Probation

For 45 years, the various PSE® instruments have proven accurate truth verification will prove who is telling the truth in criminal cases, civil cases, employment screening and in many other areas. That ability  saves manhours, saves money and in criminal testing prevents future crimes. Using that fact, PSE is invaluable to determine if a person should be allowed the possibility of parole or probation. Probation and parole departments are overwhelmed with cases and do not have the manpower to check on everyone to determine what they are doing every day. A easy to use PSE test will indicate if the person believes that he will follow the rules of his release or they will simply go back to crime. More and more states are requiring that truth verification (PSE or polygraph) be used to test the people before they can get probation or parole. If they are granted probation or parole, they are tested again on a regular basis, usually twice a year, to determine if they are breaking any of their rules. Common sense says that they will not admit to breaking rules which would send them back to prison. Only accurate lie detection will find out if they are violating their probation or parole. This is especially true for sex offenders. After they are released, states are requiring that those people be tested twice a year on a regular basis and they must pay for it. If they refuse to be tested or flunk the test, they can be sent back to prison.

The following explains many questions that are often asked about probation/parole lie detection testing and the law.

Court Finds Offenders Can Be Subject to Voice Analysis to Detect Lies

Joel Stashhenko, New York Law Review, 10-08-2009

Sex offenders can be required to submit to voice stress analysis as part of their post release supervision to determine if they are telling the truth, a federal court has ruled.

Northern District of New York Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled that the technique is analogous to polygraph examinations which have been accepted by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a way to monitor the activities of those under post-release supervision.

The 2nd Circuit in the United States v. Johnson, 446 F.2d 272 (2006), held that polygraphs were not unreliable, that they could be validity related to the post-release supervision of an offender and that they did not deprive a defendant of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The same qualities apply to voice analysis devices, Judge Mordue determined.

In 1994, Dr. Harrison, director of the Broad Ripple Counseling Center in Indianapolis, IN, started to use the polygraph to test various sex offenders. He asked them if they had done various acts while on probation or parole before and after they took a polygraph test. The results in the following chart clearly show how often the offenders lie about what they had done. The results clearly show the need to have all sex offenders and others on probation and parole be tested to determine if they are lying. When the offenders know they will be tested and could go back to prison if they flunk the test, the scare of taking a lie detector test will act as a deterrent to some of them violating the rules. By knowing who is not obeying the rules, the probation and parole officers will know who is a risk to the public’s safety.

Click here for the Polygraph Sex Survey