We only show a few articles, when there may have been many. Many of these stories go on for a long time.
» CC »12-02 Illinois: Expert Blasts Use of Polygraph Tests at Joliet Sex Offender Center!
Polygraph tests used to help decide whether to free sexually violent offenders held at a state center in Joliet after finishing prison sentences are unscientific and even "biased against truthful people," according to an expert's report. There is doubt as to whether such tests "can ever be highly accurate" because they aren't "anchored to sound psychological theory," says William G. Iacono, a psychology professor at the University of Minnesota..
His report was prepared for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which is suing the state, asking improved treatment and conditions at the center for violent sexual offenders. According to another recent report prepared for the ACLU, 129 people are being held there. They are called patients and are supposed to receive treatment.
State law allows authorities to hold the offenders at the center until experts deem their treatment so successful they are unlikely to commit more sexually violent crimes. Polygraph, or lie-detector, tests play a crucial role in measuring such progress.
Iacono has served as a polygraph consultant to the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department, among others. In his 15-page report he expressed skepticism on whether so-called control-question tests using polygraphs are reliable. In such a test, the subject is asked control questions, such as: "Have you ever told a lie?"
Once his response to such questions is noted, he is asked more relevant questions, such as whether he has told authorities about all of the sexually violent crimes he has ever committed. Responses such as sweating palms and higher blood pressure are supposed to indicate lies. Iacono said, however, that such tests can be misleading.
He said patients are likely to attach considerable emotional weight to the relevant questions and show signs of heightened physical activity even if they are telling the truth. "Truthful examinees are often more bothered by the emotionally charged accusations in the relevant questions than in the trivial issues raised by control questions," he said. "The inadequacy of the control questions causes the (test) to be biased against truthful people." Research shows that more than 40 percent of those who tell the truth will produce symptoms that suggest they are lying, he said.
Moreover, the tests as given in Joliet could be even more suspect, Iacono said. He said just one of the center's employees is responsible for polygraphing all of the patients and that person does not record the sessions so that they can be reviewed by experts. "This entire polygraph program is in the hands of a single person whose accurate administering tests is unknown and whose errors have no way of ever being detected," he said.
(by Mike Robinson, Associated Press)
|
» 6-19-03 Washington: Civil Commitment Law Requires Annual Hearing!A person civilly committed under the sexually violent predator statute is entitled to an annual review of his or her mental condition. The annual review must consider conditional release or a less restrictive alternative. Here, the court refused to appoint an expert for Keith Rogers' annual review because the court believed that he had not shown any improvement from earlier evaluations. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring some threshold showing of improvement before authorizing funds for a psychologist. And we therefore reverse..(Washington Court of Appeals)
» 7-7-03 Minnesota: 8th Cir Court of Appeals: Poole -v- Goodno No.02-2629. No jury trial is required in civil commitment proceedings!
This is quite a decision and not good for civil committees. (By 8th Cir Court of Appeals)
» 7-3-03 Wisconsin Court rules sex offender (Civil Commitment Detainee) can’t go free:
A sex offender shouldn’t be released from custody just because he didn’t get a required mental evaluation within state time limits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The court overturned an appeals court ruling in April 2002 that William Marberry should be released because the state Department of Health and Family Services never gave him a mental examination within six months of his commitment at the Wisconsin Resource Center.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court that the time limits for the initial examination are mandatory but ruled that doesn’t mean discharging a person from custody is the right remedy if the limits aren’t met.
The Supreme Court ruled, however, that release is an extraordinary relief available only in special circumstances. The court ruled a committed person can get relief in other ways, including obtaining a court-ordered re-examination by petitioning for supervised release or by getting a court order compelling public officers to perform their duties under threat of contempt of court. (By The Associated Press)
(Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision) (Wisconsin Supreme Court decision)
|
Home