In the States every sex offender on probation has to take a polygraph test regarding whether or not they had similar sex acts/offenses similar to their crimes. If they fail the test, they go back to prison.
I looked around and couldn't find a law that requires it. What I did find was a lot of talking around these statutes:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(9), the court may provide that the defendant “undergo available medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment.”
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(22), the court may provide that the defendant “satisfy such other conditions as the court may impose.”
The hippy pastime of streaking (the very same thing Ray Steven wrote a comedy song about) can get someone convicted as a sex offender so it doesn't make sense to require all sex offenders to take a polygraph. From the above, it seems that's not a requirement and if it's imposed, then it's the judge's idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, if a sex offender failed a polygraph and this was considered a violation of parole that sent him back to jail, wouldn't that mean the sex offender had been...
roaming your streets and claiming more victims
before the test was failed?
Anyway, I've sort of noticed a pattern with the whole field of specialist lie detection that I've never considered before reading this series. So, thanks for that.
Before bowing out of commenting on this series entirely, I'll just leave this here:
Publication: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 31(5):423-9 · October 2008
Title: Sex offender management using the polygraph: A critical review
Abstract:
Reducing recidivism is a central goal in the treatment of sex offenders. In Europe, there is an increased interest in using the polygraph ("lie detector") as a tool in the treatment and risk assessment of convicted sex offenders. This interest originated from optimistic reports by American clinicians who argued that polygraph testing in the treatment of sex offenders is akin to urine analysis in the treatment of drug addiction. In this article, we critically examine the validity and utility of post-conviction sex offender polygraph testing. Our review shows that the available evidence for the claims about the clinical potential of polygraph tests is weak, if not absent. We conclude that portraying post-conviction polygraph testing as analogous to urine analysis is inaccurate, misleading, and ultimately, risky.
RE: Polygraph Alternatives: “Eyedetect” – Your Eyes Are Telling Lies