If I could give your post @Dustin ten thumbs up, I would. Best write up I have seen in a long time on polygraphs. The Feds use them as scare tactics at best when working to clear someone for a new USG position. Innocent can fail them and guilty can pass them. Junk sci at best with a lot of backing.

A RM:

No offense intended, but beyond the first sentence, your post could not be more wrong.

No state has an “official” position that polygraphs prevent sexual offenses. Many don’t allow them to be admitted into any court proceedings, and those that do only allow it under very specific circumstances (agreement of both parties being the most common). No state *requires* polygraphs be used for pre-employment screening, criminal investigations, or as a parole/probation terms – they merely *allow* them. It’s a handy way of circumventing constitutional protections against interrogations.

Most state appellate and federal courts have ruled correctly that polygraphs are not “lie detectors” as advertised, but solely the opinion of the administrator, regardless of the basis for that opinion (which, most of the time, are pre-determined and the “exam” is conducted to ensure that conclusion). Some states forbid polygraphs as a pre-employment condition for all but government agencies. Government agencies that use them do so because the approving official has a friend or business partner that is a provider. Case in point – many LE agencies require pre-employment polygraphs, and those that are hired clearly “passed.” (Yet, cops and their administrative support personnel still get accused and arrested for sex crimes, including crimes against children).

Private day cares, churches, etc. generally don’t use them for economic purposes – providers charge anywhere from 2 – 5 times as much as they do for registrants under supervision. But even if they did, how would it prevent future abuse? In every case I’ve seen of a sexual assault on a child at a church, school, or day care, by a staff member, there is never anything in the background of the accused that would suggest the person is likely to assault someone. Anyone who thinks such an “exam” would include a question like “Are you seeking this position to facilitate sex with children?” and the magic machine would flash lights and blare horns if a would-be predator said “No” is simply being extremely foolish.

Accordingly, there’s absolutely no basis for the assertion that pre-employment polygraphs for positions of trust would prevent sex crimes against children.

That is actually pretty helpful. I wondered if Combs would be on the registry. The pastor got off light for what he did despite the time between the act and adjudication. He gets to register for life afterwards I believe.

No he does not have to register

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Combs was sentenced to supervised release and not probation. He was sentenced to only 50 months incarceration, which was below his sentencing guideline range of 5 to 7 years. Five years is the minimum supervised release for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §2421 with lifetime supervision the maximum. See 18 U.S.C. §3583(k). He was given a very light federal sentence, but with a sex offense does not qualify for a minimum security prison. Registration is not imposed at sentencing, but depends on the count of conviction and individual state laws.

Combs got four years and five more for probation. I’m not sure if he has to register.