Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 May 14
08:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 12
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sex-offenders-face-lie-detector-tests-051535390.html
A thousand of the UK's most high-risk sex offenders are to undergo mandatory lie detector tests, under new measures announced by the ministry for justice today.
Probation officers are being trained in how to use polygraph examiners as part of new measures to toughen up the monitoring of convicted paedophiles and reduce the danger they pose to the public.
Don Grubin, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Newcastle University, whose company Behavioural Measures is leading the training, said: "The aim of the testing is to assist offender managers in supervising the offenders.
"There is not a specific crime you are investigating, not a specific security breach, it's much more of a general tool to look at how they are behaving under supervision and to see whether there is a need to intervene."
"It's important to emphasise that nobody will be recalled because they failed a test ... polygraph testing both facilitates the disclosure of information and alerts offender managers to possible deception, allowing them to work with offenders in a more focused way."
A group of seven officers will administer the tests to sex offenders deemed at high risk of reoffending or convicted of the most serious offences, in a 12-week training programme administered by polygraph experts from the US, where use of the devices is much more common.
As well as undergoing lie detector tests every six months, the Government has also announced plans to use satellite tags and controversial libido suppressant drugs, also known as "chemical castration".
Sex offenders already have to abide by licence conditions, including signing onto the sex offenders register, adhering to exclusion zones, curfews, internet restrictions and non-contact orders.
But there are hopes that the addition of lie detector tests will help probation services better monitor the risk of reoffending.
Justice minister Jeremy Wright said: "We are determined that Britain has one of hte toughest regimes in the world for managing sex offenders, to stop reoffending and to protect victims."
According to the most recent figures there are 43,664 registered sex offenders in the UK. Reoffending rates have been a persistent cause for concern, with 13% of adults convicted of a sex offence committing further offences.
This is the first time that mandatory lie detector testing will be used by probation services across the UK, but the Government says that a pilot conducted between 2009 and 2011 in the East and West Midlands found that those who took the tests were twice as likely to admit having breached the terms of their licence or having thoughts that suggested they continued to pose a risk.
Two police forces are already are also using lie detectors for people arrested on suspicion of indecent images of children.
But the use of polygraphs remains controversial, with some concerned about the reliability of the devices.
-----------------
The sooner, the better imo.
We should also bring in lie detectors and truth serums into the court of law, and thru the interrogation process. Plus all those 'crocodile tears' press conferences.
That should stop all the timewasting and cut thru all the bull. Plus it might save people that have been kidnapped or held against their will, where urgent intervention is needed.
But that might upset the human rights dears.
A thousand of the UK's most high-risk sex offenders are to undergo mandatory lie detector tests, under new measures announced by the ministry for justice today.
Probation officers are being trained in how to use polygraph examiners as part of new measures to toughen up the monitoring of convicted paedophiles and reduce the danger they pose to the public.
Don Grubin, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Newcastle University, whose company Behavioural Measures is leading the training, said: "The aim of the testing is to assist offender managers in supervising the offenders.
"There is not a specific crime you are investigating, not a specific security breach, it's much more of a general tool to look at how they are behaving under supervision and to see whether there is a need to intervene."
"It's important to emphasise that nobody will be recalled because they failed a test ... polygraph testing both facilitates the disclosure of information and alerts offender managers to possible deception, allowing them to work with offenders in a more focused way."
A group of seven officers will administer the tests to sex offenders deemed at high risk of reoffending or convicted of the most serious offences, in a 12-week training programme administered by polygraph experts from the US, where use of the devices is much more common.
As well as undergoing lie detector tests every six months, the Government has also announced plans to use satellite tags and controversial libido suppressant drugs, also known as "chemical castration".
Sex offenders already have to abide by licence conditions, including signing onto the sex offenders register, adhering to exclusion zones, curfews, internet restrictions and non-contact orders.
But there are hopes that the addition of lie detector tests will help probation services better monitor the risk of reoffending.
Justice minister Jeremy Wright said: "We are determined that Britain has one of hte toughest regimes in the world for managing sex offenders, to stop reoffending and to protect victims."
According to the most recent figures there are 43,664 registered sex offenders in the UK. Reoffending rates have been a persistent cause for concern, with 13% of adults convicted of a sex offence committing further offences.
This is the first time that mandatory lie detector testing will be used by probation services across the UK, but the Government says that a pilot conducted between 2009 and 2011 in the East and West Midlands found that those who took the tests were twice as likely to admit having breached the terms of their licence or having thoughts that suggested they continued to pose a risk.
Two police forces are already are also using lie detectors for people arrested on suspicion of indecent images of children.
But the use of polygraphs remains controversial, with some concerned about the reliability of the devices.
-----------------
The sooner, the better imo.
We should also bring in lie detectors and truth serums into the court of law, and thru the interrogation process. Plus all those 'crocodile tears' press conferences.
That should stop all the timewasting and cut thru all the bull. Plus it might save people that have been kidnapped or held against their will, where urgent intervention is needed.
But that might upset the human rights dears.
Show More
Maybe we should 'lie detect' Buzz Aldrin, to see if we really went to the moon. 
I still think we should bring in castration for serious paedophile offenders. Defuses them so to speak.
We should also bring in lie detectors and truth serums into the court of law
Agreed, provided police officers are obliged to undergo the same testing
Agreed, provided police officers are obliged to undergo the same testing
People’s faith in these machines bemuses me.
With the current method, you place your witnesses and evidence before a group of people with no vested interest in the outcome, who then weigh it up and decide who was telling the truth or not.
The trouble with lie detectors is that they don’t detect lies as such, 'a lie' is the interpretation of a squiggle on a bit of paper by a paid employee. Now, it is disputed that the accuracy of these machines is little more than 50/50. Of course, those with a vested interested – the makers of the machines and the people that make a living using them – say it is much more than that. Undeniably though, despite the question of their accuracy, you are going to be swayed by the ‘authority’ of the machine when in reality it’s just some fallible human making the interpretation, who himself is open to all sorts of cognitive biases. No place in a court for these things.
With the current method, you place your witnesses and evidence before a group of people with no vested interest in the outcome, who then weigh it up and decide who was telling the truth or not.
The trouble with lie detectors is that they don’t detect lies as such, 'a lie' is the interpretation of a squiggle on a bit of paper by a paid employee. Now, it is disputed that the accuracy of these machines is little more than 50/50. Of course, those with a vested interested – the makers of the machines and the people that make a living using them – say it is much more than that. Undeniably though, despite the question of their accuracy, you are going to be swayed by the ‘authority’ of the machine when in reality it’s just some fallible human making the interpretation, who himself is open to all sorts of cognitive biases. No place in a court for these things.
Jeremy Kyle swears by lie detectors.
If they good enough for Jerry to use in sorting out the toe-rags that's good enough for me.
If they good enough for Jerry to use in sorting out the toe-rags that's good enough for me.
Dr Crippen
The jury don't have to decide who is telling the truth, or not. They know who is telling the truth. The question they have to answer is, has the charge been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In these child sex offence cases, where it is reduced to one person's word against another, you can NEVER prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the very reason why the alleged offender does not counter-sue the 'lying' witnesses...he would not be able to PROVE that they were lying.
However, if six different women who may have never met take a polygraph test and get six strong 'truth' results and the alleged perpetrator gets six strong 'lie' results...that, to me, should be admissible as proof.
The questions would be agreed beforehand by the defence, prosecution and the judge. They would then be shown the trace recordings, without knowing which was which, and agree upon which sections indicated untruths. Only then would the sound be allowed which would clarify WHO the traces applied to and what question triggered the 'lie' response. Prior to that they would have no knowledge of which trace was which.
Totally unbiased and only significant results would count. Non-definite traces would not be used as evidence.
This is the very reason why the alleged offender does not counter-sue the 'lying' witnesses...he would not be able to PROVE that they were lying.
However, if six different women who may have never met take a polygraph test and get six strong 'truth' results and the alleged perpetrator gets six strong 'lie' results...that, to me, should be admissible as proof.
The questions would be agreed beforehand by the defence, prosecution and the judge. They would then be shown the trace recordings, without knowing which was which, and agree upon which sections indicated untruths. Only then would the sound be allowed which would clarify WHO the traces applied to and what question triggered the 'lie' response. Prior to that they would have no knowledge of which trace was which.
Totally unbiased and only significant results would count. Non-definite traces would not be used as evidence.
lol might as well bring in palm readers and clairvoyants too
You have argued for it before Naydam, you have a good point.
I would not use it for these historical cases myself. But then I think those Yewtree cases should be considered
lapsed anyway, due to the time factor. Some of them are not even paedophile cases, grotesque.
This is only to stop re offenders. I see chemical castration is also being used, which I approve of.
If that don't work physical castration should also be considered, in return for a slighter lighter sentence.
I would not use it for these historical cases myself. But then I think those Yewtree cases should be considered
lapsed anyway, due to the time factor. Some of them are not even paedophile cases, grotesque.
This is only to stop re offenders. I see chemical castration is also being used, which I approve of.
If that don't work physical castration should also be considered, in return for a slighter lighter sentence.
The middle ages called, they want their criminal justice system back.
If someone is really turned on by children, you are not going to get it out of them, it is their sexuality
which is why all these measures are taken when some re released.
a bit like being gay, but more harmful, as it harms children
That was the reason for my suggestion. The aim is to protect children
which is why all these measures are taken when some re released.
a bit like being gay, but more harmful, as it harms children
That was the reason for my suggestion. The aim is to protect children
I am not saying gays harm anyone here, as long as it is consenting adults
We should also bring in lie detectors and truth serums into the court of law, and thru the interrogation process.
Would it not just be cheaper to peel their finger nails off or waterboard them?
Would it not just be cheaper to peel their finger nails off or waterboard them?
The trouble with lie detectors is that they don’t detect lies as such, 'a lie' is the interpretation of a squiggle on a bit of paper by a paid employee. Now, it is disputed that the accuracy of these machines is little more than 50/50. Of course, those with a vested interested – the makers of the machines and the people that make a living using them – say it is much more than that. Undeniably though, despite the question of their accuracy, you are going to be swayed by the ‘authority’ of the machine when in reality it’s just some fallible human making the interpretation, who himself is open to all sorts of cognitive biases. No place in a court for these things.
Surely though if the court service outsourced such a process out to an independent contractor, say G4s, then that would deal with such doubts. As long as they got paid enough then surely they would be completely impartial and we could all be confident that justice had been done. There could maybe even be penalties for non-performance which would guarantee that there was never any procedural failures on their part.
Surely though if the court service outsourced such a process out to an independent contractor, say G4s, then that would deal with such doubts. As long as they got paid enough then surely they would be completely impartial and we could all be confident that justice had been done. There could maybe even be penalties for non-performance which would guarantee that there was never any procedural failures on their part.
a lie' is the interpretation of a squiggle on a bit of paper by a paid employee
You could pick holes out of DNA evidence.
You could pick holes out of DNA evidence.
People regularly do. See the suspension of LCN evidence in the UK. How many countries include Polygraphs as admissable evidence compared to DNA evidence though?
You could pick holes out of DNA evidence.
I’ve no problem with it, after all it is supposed to be in the billions-to-one that it’s wrong, unlike the lie detector, which at best you have a 9/1 chance, or thereabouts, or as bad as evens at worst, of failing when you are indeed innocent.
The point with DNA is that anyone can see if there is a match or not. A lie detector is just an interpretation of the cause of anxiety. If I knew that my freedom depended on a system where I had a 9/1 chance of mistakenly being judged as lying I’d be anxious about the questions too.
Nor can you be impartial about the results. Once you know that someone has failed a lie detector test, you can’t forget it even though you know that between 10 and 50% of them are wrong. You cannot help but be biased by them, they should have no place in guiding whether to prosecute for that reason. It is often said sex offenders are born liars, or that they are sociopathic. Then they are probably the worst subjects for these tests for that reason, as deception is second nature as a way of life to them. In short, they'd beat it more than most normal people would, in my opinion.
Let’s not forget that that is the other side of the coin - the same percentage of guilty people will go free just because a guy with a bit of paper said so, where a jury may well have come up with the right verdict.
I’ve no problem with it, after all it is supposed to be in the billions-to-one that it’s wrong, unlike the lie detector, which at best you have a 9/1 chance, or thereabouts, or as bad as evens at worst, of failing when you are indeed innocent.
The point with DNA is that anyone can see if there is a match or not. A lie detector is just an interpretation of the cause of anxiety. If I knew that my freedom depended on a system where I had a 9/1 chance of mistakenly being judged as lying I’d be anxious about the questions too.
Nor can you be impartial about the results. Once you know that someone has failed a lie detector test, you can’t forget it even though you know that between 10 and 50% of them are wrong. You cannot help but be biased by them, they should have no place in guiding whether to prosecute for that reason. It is often said sex offenders are born liars, or that they are sociopathic. Then they are probably the worst subjects for these tests for that reason, as deception is second nature as a way of life to them. In short, they'd beat it more than most normal people would, in my opinion.
Let’s not forget that that is the other side of the coin - the same percentage of guilty people will go free just because a guy with a bit of paper said so, where a jury may well have come up with the right verdict.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539