Texas sex offender & mandatory polygraph

[Drew Richardson]

Raymond,

Thank you and safe travels to you as well. 

You mention my experience with manual scoring. 

You might be surprised to know that 25 years ago, I was the first DoDPI student to ever collect digitized data, use my own algorithm (a modified version of an industrial control process called cumulative summation (cusum analysis) to see small change points in time series data), and do so while simultaneously collecting analog data (perhaps the only student to have ever done so and long before students and practitioners were routinely using commercial digital instruments and scoring algorithms). 

Best again, Drew

[MagicSteve]

Dr. Richardson,

After reading TLBTLD again today, I just realized who you are. It is an honor and a privilege to communicate with you.

With your background and credentials, I do not understand why people don't believe you when you say that the polygraph 'test' is not scientifically valid. If anyone should know, it is you.

And Dan - you were correct. Some great discussions by some very important people take place here.

[Dan Mangan]

MagicSteve, allow me to offer some thoughts on your question to Dr. Richardson...

First, understand that it is only a relatively small cadre of polygraph researchers -- many of which, such as Ray Nelson, have past or present ties to the polygraph indu$try -- who are behind the pro-polygraph propaganda. Even a cursory review of the literature reveals a fairly short list of the usual suspects behind these cheerleading efforts.

Second, many polygraph examiners that I know tacitly acknowledge that the test is pure pseudoscience, if not outright horseshit. In fact, the current president of the American Polygraph Association, Walt Goodson, told the APA membership in a speech at the most recent national convention that an examiner's "swagger, confidence and command presence in the polygraph suite are more important than ten college degrees." That's hardly a ringing endorsement of "test's" scientific underpinnings.

Third, polygraph has a tremendous amount of momentum behind it, thanks to a queer amalgam of pop culture (vis-a-vis daytime TV), a gullible public -- including the occasional dimwit or easily bamboozled judges --  solution-hungry sex offender treatment providers, and, of course, the government's increasing use of the "test." FYI, polygraph use is growing globally as well.

Fourth, with regard to PCSOT applications, even though polygraph test accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable, the underlying sentiment -- and I'm speaking from experience -- is that the "test" is plenty good enough for pervs, sickos and skinners.

[Drew Richardson]

MagicSteve,

Thank you for the compliment-the pleasure is mine. 

Dan Mangan is much more in touch with the current polygraph community than I, so I suspect his answer to you is more observationally based (and closer to reality) than mine might be. 

That having been said, my summary feeling about the issue would be that some combination of a lack of critical thinking, ignorance, self preservation, and excess control on the part of those who "own the football" leads to the status quo of lie detection in this country.  Notice that I did not include widespread malice or wanton disregard for one's fellow man in this list.

Listening to or agreeing with me (or any other given individual) or not doing so is of no particular significance. 

Best Wishes, Drew Richardson

[MagicSteve]

Fourth, with regard to PCSOT applications, even though polygraph test accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable, the underlying sentiment -- and I'm speaking from experience -- is that the "test" is plenty good enough for pervs, sickos and skinners.

I have a question about this, based on something I had read on these forums in the not-too-distant past. Someone had stated that even though the test is basically invalid, that its use as a psychological billy club in PCSOT cases warrants further use, considering the fact that sexual offenders pose such a risk to society.

I know, for a fact, that the recidivism rate of sexual offenders is quite low - lower, in fact, than the recidivism rates for every other crime except murder. Given these two conflicting view points - one based on society's ignorance (the high recidivism rate) and one based on research and empirical data/evidence - what is your opinion on the continued use of polygraphs as a screening tool, more or less, for sex offenders?

I have been told by SOT therapists that I have worked with that 'it's better than nothing' (which seems to be the same view on the Abel test, as well...don't get me started there). A hot poker in the eye is better than nothing, too, for the record... I believe that holding these offenders accountable is good - to a point. Holding them accountable for what, however, is a whole other topic. It is widely known that most SO's face much harsher restrictions than normal probationers/parolees.

Since we know that the polygraph exams - particularly the screening exams, such as maintenance and sexual history polygraphs - are invalid so far as science goes, then where is the line drawn? Are PCSOT examiners essentially just trying to force admissions of wrong-doing in their examinees? And if so, isn't that doing more harm than good, perpetuating the myth that polygraphs are effective as a screening tool when in fact they are not?

[Dan Mangan]

MagicSteve,

There are several things that contribute to the "perfect storm" of PCSOT mania...

o A reviled underclass of criminal monsters (the aforementioned pervs, sickos and skinners)

o The need to do something

o A solution-hungry population of frustrated SOT professionals looking for a panacea -- or at least another "tool in the toolbox"

Enter the American Polygraph Association with its wild claims about polygraph test accuracy.

From 1997 to 2012, the APA actively promoted the notion that polygraph is 98.6% accurate. Many opportunity-minded examiners co-opted that ludicrous claim for PCSOT use. In fact, the exact language of the APA's claim of 98.6% accuracy is still in wide use on polygraph operator web sites around the world.

In large part, the SOT community bought into the 98.6% accuracy myth. Understandably, when the post-test admissions came -- and they usually do -- that "proved" polygraph's efficacy. The pervs/sickos/skinners who made no admissions were (are) often thought to be in denial or otherwise holding back.

So, PCSOT "success", if you will, is a result of marketing magic, a gullible (if not eager) customer base, and a healthy dash of "proof" in the form of post-test admissions.

I have much more to say about this.

[MagicSteve]

So, PCSOT "success", if you will, is a result of marketing magic, a gullible (if not eager) customer base, and a healthy dash of "proof" in the form of post-test admissions.

An interesting tidbit...

In Wisconsin, is says in the DOC administrative rules that an SO cannot be revocated soley based on a 'failed' polygraph, i.e. there has to be corroborating evidence, as in an admission of some sort. It is widely known by clients who are SO's that if you 'fail', and maintain your innocence, that probation and parole can do nothing to the examinee. Even the DOC in Wisconsin seems to relalize that a 'failed' exam does not constitute proof of anything. This administrative rule holds true for specific incident polygraphs, as well (where an accusation is made against the parolee/probationer, and no proof exists other than a written statement by a third party, or a 'hunch' by the agent).

A step in the right direction... or a covert acknowledgement of polygraph's failings? And, since this is widely know, then why bother 'testing' SO's in Wisconsin at all?

Since the public is unaware of the low recidivism rates of SO's and the polygraph's lack of validity, it seems to me that the public hysteria won't die down soon. That is unfortunate, as I find that a misinformed public makes for a bad forum to try and initiate necessary policy changes.

[MagicSteve]

Wisconsin Lie Detector Program for DOC




DOC 332.17  Operation of lie detector program.
(1)  Selection of participants.
Upon the approval of an agent's supervisor, an agent may require an offender who is a sex offender to participate in the lie detector program. The agent may require an offender who is a sex offender to submit to the lie detector examination process based on the following:
(a) For an offender who is a sex offender and who is currently in prison but nearing the release date on mandatory or discretionary parole:
1. The offender's criminal record of sexual offenses.
2. The offender's adjustment under previous supervision.
3. The offender's participation in offense-related programming while incarcerated or institutionalized.
4. The offender's motivation or refusal to participate in continued programming in the community.
(b) For an offender who is a sex offender and who is currently on probation or parole:
1. The offender's criminal record of sexual offenses.
2. The offender's adjustment under supervision, including recent rules violations or recent consideration for alternatives to revocation.
3. The offender's compliance with current programming.
(2) Notice.
(a) An agent shall provide an offender who is a sex offender and who is selected to participate in the lie detector examination process written notice of the lie detector program requirements. The department may require an offender who is a sex offender to participate in the lie detector examination process without the offender's informed consent.
(b) An agent shall provide written notice to an offender who is a sex offender and who is required to take a lie detector test. The notice shall include the following:
1. Date, time, and location of the scheduled test.
2. Instructions to complete any preliminary questionnaires.
(3) Lie detector test questions.
(a) The lie detector examiner shall determine the questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process and shall consult with the agent in determining the questions to be asked. If the offender who is a sex offender is receiving treatment, the examiner or agent may consult with the treatment provider regarding development of questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process.
(b) The agent or examiner may consider any of the following in determining the questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process:
1. The offender's involvement in current offense-related programming.
2. The offender's level of denial.
3. The offender's recent pattern of rules violations.
4. The offender's noncompliance with treatment.
5. The agent's need to verify the offender's compliance with supervision, treatment or self-reporting.
6. The agent's need to document and verify the extent of the offender's sexual history.
(4) Test administration.
The department may administer lie detector tests or contract with an outside vendor to administer the tests. The department shall establish standards for the selection of lie detector examiners.
(5) Assessment of fees.
The department shall establish a schedule of fees in accordance with s. DOC 332.18.
(6) Sanctions.
(a) If an offender who is a sex offender refuses to participate in any portion of the lie detector examination process or to pay a lie detector fee, the agent shall investigate the refusal as a violation of a rule or condition of supervision in accordance with ch. DOC 331.
(b) If an offender who is a sex offender discloses a violation of a rule or condition of supervision during the lie detector examination process, the agent shall investigate the disclosure as a violation of a rule or condition of supervision, in accordance with ch. DOC 331.
(c) If an offender who is a sex offender discloses criminal conduct during the lie detector examination process, the agent, with the approval of the agent's supervisor, shall refer the disclosure to law enforcement authorities.
(d) Revocation of probation or parole of an offender who is a sex offender may not be based solely on a finding of deception as disclosed by a lie detector test.

Notice the very last part. Also, according to these rules, a sexual history polygraph, as a separate exam, is not mandatory, per(1)(b)... sexual history questions can be asked in a mandatory maintenance polygraph, however, per (3)(6). I have had several parole/probation agents ask my clients to do sexual history polygraphs, and they are always 'off-site', meaning not at the probation or parole office, whereas the maintenance polygraphs are done only at the probation and parole office. Also, these 'off-site' sexual history polygraphs are not subject to the DOC's payment plan - my clients have to pay the examiner up front, while the mandatory polygraphs done in the probation/parole office are put on a payment plan, per the DOC rules.

The polygraphs are administered by Behavioral Measures Midwest, out of South Eastern Wisconsin, and cost my clients $350.

[Dan Mangan]

MagicSteve, the PCSOT scene -- like polygraph in general -- is mainly about money.

I'd be very suspect of any PCSOT scenario wherein a single vendor is the sole source of "approved" polygraph exams.

If any of your clients feel they've been wronged, I'd be happy to discuss conducting an independent quality assurance review.

[MagicSteve]

I'd be very suspect of any PCSOT scenario wherein a single vendor is the sole source of "approved" polygraph exams.

I thought the same thing. Offenders who have asked to use their own, independent examiners for voluntary examinations (such as a sexual history polygraph) have been told that the results will not be honored if they do so.

Another absurdity is that even though the sexual history polygraphs are out of the scope of the DOC's contract with their 'vendor' (even insofar as the DOC's own regulations go), the examinees are not allowed to possess the results - even the type-written summary - of their examination. The DOC won't allow it, and the examinee is forced to sign a document  giving up any rights to documentation AND freeing both the DOC and the examiner from any legal liability.

[Dan Mangan]

"...the examinees are not allowed to possess the results - even the type-written summary - of their examination. The DOC won't allow it, and the examinee is forced to sign a document  giving up any rights to documentation AND freeing both the DOC and the examiner from any legal liability."

MagicSteve, this is commonplace not only in PCSOT, but in screening situations for law enforcement and government positions.

So, why the secrecy and lack of access?

Simple -- the "test" is scientifically bogus, at least in my opinion.

Lack of access to the data is the only way that polygraph can endure in these crude culling applications.

PCSOT is here to stay. It's a CA$H COW that's wrapped in a bulletproof cloak of feel-good therapy, indignant self-righteousness, and (often) illusory community safety.

As I said to you in an earlier post: The DOC makes the rules.

Your clients are stuck.

[Ex Member]

Dan, since you have had 5 years of PCSOT experience, your assertions of it having become an enterprise aside, has it been your experience that PCSOT is not effective in the treatment model?

[Dan Mangan]

Ark, to clarify, I conducted PCSOT exams in a prison setting for five and one-half years, then transitioned to running PCSOT exams in the community for a few more years.

These days, I conduct PCSOT exams only on a consulting (second opinion) basis. The same applies to LEPET exams.

My business model has evolved over the years; I have precious little faith in screening exams, but am happy to review and critique them, or run an exam on someone who claims to have been wronged in a prior "test."

As for the effectiveness of PCSOT, it's a double-edged sword. Anecdotally, my sense is that therapeutic efforts are significantly aided in about one-third of the cases. But there is a corresponding one-third of SOs, that, in my opinion, are victimized by mislabeling, loss of liberty (to a degree), and the like. The remaining third are seemingly unaffected one way or the other.

On the probation/parole side, PCSOT seems to be generally viewed as a great and powerful tool. My sense is that the POs -- like the SOT providers -- have been oversold on the accuracy, however.

BTW, consumers of PCSOT and LEPET "tests" are fixated on accuracy expressed as a finite percentage.

So, is PCSOT effective? In many cases, yes. But it comes at the cost of collateral damage, which is all but lost on the reviled underclass of "pervs, sickos and skinners."

In the end, PCSOT -- like all of polygraph -- is BS (Belief System) based, just as Krapohl said. Thus, its value exists predominantly in the eye of the beholder.

The usual disclaimer applies: This is just the view of one lowly polygraph operator.

[TEXASPP]

OK, let me start with this,

There is now peace between me and Eric Holden.  Yes you read that right.  We talked everything out today, and as far as both parties are concerned, there is a halt to hostilities.  It is done, it is over, there is now peace in that regard.

We both agreed that there are some pot stirrers in the background that just instigated things to a point where they got to of hand.  Mistakes were made, and I am not blame free here; and those mistakes are now in the past.

I hope this will stabilize the market in Dallas and make all involved stronger and better. 

For any misunderstandings or angst I have caused Mr. Holden during the process of the past 6 years, I am sorry and I hope that things will move forward to a new era in Dallas of understanding and friendship.

If I have unreasonably wronged Mr. holden in any way, shape or form, I hope he accepts my apology again, and, we move froward with understanding and good future intentions.

Now, in regard to the examiners who don't want to let things go; I will leave you with this.

The opening keynote by F. Lee Bailey; the closing was fitting, and hit home for me

"if I were ever asked to take a polygraph (if he was in a situation where one was needed), how could I say no given my involvement in the polygraph profession."

F. Lee Bailey
Keynote speaker
APA 2015 conference

This statement by Mr. Bailey seemed fitting, relevant, and for me, VINDICATING.

On that note, after hearing that statement, by someone as important in the polygraph community as Mr. Bailey, I feel vindicated enough to move on from this. 

We know who the examiners are that will step up to their own test; and we know who will run.  We now know who the examiners are that will do the right thing in the ned and who will continue to "stir the pot."

I am done, and I am out.  This old dog is going back to sleep.  I think it would be best for certain examiners in Texas to let that happen and leave the sleeping dog in peace.  But make no mistake, and you know who I am talking to; kick a sleeping dog, you're gonna get bit.  Something to think about.

NOTE: I will still be using the fact that I am the ONLY examiner in Texas that believes in the product we sell, enough that I would place my future and career down on the table based on the results of that test.  I reserve the right to use this in my marketing. 

On that note, I am done and moving on.  I would hope the Texas examiners would do that also; trust me, this is in everyones best interests.

I now leave the choice to them.

Tell us Joe, how does it feel knowing you're done in this business forever?  No one at NPA will stand up for you.  You were told to shut up, but you just wouldn't listen.  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong.  The only thing that matters is the vote.  It will not fall in your favor.  You opened your mouth one too many times, Joey.  Even your wife won't stand by you.  Maybe she found some chocolate nuts, like the last wife?

You made a big deal about your "peace" with Rick.  You fool, it made him sick just to stand next to you.  You have no friends in polygraph.  We all hate you.  There is no way you will survive the vote, if you even make it to Vegas at all.  Bets are being taken if you'll show up.  Other bets include rope or a tailpipe.  The Irish do love their pipes.  You're too narcissistic to use a bullet.  I bet your wife will be happy that she can have chocolate nuts whenever she wants then.  The last one says, she's moved on to salty chocolate balls.  She's much happier now.  Maybe she found the Irish ones bland. We can introduce your current wife to something that tastes better after you're gone.

It's funny that you really think this vote will go your way.  Why don't you just resign like you did last time?  If you resign, no vote will happen.  Isn't that better than embarrassing yourself in front of everyone?  Face it Joey, it's the only way out, other than the rope or tailpipe. 

We look forward to seeing who wins the pool. 

Enjoy Vegas Joey.  Be careful driving.  The Nevada Desert can be a dangerous place.  The vultures would love picking your fat ass clean.  We wouldn't want to see anything happen to you before you run out of the NPA meeting crying like last time.  This time, we will have our cameras out to record your baby fit for your fans here and on YouTube.  Won't Boston be proud.

There is no winning.  Save your money and what is left of your pride.

[Ex Member]

Me thinks TEXASPP has just released the Kraken.