Should Polygraph Tests Be Required For Maintenance?
Post Convicted Sex Offender Tests are required as conditions to probation and treatment. In almost every incident that someone fails a test, the reliability of the test comes to the forefront. The question is then asked, how reliable is the polygraph test, can it be beat and or manipulated.
I can speak from my own experience, that it may be theoretically possible to beat an inexperienced Examiner, but not the instrument. The polygraph instrument is simply a recording device, that records the physiological changes in your body when a stimulus/question is introduced. The key to a reliable examination is determined by a “Trained” Examiner to conduct a proper test.
How Accurate Is A Polygraph Test?
Results are normally between 90 to 95% accurate, depending on a few key factors like how direct the questions are and how long ago the incident occurred. The American Polygraph Association, which sets standards for testing, says that polygraphs are “highly accurate,” citing an accuracy rate above 90 percent when done properly. (More Frequently Asked Questions)
To conduct a proper test, and acquire true results, it is necessary for the Examiner to do a good interview from the beginning. A deep discussion about the situation/topic of discussion is had, and it’s not an easy conversation for anyone. As the Examiner does a good review of the questions being asked, the questions formulated to regard whether or not the Examinee did or did not violate the rules of their probation, but also about their habits and lying.
The Reason To Add Polygraph Testing Is To Bring Supervised Release Terms In Accordance With The National Standard
WILLIAMSPORT – A retired Mount Carmel police lieutenant will have to undergo periodic lie detector tests to ensure he is in compliance with terms of his supervised release in his child pornography conviction. (Source Penn Live). Living in Swatara Twp. when police discovered on a computer seized during a Feb. 6, 2006, search of his home 147,070 images and 1,250 video files depicting child pornography.
He pleaded guilty in October 2011 to a possession of child pornography charge and was sentenced in August 2012 to eight years in prison followed 10 years of supervised release and required to register as a sex offender.
During his nearly 31 years in law enforcement that included a period when he was acting chief in Mount Carmel, he said he did not rely on the results of polygraph tests. He was advised not to try to manipulate the revised supervised release terms.
He was cited an attempt by him to delay participating in the required sex offender treatment program, which he later completed.
“Probation is not trying to put you back in prison,” he said, adding polygraphs are a reasonable form of monitoring. Most of the other modified terms of supervised release including restricting contact with those under 18 mirror those set by the late Senior Judge William W. Caldwell in 2012.
The changes do not change the length of his supervised release