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

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

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

“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.)


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

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.

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.