I heard on the news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6145678.stm) that childrens' charity Barnardos is "calling on the government to use lie detector tests...to monitor sex offenders.". While I applaud efforts to monitor sex offenders, surely they (the monitors) should concentrate on less pseudoscientific methods.
Eric Metcalfe from the group Justice said, "In our view, this kind of measure has more of a headline effect than actually being demonstrated to be genuinely effective.". However, Martin Nerey (Barnardos' CE) said,"All the indications are that polygraphs can be effective in helping control behaviour."
Any thoughts?
I have no doubt that polygraphs are "highly effective at controlling behaviour".
It's when people think they are effective at determining truth that there is a problem.
I wrote an article for the main site on the polygraph/lie detector to explain the pseudoscience that the polygraph is.
It has been proposed for use in monitoring sex offenders and even to screen benefit cheats.
There were reports from the USA where the polygraph got great results in getting known sex offenders to confess to sex offences that had not previously admitted to. This is where the reports of its 'great success' in these cases originate.
It's well known that the polygraph can be used as a tool of intimidation and so initial results are likely to be quite impressive. The problem is that the polygraph is notoriously unreliable. Two issues spring immediately to mind:
- False negatives.
These occur at a rate of around 10%. This means that, on average, 1 in 10 sex offenders who have re-offended will pass a polygraph test. This may not only get them off the hook but may will divert suspicion elsewhere. The Aldrich Ames case is a good parallel.
- Longitudinal usage and declining effectiveness.
Polygraphs are not, to say the least, foolproof. If they are used on the same person repeatedly it's possible, perhaps inevitable, that the testee will learn how to fool the polygraph/polygrapher. It should be obvious that this will lead to a false sense of security and if scrutineers place faith in the polygraph, it could actually help sex offenders to re-offend once they learn how to 'pass' the tests with countermeasures.
From the article:
<blockquote>"Our report outlines how the use of polygraphs and satellite tracking could radically improve the effectiveness of supervision.
"All the indications are that polygraphs can be effective in helping control behaviour.
"I have personally seen their use on sex offenders, spoken to the probation staff who have used this technology in a pilot (study) in the North East, and been impressed by the officers' conviction that it significantly improves the rigour of supervision."</blockquote>
This is the illusion that was found in the USA studies (!)
The polygraph is a flawed instrument: it's not scientific and can easily be fooled by testees with a little practice. I strongly suspect that the success of these initial studies would quickly disappear with continued use, and, given time, may well prove counterproductive.
I think they will offer the "false comfort" that Barnardo's say Sarah's law will offer.
It's a shame that a children's charity, obviously committed to protecting children, has been taken in by this pseudoscience.
This is an issue that I'll be glad to persue.
.
The question is, is it preferable to have a useless policy like this, or the incitement to vigilantism that is Sarah's Law?
False dichotomy! Surely it's better to have neither?Originally Posted by Araneus
An alternative: I'd rather see sex offenders tagged following release from jail, and given strict conditions on their conduct. The tag would allow their location to be monitored over a long period of time to see if they were behaving, and they could be subjected to random checks on things like use of the internet etc.
If the evidence so gathered indicated that they had mended their ways, and this was backed by psychological assessments, then the limitations on them could gradually be reduced, eventually allowing them to rejoin society fully. Of course there is always the chance that some will reoffend, but IMO relying on flawed technology like polygraphs would result in a higher reoffending rate.
The only ways to prevent reoffending totally are to lock offenders up forever, or put them to death. And both of those option have considerable problems too ... :-\
Not so much a false dichotomy as choosing the lesser of two evils, given that (much as we may wish otherwise), the government is not known for intelligent policy-making.
I agree. Which is what makes Sarah's Law so bizarre -- if the offenders are still considered dangerous, they shouldn't be released at all, whereas if they are NOT considered dangerous, why do people need to be "warned" (and how are people supposed to act upon such a "warning")?The only ways to prevent reoffending totally are to lock offenders up forever, or put them to death. And both of those option have considerable problems too ... :-\
The tracking system you describe seems like a reasonable compromise, and I believe such an idea was also mentioned alongside the flawed polygraph suggestion.
Well yeah, but just because the government is rubbish is no reason for us to accept false arguments. Spurious logic along the lines of "We must have this ... otherwise we'll just HAVE to put up with that" is all to frequently heard from politicians, and as critical thinkers it is our duty to point it out 8) There is no good reason I can see why these two things should be the only possible courses of action.Not so much a false dichotomy as choosing the lesser of two evils, given that (much as we may wish otherwise), the government is not known for intelligent policy-making.
The political imperative has little to do with protecting children - it has got more to do with tossing the tabloids some kind of meaningless concession. The trouble is that both of these proposals are full of holes - so why condone either of them?
Absolutely - this intrinsic contradiction is a good reason why Sarah's Law makes no sense (in addition to being a vigilante licence, as you mentioned earlier).if the offenders are still considered dangerous, they shouldn't be released at all, whereas if they are NOT considered dangerous, why do people need to be "warned"
Legislation by tabloid is not a good system of government ... >:(
Funny you should mention that actually.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/s...948981,00.html
Good to know Her Majesty's got her finger on the pulse :D
Martin Narey and Barnardos are seeking a long-term way of preventing injury to children. That they're barking up the wrong tree with polygraphs is regrettable (though it could by worse -- they could be talking about plethysmographs).
They're on the right track insofar as the idea of sentencing offenders in child molesting cases to periods in prison doesn't do much at all. It doesn't deter, it doesn't rehabilitate and, really, it doesn't satisfy society's desire to punish. Martin Narey, as former head of the National Offender Management Service, knows this better than almost anyone.
What's needed is diagnosis and lifelong management outside prison; and the polygraph-n-tag idea is a desperate lunge in that direction. (Interrogation under sodium pentothal would have been a more satisfying lunge, but perhaps it's a failure of imagination.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks