Beneath the surface (the somm program & the polygraph)

Riley, C. T.

Original

Transcript

Beneath the surface by C.T. Riley (The somm program & the Polygraph) I want to share some research with you on the polygraph exam for which my non-compliance in taking it was utilized to extend my incarceration. Initially I conceded to take a polygraph under the condition that; I would be given adequate time as to being informed beforehand that I may procure counsel to be present during the polygraph exam. But, as I stated earlier I was only given a 24 hour notice; which also violated due process within their own policy. The late John Reid of John E. Reid & Associates is one of the most prominent early pioneers of the lie detection field with the Northwestern Law School, and criminal law professor Fred Inbau essentially originated & popularized the use of the polygraph test in Chicago. They stipulated the polygraph's key component of usefulness is in the training & skill of the operator of the polygraph machine test. It was stated from the beginning that the use of polygraphs to determine truthfulness has been questioned by many scientists & criminologists who doubt that the interpretation of blood pressure, sweat, & respiration alone can tell if a person is being deceptive. Studies have shown that interrogation rather than discovery of truth induces inconsistencies with which can be interpreted by the examiner as deception. And if I were to take a polygraph under these circumstances I would have no recourse against the examiner's conclusions in a court of law for adverse readings used against me to impose conduct report & sanction within this institutional setting or against having parole violated. This automatically creates biases against myself under a polygraph exam, especially in the hands of an inexperienced or even over aggressive polygraph operator that renders a polygraph machine a conduit for injustice. In such cases, people accused of crimes, or being deceptive & untruthful: even if innocent, could produce polygraph responses deemed untruthful. And when this happens it provides the leeway for somm personell to deem the participant in the polygraph exam as an unsatisfactory participant. The outcome is rendered the same relative to what I was subjugated to when I refused initial polygraph (despite my ongoing litigation in court towards relief from conviction). In this way the polygraph exam can be used as a ruse in conjunction with agendas set in play by somm personell, parole department & Indiana Department of Corrections to bring about an alternative means to entrap targeted individuals for compelled/forced participation in somm to admit guilt for crimes pled not guilty to at trial; and are currently pursuing relief from conviction: all facilitated by somm personell & their contracted polygraph examiners. In light of this how can this so called forced treatment be considered as anything relevant to beneficial treatment for those they compel to participate? This throws new light upon what they postulate as treatment. The conclusion here is clear in conjunction with this missive's prior two counterparts. And even if I was guilty of such sex crimes - injustice is injustice, irregardless to who commits it. I have already served 15 years in exile & at present I am being held past my release date. The somm program is mass delusion for the apathetic & those ignorant of its devices to ingest. It is propaganda to those whom crafted its structure & to those ensnared by it. It is casino art & fixed gambling for the policy & stake holders, legitimized by the ill intended consumed with all manners of everything that perpetuates dis—functionality, crime, self-interests and unrest within a society. The truth needs no alibi.

Author: Riley, C. T.

Author Location: Indiana

Date: October 23, 2016

Genre: Essay

Extent: 3 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays