Is this polygraph truly voluntary, or am I being lied to? Am I interpreting this correctly?

It sounds as if it is voluntary, which means you can tell them that you are not interested in submitting to this testing. However, this needs to be discussed with your agent. If your agent says that he or she is ordering you to undergo this polygraph examination, then it doesn't sound like it is voluntary. Tell the agent that the cost and the travel are a problem for you and that you would prefer not to go. If your agent says you must, then I would ask that the DOC pay for it and provide you with transportation. "The offender's criminal record of sexual offenses" may very well be construed to mean sexual history. I would make your agent order you to do this. If it is voluntary/consensual, then you may end up with new criminal charges. I would also suggest that you call the SPD in Kenosha and see if they will provide you with an attorney or at least a brief discussion with an attorney from their office. Good luck.

I would be very careful. You need to co-operate with your agent or face revocation. But you should discuss why the polygraph is needed. It may be helpful for you to understand this type of polygraph. The polygraph has gained great popularity for the purpose of treating and supervising the convicted sexual offender in the United States. Use of the polygraph for post-conviction sex offender testing (PCSOT) started in the 1970s. The two primary types of examinations used in PCSOT are the sexual history polygraph examination (SHPE) and the maintenance polygraph. The maintenance examination is used to assess the offender's compliance with treatment and supervision over a limited period of time (usually about 6 months). The SHPE is used to gain information about the offender's lifetime history of sexual offending and other sexually deviant behaviors. It is believed that having a complete history of the offender's deviant behaviors will improve the quality of treatment delivered as well as provide information to the probation officer to manage the risk of the offender. It is also believed that knowing the offender's prior patterns and choices of victims will give direction to the probation officer on how to best supervise the offender. The SHPE is a process where the offender is required to fill out a lengthy questionnaire of his/her prior sexual behaviors and list all victims. Some questionnaires ask for identifying information on victims, and others request that no identifying information be given. After the offender fills out the questionnaire, it is recommended that his or her work be pre-approved by the therapist and/or probation officer. Once the therapist or probation officer determines that the offender has adequately filled out the questionnaire, the offender then undergoes a polygraph examination. There are several questions and concerns with this type of testing. Although it has been shown that offenders who undergo a SHPE provide more information, there has been little evidence to demonstrate that the information traditionally obtained from the SHPE is relevant to the reduction of recidivism. After all, that is the purpose of supervision and treatment, to reduce risk of reoffense, or danger to the community. However, many therapists and community corrections officials make risk management decisions based on how the offender performs on the SHPE. A case that may demonstrate the belief of the importance of the SHPE is United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005). Apparently the therapist and/or probation officer, as well as the court, believed Antelope was enough of a threat for not undergoing the SHPE that his supervision was revoked. A higher court eventually found that Antelope could not be forced to incriminate himself, and he was remanded back to the lower court. Similar rulings have also been found more recently (2010). In Texas, William Thomas Leonard v. The State of Texas involved an offender who was revoked for failing numerous polygraph examinations. This case was later reversed. In Arizona, a similar ruling was made where the appellate court found that Jacobsen could not be forced to waive his rights (Ryan Jacobsen, Petitioner v. The Honorable Thomas Lindberg, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona). Although these rulings indicate that a majority of courts may find that an offender cannot be forced to incriminate himself, there was a Supreme Court decision where it was upheld that an inmate could be required to undergo a SHPE as a treatment condition. This case was somewhat different in that the offender was not compelled to incriminate himself, as the treatment program (in prison) was voluntary (McKune v Lile, 536 U.S. 24).

Determining anything requested by a PO to be "voluntary," in the context of probation agent requests which could potentially effect revocation, would be a legal fiction, but that does not necessarily mean that you should comply. Instead, the decision should be based upon your legal best interests, as recommended by an attorney with detailed knowledge of your history. You should not be discussing this online, but rather only privately with your attorney, since everything you say could be used against you in unpredictable ways, and it is unclear how your agent might react to such a posting. You also risk waiving your privacy rights as to intimate details which likewise could hardly help you down the road. If any answer on helps you, mine or someone else's, please mark it as "helpful" or "best answer" to help know which answers to show others. Answering this question does not make me your attorney, but you can post comments here for clarifications, etc. You can also see past answers to similar questions on , or see over fifteen years of past answers at http://www.attorneyqna.com/attorneys/53401-wi-jay-nixon-1529181/answers.html?sort=recency . See 15 years of past answers at http://www.lawguru.com/answers/attorney_control_panel/answered. Answers may contain attorney advertising materials.