Joe, thanks for posting this, very interesting. It is a conundrum. On one side, treatment providers say that the offenders cannot benefit from therapy if they do not disclose all paraphilia behavior. But, on the other side we have this pesky thing called the 5th Amendment. In most cases, additional charges are not brought against the offender, however, I am aware of one case in Washington State in which this happened. Perhaps it's dependent on just how egregious the admission is. If an offender is hiding serious felonies like a murder for example, he would be best to just do his time on the current charge rather than face additional prosecution. But, in this case, he is denied the treatment he needs. I would like to hear Raymond Nelson's input on this.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:55am:


Both sides of the fence should find it interesting and helpful.

And Dan, play nice with Ray

Ray, with all due respect, the polygraph industry seems to have a problem with treating some within the industry in a humanizing manner.

I think we need to fix the industry from within first, then we can work on fixing it in other ways with honest and genuine intent.

Just my take.

Having said that, Dan does get a wee personal when it doesn't have to at times.  I look past this because, well, Massholes can understand our own language.  Irregardless (Boston Slang), see you next week

Quote:



Belive it or not, I whole heartedly agree with out, but it is bad policy to let others walk all over you without defending yourself or your position.  It sets a precedent of weakness.

Regardless, it is a discussion I would love to have, and, maybe after apa, a lot of the negativity between me and other can be put in the past before it gets bigger.  I am not going anywhere and neither are they, it is time we all come to an agreement to achieve an uncomfortable peace over a war of attrition   

I am hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

Dan,

Seems you have little idea how I feel about terrorists or sex offenders or Nazis. Feel free to speak for yourself, but please try to refrain from attempts at mind reading. You are not good at it. 

Given your publication of a study showing ~100% accuracy for a proprietary brand of un-replicatable secret-sauce type expertise, I hardly think you are a realist.

But I do understand that your dialog is probably good for (your) business. Probably some people are desperate enough that they are vulnerable to the need for false hope and confidence that one can purchase from a professional who is angling himself against the profession. 

.02

rn

Dan,

You are just being ugly. 

We all know I am happy to control people for the rest of their lives if they sexually assault children. 

There is a time and a place for the nitty gritty details: in therapy, in the polygraph, and in the legal context when deciding sentencing options. Sometimes in public discussions when we need a reminder that sex offenders are in fact dangerous and do in fact impact their victims in serious ways. 

Any one of us can find any number of real and graphic examples of the horribly real details of an assault. Each of us has heard it all at some point, and probably more than once. And each of us is capable of selecting the most graphic and ugly language to make the most dramatic emotional impact on the listener - if that is our objective. 

Here, your use of graphic and aggressive language seems to serve only to leverage your goal of appealing to people's emotions and not to any logical point or discussion of any real value. 

So between your criticizing the APA and the polygraph profession for being imperfect, and your selling you own version of ~100% perfect accuracy to anyone desperate enough to hope you can solve their dilemma...

you can have the crickets now. 



rn

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:42am:



UM wow, Dan

Ark,

Let's be clear. Sex offenders are dangerous people. They harm other people. Often smaller more vulnerable people. Sex offenders can be manipulative. For example: many sex offenders can have sexual contact with children and get other people to not notice it. Or if others do notice it they convince others to tolerate or worse to endorse it. Just take a moment and think about the kind of manipulation it would take to convince a child to do something sexual with an adult. Then take a moment and think about what kind of manipulation it would take to silence that child - because children under stress often do not hide it well and tend to get fussy like something is wrong. So sex offenders can be capable of making use of things like secrecy and manipulation and lies and other forms of social power and control (including violence) - and also including denial and avoidance. 

Then think about the fact that some sex offenders are actually not proud of what they have done, and are in fact shame-based people. And one of the things people do with shame - when they lack hope for any future alternative to shame - is put it away in some internal place of denial and secrecy.

Many years ago we used to hear the term "break denial" a lot from polygraph examiners and from other therapists. These days, I do not so much hear this term, except from some polygraph examiners. I do not so much hear this term from therapists who are current with the literature on evidence-based treatment and the role of denial. 

The role of denial in the treatment process is not so simple, and it would be a mistake to attempt to impose a simplistic view on this complex issue.

Probably a better term is "reduce denial," and probably a better term would be to increase personal responsibility. Some of the most effective therapists I know get this rather clearly. 

Breaking denial - as a function of a polygraph , or as a dramatic form of psychotherapeutic catharsis, or through the a confession obtained by a skillful interrogator - is of very little, if any, real value towards any therapeutic progress. 

There is virtually no evidence, in the scientific literature on clinical work, that catharsis is a realistic component of change.

In fact - my personal view after all these years - attempts to forcefully break denial may add more difficulty and confusion to the clinical treatment picture. Think about this: if we have ample reason to believe that a person committed a sexual assault (sufficient for conviction) then we have ample reason to believe that a person might benefit from treatment to manage (in no particular order) empathy deficits and aggression and cognitive distortions and social deficiencies and  self concept issues and sexual behaviors that led to the assault. 

But therapy and change is kind of an inside job, and if the person does not possess the motivation to do the work, then it ain't gonna happen much is it. 

Now we can motivate people externally to some degree - or to any degree we want. Just hold a gun to someone's head (metaphorically) and they will comply. But that will only lead to change and therapeutic process if we are correct in the magical belief that going through a checklist of items with only superficial compliance will lead to change. If superficial compliance is insufficient to internalize change and progress, then it will mean nothing and will only confuse and obfuscate those persons who are in fact motivated to change with those who are not actually motivated to change. 

Imagine a day in court with a sex offender who is massively resistant and yet does, with enough external pressure, pass a polygraph. In fact that the person is massively resistant and a danger to the community, might indicate a need for a safer treatment and supervision alternative than a sentence into the community. But passing the polygraph can be made to look as if the person is now "ready" or is now "doing exactly what we wan't." This is obviously incorrect. It will probably be better to leave the person in denial so that the denial and resistance can be more obvious and easy to observe and appreciate its meaning. 

So the process of treatment and all the things we do is often to find ways to help a person find and develop some internal motivation for change. Certainly, external control, supervision and accountability are very important for community safety. But if we rely solely on external forms of motivation and external forms of benchmarking treatment progress then we may ultimately loose the opportunity to make any real progress towards change. 

Now one of the hardest things for offenders is to give up the power and control and manipulative lifestyle. Directly related to this - in my view - is the difficulty in grasping the paradox: that they are dangerous and may only be safe around children when they remember that they are not and remind others that they are not safe around children. When they get the joke, and can still experience a sense of acceptance of themselves and acceptance by others, then maybe they can progress. 

So, in the end, nearly everything in treatment is about reducing denial in some form and increasing personal responsibility and self mastery (which requires personal responsibility) - and this can occur internally only when a person can also maintain some sense self and and human value - which requires quite a bit of resiliency when we are talking about rather ugly and unpopular things. So, it does take a balance of intrusive discussion, confrontation of problem behavior, external motivation, lifestyle development and social support to do this effectively. 

Along the way there can be a lot of denial, avoidance, resistance manipulation, power struggle, and other drama. 

Therapists are typically nice people, smart and decent. And so they will tend to want to take small risks as a necessary part of their work with therapy clients - including sex offenders. This is their job.

Polygraph - as a tool for elucidating information and discriminating truth and deception at rates far greater than chance or unassisted human judgement - is simply a tool for helping to manage the inherent risks. So that therapists can do clinical work without becoming so optimistic that they play into an offender's dangerous potential for manipulation. 

Polygraph, and information, and better knowledge about what to believe and what not to believe, are just tools for risk management.

I am certainly not a legal person, but there are procedural mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts around 5th amendment rights. The information interest to the clinical and risk management goals is the behavioral pattern. These exams are not conducted for criminal investigation purposes. Neither program policies nor examination procedures will require the disclosure of information at a level of detail that will typically result in a criminal investigation or criminal filing. As to whether those mechanisms are or are not adequate protection is for the courts. Of course, a victim of past abuse can always provide the information independently, and there will be no way to avoid an investigation or filing. 

.02

rn