconian laws add to society...follow the money.
QuoteAll of the above are considered normal and aren't listed as disorders in major diagnostics manuals.
The only recent revisions in the DSM-IV-TR regarding a case of a pedophilic disorder was to change the disorder name from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder" to maintain consistency with the chapter's other disorder listings.
The goal of therapy is not to remove the sexual attraction to minors, but rather to intervene on the thinking errors which make it okay to exploit the vulnerabilities of those who lack the life experience to give consent.
Those who fail to correct this delusional thinking run the risk of spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Ark, I have three questions for you.
In your opinion...
Do sexual offender treatment programs work?
Is it possible to "deprogram" a homosexual?
What's the difference between the two?
I have no clue if they work or not.
People cannot be deprogrammed; we are products of billions of years of evolution. Hopefully though, they can be taught to stay out of jail.
Ark, in your opinion, is it a reasonable theory that sex offender treatment programs can -- in some cases -- also function as workshops to create more savvy criminals who learn to re-offend with a reduced likelihood of detection?
Indeed, some of the posters here seem to fit that profile if you ask me.
.... sex offenders, as a whole, have a lower recidivism rate than any other crime category except murderers (5.3%). Ark buys into the media hype; his position on SO's seems to stem from that.
That being said, just because a therapist or p.o. says 'don't watch jurassic world', and someone does, that means that person is ripe for reoffense?
Therapy tends to center around where the person was at in terms of mental state and cognition around the time of the offense. The cycle - which identifies triggers and red flags and all that good stuff - leads to a relapse prevention plan that helps offenders identify high-risk situations to stay away from, thus preventing the offender from putting himself in a position to be in the frame of mind to offend again... and it all works. Watching a pg-13 movie has nothing to do with that at all.
Where I am from, no offenders are allowed to own vans. Why? Because someone, somewhere, at least one time, raped someone or abducted a child in a van. Nevermind the fact that someone who had sex with a 16 year old when he was 19 has nothing to do with this... they take the worst cases possible, and apply those restrictions to everyone. That's the media hype. Probation and parole put these stupid rules in place to placate an ignorant public... and Ark seems to be buying into that hype with his nonsensical statements. Putting people in prison for watching pg-13 movies is horrible policy, no matter how you try to justify it.
QuoteArk buys into the media hype; his position on SO's seems to stem from that.
I'm confused. Where did I state my position on sex offenders? I only proffered that someone who has been arrested for having sex with a minor would be wise to correct their distorted thinking, otherwise they risk a life of incarceration. I have seen minor girls who I consider sexually attractive, but I do not engage in cognitive distortions which would lead to exploiting them.
Doc and George's position is that therapy is intrinsically flawed and futile if the polygraph is a component of the treatment model. This may be true, but I stand by my original point that I'm uncomfortable with waldenrefugee being in a dark place spending time scheming on how to get over on his therapist and PO--it is not a good place for him to be. But, then again, I'm a pocket protector using engineer and psychology may just be a bunch of bullshit for all I know... 8-)
Ark, let me play devil's advocate...
You said in a recent post that you "don't have a clue" as to whether SOTx programs work.
Yet, you have repeatedly implored SOs to work their program.
There's a disconnect there.
I spent over five years polygraphing SOs behind the prison walls. So naturally, I'm curious...
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to your unwavering support for SO "treatment."
Dan,
How about contributing to the conversation instead of popping in and out like a leprechaun posting questions then disappearing? You are the full APA member with the Certifications, who worked years as a PCSOT polygraph expert.
Take it way....
A most clumsy dodge.
You, sir, are a faker.
Get the hell out of here.
Finally got your goat. ;)
Keep aiming for that bully pulpit.
Keep dodging, you faker.
I'm sure you are deeply connected to the polygraph indu$try.
If you aren't, why not step up and identify yourself?
[cue crickets]
Ark... the guy is not sitting in a dark corner scheming to get one over on his therapist and PO. He is trying to educate himself on how to live a normal life despite the system painting him with the same brush as the worst of the worst. Watching 'jurassic world' is not a crime, and he should not receive consequences for watching it. Justify to us why he should be sanctioned or go to prison for watching that movie.
Your whole view is skewed. Your 'sitting in a dark corner scheming' comment shows bias. An alphabet soup agency candidate trying to cover up past misdeeds by beating a poly shows more deviance than a guy who made a mistake trying to 'get away with' watching Jurassic World. I have read quite a few of your posts over the years, and you show bias towards so's. It is clear that no matter what they say, or whatever their cases are, you always resort to thinking that anything they do is a result of the same flawed thinking that ended up with them offending in the first place. For all the knowledge you seem to posess, you are just as ignorant on the SO issue as the public is.
QuoteFor all the knowledge you seem to posess, you are just as ignorant on the SO issue as the public is.
So there is nothing wrong with guys who exploit teeners into having sex? They were just sowing their wild oats and the system is just out to get them? And myself and society have it all wrong? Therapy is just a waste of time, except for bringing in money, and these fellows will be just fine if we leave them alone? I am not being sarcastic, I want to be sure I have your perspective correct.
Now if you go back and read waldenrefugee's original post, I do not see the issue as having watched Jurassic World; that was the minimization. Although lacking much detail, I perceive the post as indeed being in a dark place having the burden of many indiscretions and seeking a means to avoid detection. This is diverse from using countermeasures to avoid the chances of a false positive.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 06, 2016, 10:43 PMI'm sure you are deeply connected to the polygraph indu$try
You are hallucinating Dan. I have never been to polygraph school, I have never been to an APA meeting. I am an engineer working with instrumentation. Chill out. And to answer your question, yes, I do not know if SO treatment works or not. But, I can still urge those in a pickle to put a good foot forward and see if the therapy can help them make better decisions. And, hidden in my sarcasm was a thread of truth--you are an expert in this area and your contributions would be meaningful to the discussion.
... who said he exploited anyone? Who says he is minimizing? You 'percieve' he's in a dark place? Where are the 'many' indiscretions that you intuit that aren't actually posted?
Basically, what you just did was deny that you are biased, then immediately afterwards, put that bias on full display for all to see. You extrapolated the worst possible thing that you could out of waldenrefugee's post... and why? Because he's an SO, you are biased against them, and you are just as ignorant as the general public on the issue. Thank you for illustrating my point for me perfectly. ;D
I'm out.
*drops mic*
I do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMEncouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased.
Hey Ark, let's get real.
In your own words, you "don't have a clue" as to whether such treatment works or not.
Have you ever considered that SOTx can be counter-productive?
By the way, Ark...
Where's me Lucky Charms?!
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMI do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Fast fact: on the questionnaire that is given to SO'S before they take the sexual history polygraph for the Wisconsin DOC, it asks if the test-taker has had any sexual contact with minors as an adult... but then says 'if the person was within three years of age of you at the time, do not list this person'. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections doesn't seem to think this is exploitive or a crime worth reporting, even for a stupid screening polygraph... even for an 18 year old to sleep with a 15 year old. Think about that.
Aaaaannnd.... who says waldenrefugee doesn't take his treatment seriously? Once again, an assumption on your part. 'He watched a pg-13 movie... therefore, he doesn't take his treatment seriously'. You have what sot therapists call 'all or nothing' or 'Black and white' thinking... which is a pretty serious cognitive distortion. Shades of grey everywhere, ark. Do you even know what therapy entails? Every single aspect of therapy is specifically geared towards the worst of the worst, despite the fact that there are guys like waldenrefugee in every group, right along with serial offenders/pedophiles. A lot of that stuff doesn't even apply to everyone... hence the treatment motto 'if it doesn't apply, let it fly'. Ammonia sniffing to condition yourself to not think of kids inappropriately is not for everyone, for instance... nor are thought logs/masturbation logs. There is a term they use, SUDS: Seemingly Unimportant Decisions, and an example they use; they say 'going outside to smoke a cigarette can lead to reoffense'. How, you ask? 'You go outside to smoke a cigarette, you see a cute girl walk by, you get horny, you follow her and rape her'. This is an example used by a certain therapist I know... do you think this applies to a very young man who stuck his dingus in a girl with permission who is factually legal to sleep with in more than half the states in our country, and who the Wisconsin DOC discounts as a victim for treatment purposes? Of course not. But, you refuse to see shades of grey, and have no clue what therapy entails or who it is even geared for specifically. I agree that you may not be biased, but you certainly do not have enough facts - either about waldenrefugee or SO'S in general - to be forming opinions.
For the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.
QuoteFor the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.
So sex offender treatment is all a total waste of time and society should just treat them the same as all law breakers?
I like would like to hear the viewpoints of others.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 07, 2016, 09:20 PM
Hey Ark, let's get real.
Dan you sure are a snarky little knot head. Instead of sharing some of your experience to further the conversation, you in act like a bratty little Eddy Haskell. This is why few of your peers take you seriously. It seems to be especially annoying to you that someone who has never been to polygraph school knows more about the subject than you do.
Ark, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 08, 2016, 10:44 AMQuoteFor the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.
So sex offender treatment is all a total waste of time and society should just treat them the same as all law breakers?
I like would like to hear the viewpoints of others.
SOT is not a waste of time insofar as it placates an ignorant public. In Wisconsin, SOT is mandatory after prison even when an individual has successfully completed treatment in prison and is recommended for aftercare. As long as the public feels safe, it doesn't matter if it works or not. That is another reason why so's have stupid rules that only apply to the most hardcore pedos. Just like Dr. Abel says about his visual response tests in court when judges deride him for their use - 'it's better than nothing'. If the public knew that about 94 percent of sex offenders never reoffend, ALOT of people would lose money or be out of business. Polygraph examiners, for one.
In any event, YES, they should be treated similar to other criminals - on a case by case basis. That is the way it is supposed to work, but it does not. I bet waldenrefugee hasn't been out of jail/prison long, or else his p.o. wouldn't be so gung-ho about pg-13 movies... or, he hasn't behaved so they havnt lifted restrictions. That is the modus operandi in WI.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 08, 2016, 11:08 AMArk, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
True, one can not get too much lower than being a polygrapher! ;D
Quoten assumption on your part. 'He watched a pg-13 movie... therefore, he doesn't take his treatment seriously'. You have what sot therapists call 'all or nothing' or 'Black and white' thi
A movie that would be rated "PG-13" would not have achieved that rating for sexual depictions! :)
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 07, 2016, 03:55 PMI do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World.
Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative.
Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.
Well, "Jurassic Park" DID include frank discussion of the reproductive habits of some dinosaurs! ;D
Polygraphs are only effective if the person being tested believes in their validity. Going in with that mindset, and after several iterations of no deception indicated/inconclusive/deception indicated on mutually exclusive scenarios over most of a year, it became quite obvious to me that the polygraph is complete bullshit. It is a money making scam for a parasitic cottage industry. I know the test can be beaten, and quite easily at that. As a test, I viewed some porn and then lied about it on an exam. I lied to beat the lie, so to speak. I did not lie about anything else, nor did I lie about what I did. Of course, admitting that I lied opens the door to impugning everything else I say, but whatever. If you've been in my shoes, you know what I'm talking about.
But, having to do community service while on probation for not having passed a maintenance exam (have you had sex with anyone else other than your wife during date to date, NDI, and on the same "exam" getting inconclusive on have you had sex with anyone under the age of 18 during the same date window - really, how do you "pass" a question that covers the one question and fail the other question?) exposed the complete lunacy of the polygraph. Being accused of lying when you know you are telling the truth - how do you think a person is going to respond after being "consequenced" for not having passed the exam? You know, I surrendered, went belly up, totally submitted, and then you continue to kick me after that? So yeah, that is how I came to find out about antipolygraph.org a long time ago (and I've been out of the system for over a decade now, minus the exception of quarterly registration because what I did is such a friggin' danger to society? hardly).
With that said, for the OP, you fucked up for a stupid reason. Why put yourself into a situation like this? If your T&Cs are do not watch a particular type of movie, then don't fucking watch them. What is so hard to follow/understand about that? It's not like you got bent over for not passing an exam when you were telling the truth. In this case, you were stupid for not following a simple rule.
Here is a little tip: your best defense/survival strategy is not to give them (i.e., your containment team) any ammunition to use against you. I wasn't allowed to consume alcohol. Alcohol didn't have jack to do with my offense, in fact, I hardly drank in the first place. But being told I couldn't have a simple glass of beer, WTF is the point of that? But, why drink and run the test of being caught on a UA? Grow up and follow the rules. The sooner you realize you are not in charge of your life (while you are under supervision), and be mature enough to follow the rules, regardless of how stupid they seem, the better off you'll be. You really can't fight city hall on this one. The system is heavily stacked against you. Choose your battles wisely. This is not one of them. Trust me.
Quote from: xenonman on Aug 16, 2016, 10:46 AMQuote from: danmangan on Aug 08, 2016, 11:08 AMArk, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.
As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.
Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.
According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."
Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!
The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.
True, one can not sink too much lower than being a polygrapher!
It's about one step below being a necrophile ;D
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 16, 2016, 11:17 AMgetrealalready
You need to get real. If waldenrefuge, an admitted, convicted, sexual offender, doesn't like his parole officer, his quack treatment provider, bs polygraph examiner and the probation restrictions that he agreed to, how is he going to like the restrictions at a Texas Department of Corrections facility?
He's been convicted, he's repaying his debt to society, I'm sure he's following all the rules...and then suddenly he watched jurrasic park and he might go back to jail for it? Do you not see the injustice here? A punished man does not need to be perpetually phished over and over til they finally find something they nail him with. If its truly about the classes, the treatment etc...then the polygraph is antithetical to the entire process. It's like saying "here you're doing great in every possible regard...but we want to use a scam psuedoscience to find some reason to send you back to prison". This isn't conducive with rehabilitiation. In fact it probably promotes rebellion, obsconding and going against probation even moreso. Becasue if you fail once or twice while telling the truth... then people might say FUCK IT I can't win even tho I'm doing everything right I still cant win so they get a case of the fuck its and do more illegal shit.