ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



General News

The polygraph as applied: Are we focusing on technology at the expense of everything else that works?

[ – 8/22/18]

By David S. Prescott, LICSW, Kieran McCartan, Ph.D., &Alissa Ackerman, Ph.D.

Nothing divides the professional and academic community that works in the field of sexual abuse quite like the polygraph. It is a debate that has went on internationally for decades. A fascinating wrinkle in policy and the law recently came to the authors’ attention. In at least one state, there is a policy holding that people on probation cannot be sent back to prison for failing a polygraph examination. This makes sense given the current status of the research around the polygraph and its admissibility in court. However, in this state, the same people can be sent back to prison if the examiner believes they have deliberately manipulated the results of the test. This has resulted in at least one examiner expressing certainty that many of his examinees have tried to influence the results, with many of them becoming incarcerated as a result of the examiner’s belief. While highlights the main issue that the polygraph faces, there are a multitude of different audiences (public, judiciary, professionals, academics, etc) all with different attitudes, experiences, evidence bases and strongly held views.

Read more


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“… at least one examiner expressing certainty that many of his examinees have tried to influence the results, with many of them becoming incarcerated as a result of the examiner’s belief.” In other words, the polygrapher didn’t get the response he wanted/expected to particular questions so the subject “failed” despite not having whatever reaction constitutes “passing.” And yet, polygraphers and their proponents claim results cannot be manipulated or predetermined. Wonder how long it took these 2 PhDs and LICSW (whatever that is; LICensed Social Worker, maybe?) to figure that out.

Yup. Our rehab manager told us about another counselor who used to work in the area, who, when administering the peeter-meter test, would pull out actual porn magazines and other such media to illicit a reaction when the patient wouldn’t react “appropriately” to the test specific imagery and sound.

So the individual was incarcerated on the sole word of his accuser without due process.

Maybe once the nation is divided into prisoners and politicians, folks will dig deep and find an ounce of compassion and courage.

It’ll be far too late by then, of course.

Here is my ode to the Sharper Future-like “treatment” scams. We can thank corrupt entities such as SARATSO and CASOMB for this crap:

“Adam Ruins Everything – Why Lie Detectors Don’t Detect Lies”

Get the book called: The Tremor in the Blood…It speaks on how the polygraph is NOT science but a tool of interrogation. Now it makes perfect sense to me. I never ever passed the polygraph even while completely telling the truth… hmmm.

Our government is enamored with the electronic devices, and electronic device vendors are thick as fleas on a mutt dog upon our capitols, both state and FED. Seems everyone has a better mouse trap to sell, but at what cost.
Would Russian or other foreign hacking groups be an issue at all in our election process if the people (congresses) hadn’t opted for electronic voting tabulation in the first place? NO!

Back in Gore V Bush we had the hanging chad saga. Who’d bet that fiasco wasn’t really about firms wanting to sell electronic vote tabulators?


Electronic voting had nothing to do with Russian interference in the election process.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x