Three years ago, Professor Don Grubin, was given the task of putting his theories into practice by heading up a trial programme to give sex offenders released from prison on parole a six monthly polygraph – or lie detector – test. He was, he said, convinced it would be successful in preventing reoffending.

This morning, Professor Grubin was interviewed on Sky television as part of a programme announcing ‘the success of the pilot scheme’. It is to become mandatory for all sex offenders, including rapists. If they fail the test – which is 85% effective, 15% nonsense – they will be recalled to prison.

The results of his trial, says Professor Grubin are, quote ‘invisible‘. Invisible results of a trial which will result in men being sent back to prison on the basis of an imprecise method of calculating ‘thought crime‘?

“Have you thought of raping another woman”? “No”! “My 85% accurate machine says you are lying, back to prison you go”! Professor Grubin, is, of course, the Forensic Psychiatrist who advocates chemical castration of male sex offenders. At the moment he is only allowed to test his theory on volunteers, but watch this space.

It has become an accepted truism that one cannot speak out about any governmental measure that could result in less women being raped, less children molested, it being part of modern folklore that only the government can protect women and children from dastardly men. I will so speak out though, and risk the avalanche of ire that may fall on my head – when it concerns anybody being jailed on the basis of thought crime; and that is what this is.

Do not allow the fact that we are speaking of the modern bogey man – the child molester – to colour your judgment on this issue. I don’t object to polygraph tests per se, although they are notoriously unreliable and, as Floyd Fay proved,  devastatingly easy to train a person – or group of people – to evade. I do object to the principle that this unreliable method will be used to recall men to incarceration of the grounds that they have offended once and may offend again. I particularly object to the false flag of ‘think of the children’ being raised as justification.

The ‘think of the children’ argument is a specious one. Like the CRB check, it only apples to those who have been caught offending – thus is no protection at all. The only protection is for parents, all parents, under all circumstances, to raise and protect their children with the watchful eye of Mother hens. Imagining that you can spend your days on the sofa watching back episodes of Sex in the City whilst inhaling non-tobacco leaf products, safe in the knowledge that your government will incarcerate, and possibly castrate, the offender who groomed ‘Our Mollie’s’ little boy is no way to raise children. Knowing that the last taxi driver to get caught raping a passenger has now had his bollocks cut off is not reason enough to land in a drunken sprawl on the back seat of this taxi safe in the knowledge that your government has ensured you won’t get raped.

The average prison sentence for non-aggravated rape is four years. You should be eligible for parole after two years and eight months. Do you really imagine that society will be any less at risk from rapists because one might have failed a polygraph test and spent an extra year and four months in prison?

What this will achieve is another nail in the coffin of taking personal responsibility for your children and your own safety, and more damaging, it will have breached the wall we have so far protected – against incarcerating anyone on the basis of the crime they may commit, or have thought of committing.

What think you?

Chris
August 31, 2012 at 14:00

I was rather riled up by this whole story, especially as forensic
neurotechnologies are my area of expertise. Instead of going on about it here
and wasting Anna’s bandwidth, I’ll just take the liberty of linking my own contrib in (I wish Anna
had trackback!).

Anna
Raccoon August 31, 2012 at 14:08

An excellent piece Chris (as I would have expected from you!) – worth
following this link for serious discussion.

Anna probably wishes Anna had trackback and if only Anna knew what
trackback was, Anna probably would have it…..

StormInATeacup
August 31, 2012 at 12:12

How do they know it’s 85% effective? By asking afterwards whether people
were lying or telling the truth? Surely as the machine works by detecting
physical changes, anyone who was asked to lie to ‘test’ the machine wouldn’t
have the increased heart rate & perspiration that it measures as they
wouldn’t be worried about being caught lying.

Also, not sure how relevant it is, but a recovering addict will often think
about their addiction – saying ‘I won’t have an alcoholic drink today’ for
example, every morning. So someone reflecting back on their past crimes can be
a good thing if they’re thinking how awful that they did XYZ, or it can be a
bad thing if they’re reliving it and enjoying the memory!

Furor Teutonicus
August 31, 2012 at 05:30

XX If they fail the test – which is 85% effective, 15% nonsense – they will
be recalled to prison.XX

Fucking bollox. Even the FBI admit it is only 50/50, and most U.S states
will not accept polygraph “evidence” in court at all, due to its
unreliability..

Shelly Stow
August 31, 2012 at 12:24

Polygraph results or evidence are not permissible in court at all in the
U.S. Yet they are mandatory as part of probation and parole conditions, and
unfavorable or inconclusive results can be used against a person in several
ways, most of which can and often do result in violation, which can result
in prison.
And yes, Julia, sometimes it does seem as though we were all
mad over here, but it’s just parts that are mad, not all. And for my
countrymen reading this, “mad” here is used to mean crazy–although this
situation does create a great deal of anger also. But righteous anger can be
positive.

And I rather think that little Hunter will be allowed to keep his name
intact. Now, if the signing of his name was seen to represent a sexual
gesture rather than a weapons gesture, I wouldn’t be so sanguine.

Furor
Teutonicus August 31, 2012 at 14:08

XX Shelly Stow August 31, 2012 at 12:24

Polygraph results or evidence are not permissible in court at all in
the U.S. XX

I stand corrected. Thank you. I was not sure, so I wrote “most”.

john malpas August 30, 2012 at 23:55

Whether it works or not is irrelevant. It is the start of universal testing
for whatever is unfashionable or the government dont like.
This will happen
under the banner of “if you have done nothing wrong yoiu have nothing to
fear”.

Shelly Stow
August 31, 2012 at 00:16

Followed closely by, “They should have thought of that before they did
it.”

Shelly Stow August 30, 2012 at 23:28

You may not like the title; can you fault the statistics? If so, then let’s
go straight to the source:

“Recently the Bureau of Justice Statistics published a study which tracked
9,700 sex offenders for three years, 2001-2004. Their findings concluded: Only
5.3% of these people imprisoned for sex crimes were rearrested for a
subsequent sex offense.”

“The USDOJ reported that twenty four states posted sex offender recidivism
statistics, and their average was 4.22% committed new sex crimes.”

From California News Wednesday, July 13, 2011
”Few sex offenders deemed
‘violent predators,’ audit finds”
“Since 2005, 59 percent of California’s
released sex offenders violated their parole; however, just 1 percent (134
convicts) committed a new offense.”

“The common view is that the recidivism rate is high among sex offenders.
It is not. New York regularly publishes 3 year follow-ups of all those
released from state prisons. Between 1985 and 2002 a total of 12,863 sex
offenders were released. Only 272 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison for
new sex crimes within three years of their release.” (2002 Releases: Three
Year Post Release Follow-up, State of New York Department of Correctional
Services, p. 16)

I do not discount the argument Mudslinger makes; however, that reasoning
applies to all offenses, not just sexual, and that still leaves sexual offense
recidivism the lowest of all except murder. Additionally, with today’s
climate, with guys being charged with a felony sex offense for chatting online
with someone claiming to be 15 or 16 and with guys being arrested for normal
teenage behaviors, if registrants were re-offending at any significant rate,
it would be known.

And tell me something, Woman, since you object so strenuously to the title
of the blog, I know a couple, married for almost 20 years with 4 children;
he’s on the registry for life because they had sex while in high school when
he was a senior and she a freshman, and her mother turned him in. Is it okay
if she and his children declare that they love a sex offender? And in many
states here, 9 and 10 year old children are on the registry. May at least
their mums and their dads love them?

JuliaM August
31, 2012 at 05:44

I think we’d all agree that that doesn’t warrant the term ‘sex offender’.
But that’s the US for you, a country where a small deaf boy has to use a
different hand sign for his name (Hunter) because the usual one looks too
much like a gun and it contravenes the school ‘no weapons’ policy.

In short…you’re all mad over there!

just a thought
September 11, 2012 at 00:57

As a mother of two, re “Only 272 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison
for new sex crimes within three years of their release.” I know at least 50
children friends of my own children, 2.1% 12,863 sex offenders released!! do
you actually have children within your immediate life, if so why do you
think it’s ok to for sex offenders to be released on what evidence without a
lie detector and play Russian Roulette (at least 2.1% re-offending) with
innocent children’s lives.

If this couple (your friends) were truly on a sex offending registry as
you mentioned and the authorities had cause for concern they would not allow
them to keep their 4 children so that just sounds like silly spouting off
(this damages your reasoning) and does not help anybody that is truly
affected by sex offences as they are obviously not affected or on any
register as they have not had their 4 children taken off them and doesnt
sound like they are even being monitored. I dont think you have an
understanding of the real offenders and the damage their sex crimes have on
us and our children.

Polygraph Testing is still being developed as a useful tool, and is
continually being improved, in the absence of any other method with such
high accuracy rates at proving innocence or guilt, I believe we must stick
with it and invest in it alongside other useful methods. I also use my own
natural parenting instincts to protect my children, in the hope that the
authorities are using such as polygraph testing and reformation programs to
help on their part. i want my children to be free to live, laugh and love,
so stop judging and saying we should be so overprotective, my kids go to
school on the school bus, I will not be sending them in an armoured tank any
day soon – just because you suggest we should be as protective as we can be,
I do apologise if you didnt mean to sound so stifling and hen pecking.

See article below,

Polygraph Testing
« on: June 25, 2012, 11:57:PM »

…. These signs are indicative of a person’s response when knowingly being
deceptive.

However, in recent years the technology involved has become increasingly
advanced particularly with the use of computerized instruments. Determining
an exact figure for accuracy varies to some extent: DrLouis Rovner a noted
scientist and polygraph expert in Los Angeles, California states an accuracy
rate as high as 96%. Other trials using the latest technology in real life
double blind studies have reported an accuracy of up to 97.5% and according
to the American Polygraph Association recent research reveals the accuracy
is close to 100%.

Furor
Teutonicus September 11, 2012 at
06:27

XX according to the American Polygraph Association recent research
reveals the accuracy is close to 100%. XX

Well, THEY would, wouldn’t they?

You don’t shoot the goose that lays the golden egg.

Woman on a
Raft August 30, 2012 at 22:44

I call bullshit on that website Anyone who is operating under the name
“iloveasexoffender” can safely be discounted as a source of objective and
well-grounded data.

Woman on a
Raft August 30, 2012 at 22:45

Whoops. That’s in reply to Dennis.

Dennis August 30, 2012 at 22:12

The claim that sex offenders reoffend at extremely high rates is widely
believed but totally false. See http://www.endsexcrime.org/ .

Ted Treen August 30, 2012 at 22:46

No, but following on to Joe Public above, I’d bet a pound to a penny that
MPs are reoffending with their expenses “at extremely high rates”…

Joe Public August 30, 2012 at 21:22

I recommend all MPs be subject to that same polygraph test – “Have you
thought of fiddling your expenses?”

JuliaM August
31, 2012 at 05:42

Shelly Stow August 30, 2012 at 21:13

Ms. Raccoon, thank you for a well written and thought provoking blog. I was
especially interested in your comment about the ‘think of the children’ plea
and thought that you might enjoy an article of mine entitled, “If It Saves One
Child.”
http://www.corrections.com/news/article/30787-if-it-saves-one-child

Zanshin August 30, 2012 at 21:42

Excellent, well thought out article Shelly – a voice of reason, rather
than Sun reader “knee jerking”.

Ted Treen
August 30, 2012 at 22:43

Great article Shelly. This matter is the modern equivalent of the
16th/17th century “Witch hysteria”, with the esteemed professor being in
the old Vincent Price role of Witchfinder General.

Shelly Stow August 30, 2012 at 21:09

Binao, I am intrigued by your comment that re-offending occurs often and
wonder where you got the information that would support that. Being cognizant
of the fact that this is an international blog, I don’t actually know what the
recidivism rate is in France or England or wherever, but I know that in the
U.S., your analysis misses the mark. Across the board recidivism for those on
the registry hovers around 5 to 6 percent. A few of our states in the past
year or two have posted recidivism rates of less than 2 %. And, for those who
know of our public sex offender registry and all of the controversy
surrounding it, let me assure you that it is in no way responsible for the low
rate. Recent studies have gone back ten years before the registry and come
forward in time with a roughly evenly divided span of time, and have found the
numbers didn’t change. Recidivism was around 5% for the entire time, and 95%
of new offenses were committed by first-time offenders for every single one of
those twenty years.

Mudplugger
August 30, 2012 at 21:51

We must remember, of course, that there is no accurate data for
re-offending/recidivism. The only data available for all crimes is for
‘re-conviction’. And we all know that conviction rates, compared to reported
crime (and much goes unreported), are abysmally low.

And if we speculate that such criminals, having once been caught, get
smarter in their future offending (I know that I would), the actual rate of
re-offending will be substantially higher than even the worst estimates –
but we’ll never know because we can’t count it.

So please be careful when using the term ‘re-offending’ – most use it
incorrectly, including the authorities, but they have a political
motivation.

binao August 31, 2012 at 09:05

Fair points Mudplugger and Shelly Stow. I’ve maybe seen too many
headlines and not enough proper analysis, which is why I said ‘seems to
be’.

Michael August 30, 2012 at 20:32

85% “success”? In statistical terms it is cobblers then.

The Meissen Bison
August 30, 2012 at 19:07

It is to become mandatory for all sex offenders, including
rapists

I didn’t quite get that sense from the Sky News clip but the idea alone is
unsettling. With a 15% chance of false positives (and false negatives too, of
course) this seems altogether haphazard.

Mind you, if a judge would accept a ten-against-two guilty verdict in a
rape trial, then this would be no more than an extension of the randomness of
a jury.

Frankie August 30, 2012 at 18:46

‘… Professor Grubin, is, of course, the Forensic Psychiatrist who advocates
chemical castration of male sex offenders.’ So… Professor Grubin at least
exudes SOME humanity towards rapists and child molesters! I personally would
advocate nothing less than castration by the good old fashioned method of ‘Off
with their goolies’… per the Not the Nine ‘O’ Clock News sketch.

I have no issues with Anna’s observations regarding the failure of some
parents to keep proper tabs on what their youngsters are up to, or the
excellent point she makes regarding crapulous, drunken women meandering their
way home after a good night out and flagging down a taxi, driven by a lurking
rapist but, for the most part, I applaud any measure that may prevent vile
child molesters and their ilk from preying upon their victims. If this means
that convicted paedophiles and rapists are sent back to jail then all I can
say is that this is probably the best place for them.

JuliaM August
30, 2012 at 19:57

If it worked, yes. I think we’d all agree.

The point is….it doesn’t. It’s a pile of woo.

GildasTheMonk
August 30, 2012 at 17:54

Stalinist absurdity

Ed Butt August 30,
2012 at 17:47

Gruben has not heard of Tomas Paine then? I believe we should make
sentences for convicted paedophiles very harsh because they do tend to
reoffend. But sending innocent people back tp prison for having “dirty
thoughts” could result in a “might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb”
attitude.

Ian T

JuliaM August 30,
2012 at 17:46

If polygraph tests are inadmissible in a UK court, they should never be
used to send you back to prison, or keep you in there longer than your alloted
sentence.

JimS August 30, 2012 at 14:35

Surely if this test is so effective for showing who should be kept in
prison it should also be used to determine who can be released early? Or does
the test suddenly become too unreliable then?

P.S. Sorry, but less women being raped, less children molested
should be ‘fewer’, I think.

binao August 30, 2012 at 13:33

I know it’s difficult to accept that any punishment is enough when certain
kinds of offences are concerned. Nevertheless a sentence is decided on and
implemented, whether it’s for shoplifting or murder. And that’s it until
reoffending is detected and proven.
Reoffending seems to be common, which
suggests that prison is still simple revenge; either we can’t reform people or
we choose not to. During the sentence we are protected; on release the
offender can choose to reoffend against us or not.
If there is now a proven
effective form of rehabilitation for sex offenders, and the polygraph test is
an intrinsic and reliable post release part of this process, fine.
If.

Zanshin August 30, 2012 at 21:28

The greatest exponents of The Polygraph, the Americans, do not allow the
use of polygraph results as evidence in court. The FBI have said that you’d
get more reliable results drawing straws, flipping a coin – or something
like that.

1327 August 30, 2012 at 11:48

The elephant in room being the fact that the Polygraph doesn’t actually
detect lies it just detects physical changes in the person under test. With a
couple of Valium and a little practice even Ian Brady could pass one.

General Pyston
Broak August 30, 2012 at 11:31

Just stop parole for rapists and child molesters and just make them do the
full sentence, then there will be no need for lie detectors.

Sackerson August 30, 2012 at 11:01

Teachers of children in care have a saying: all abusers have been abused,
but not all who have been abused go on to become abusers. The logic of the
approach you describe here suggests that victims of abuse should be regularly
psycho-tested as a preventive measure.

Robert the Biker
August 30, 2012 at 10:34

Slightly torn over this one Anna: while I agree with you that we should not
jail even the very worst for what they may or may not be THINKING, I am at the
same time fully in agreement with making the lives of nonces and rapists as
miserable as possible.
Being against unnecessary cruelty does not stop me
from being bang alongside the idea of NECESSARY cruelty.