ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459
Date: Sept 26, Time: 5 pm PT – New Tiered Registry Law

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

National

CO: Professional polygrapher holds position of power on state’s sex-offender treatment board

A professional polygrapher has an influential role in rewriting the rules in Colorado for how often their profession conducts lie-detector testing on sex offenders, an arrangement that critics have called a conflict of interest.

Colorado will pay Jeff Jenks’ Wheat Ridge polygraph firm, Amich & Jenks Inc., up to $1.9 million to polygraph sex offenders in prison from 2010 to 2020, according to state contracts. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. ab

    Kick him off the management board. Polygraphers are not professionals. At minimum they are scammers and at maximum wastes of human potential.

  2. Eric Knight

    Another article in the same paper questions the accuracy and cost of lie detectors.

    “Colorado’s pricey polygraph testing of sex offenders under fire as critics target accuracy, expense”
    Psychologist calls state’s $5 million polygraph program “grossly excessive” as state legislature examines cost

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/14/colorado-does-not-require-polygraph-testing-of-most-parolees-but-sex-offenders-get-different-treatment/

  3. AJ

    “Those standards currently require all sex offenders to take a polygraph every six months and, if they show deception or inconclusive results, to keep taking the polygraph within every 60 days until they show no deception.”

    This shows just how stupid the whole process is. Apparently they don’t do anything with the results (not that they should or that the results are valid) beyond make a person retake? So let’s just keep testing the person until either the time frame queried no longer causes the person stress, or the person is so inured they can pass any polygraph with flying colors.

    Another problem I have with this is that it sure sounds like blatant 4th and 5th Amendment issues. Nowhere does the article indicate the RCs are under any sort of supervision, so what gives the State the right to even subject its citizens to this process? Another “regulation,” or perhaps it may actually rise to punishment, even in the eyes of SCOTUS.

    Finally, if it’s such a great system to prevent recidivism, why not use the same process on offenders of every stripe? Maybe CO could become the first “Minority Report” state and stop drug deals, robberies, etc., before they happen. (Please note sarcasm.)

    –AJ

    • pgm111

      I believe the article indicates that the Co polygrapher’s contract is to test prison inmates.

      • AJ

        @pgm111
        Yes, it does say his firm has been contracted to do polygraphs in prison, and thank you for bring that (back) to my attention.

        If they’re in prison, what happens if a person reaches the end of their time and they have yet to pass the polygraph? Some people get “white-coat hypertension.” I’d guess there’s a similar phenomenon with polygraphs, which certainly carries more consequences than being stressed at the doctor’s office. Do they have a legal standing to hold someone in prison longer simply because s/he may be bad at polygraphs? That would be an interesting court case–though the way this country seems to be anymore, the State wins…again.

        Polygraphs are one of the biggest pieces of rubbish in “crime fighting.” Why not just use the old Monty Python method: put the person in water and if they float, they’re lying; if they sink, they’re truthful. It’s about as rational.

        –AJ

        • AlexO

          They do in a way. In California, high risk sex offenders are sent to Coalinga facility after completing their time in prison. They are not allowed to leave this facility until they’ve completed treatment and are no longer considered a threat by the board (the exit rate is extremely low). Not sure if Colorado has something similar. You can Google a documentary on Coalinga. It was a BBC production.

    • AlexO

      The article doesn’t mention that the people are on supervision, but then again, I’ve never seen news articles mention that most restrictions SO’s have are only while they’re on supervision. Once you’re off supervision, you’re not subject to these types of things. Of course some states (like Arizona), can and often do impose life time supervision.

  4. Notgivingup

    Something I think we all knew, it was Never about the truth and always about the MONEY. Conflict of interest ya”ll think?

  5. FRegistryTerrorists

    I went to comment on the article and it says “Comments for this thread are now closed.” There are 0 comments. I have e-mailed the author to ask why they are not accepting comments.

    Just like the rest of the “s*x offender” witch hunt, there are no legitimate reasons to use polygraphs because of prior s*x crimes and not for other crimes. The criminal regimes likely just think they couldn’t get away with harassing and stealing from people who have committed non-s*x crimes.

    Thief Jeff Jenks should not be on that board or even have any influence on it. That is clearly a conflict of interest. But it is like so many other things that these criminals do – they will do whatever they can get away with. And even when they are forced to stop stealing, they won’t be punished. What do they have to lose?

    Remember that all people who support the witch hunt are harassing terrorists and enemies of all good Americans. Make them pay.

    • pgm111

      Keep in mind that Tom Tobin owns and manages Sharper Future AND sits on the California Sex Offender Management Board, an obvious conflict of interest.

      • BOB 751243

        Not only i SF a SCAM, Im in SDiego, Failed one poly and… NOT?HING HAPPPENED ! Not even a parole hit on my place !, Funny I failed one and passed 3 previous ones that I LIED on everyone 🙂 Go figure.

      • Joe P.

        If you read the tiered registry bill, you will see that the bill urges judges to consider whether or not a person has successfully completed a CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program when a person seeks relief. I read it somewhere else; but CASOMB wrote this bill, Tom Tobin is CASOMB’s vice chair, and Tom Tobin is also Sharper Future’s CEO. Conflict of interest that has an effect in adding “pork” to the tiered registry bill. This added pork might cost some people extra thousands of dollars when they are seeking to get off the registry when the tiered registry passes. Sharper Future, owned by Tom Tobin, is the state’s largest sex offender treatment program. So it’s not mere coincidence that Tobin used his position as CASOMB vice chair to generate more money for his Sharper Future scheme by adding the CASOMB-certified treatment requirements in the tiered registry bill.

        It’s pretty much corruption in plain sight. But no one in the media has yet to write about, or let alone expose, it.

  6. AlexO

    They started doing this in California this year. Not quite as blanket as this, but at least our county has implemented random poly compliance testing. The really bad part about this is that if you’re on probation the burden of cost falls on you (parole’s have all costs like this covered by the state). So if you’re homeless or struggling with money, the $300-$400 per poly 2+ times a year is an insanely huge burden for no gain at all.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *