posted 01-31-2009 06:12 PM            

Does anyone have anything different than what I have here.

Sexual touching: Rubbing or touching of another's sexual organs (vagina, breast/chest area, buttocks, or penis) either over or under clothing, for the purpose of the sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, sexual education, or sexual curiosity of either party or rubbing or touching any part ones own sexual organs (vagina, breast/chest area, buttocks, or penis) against another person either over or under clothing, for the purpose of the sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, sexual education, or sexual curiosity of either party.

Sexual Display: The exposure of one’s own sexual organs (vagina, breast/chest area, buttocks, or penis) for the purpose of the sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation, sexual education, or sexual curiosity of either party

Any suggestions appreciated

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 01-31-2009 07:06 PM         

I don't disagree with your definations but I think a word of caution may be in order.

When you try to phrase these definations in the form of a relevant question you may be running into a conflict with "intent".

posted 01-31-2009 07:23 PM            

Some therapists and victim advocates will be troubled by the terms "sexual education" and "sexual curiosity" in this usage.

These are excuses intended to mitigate the seriousness of a problem behavior or offense. They are not legitimate definition.

We examiners use these devices (excuses) to leverage admissions, by minimizing the behavior for the duration of the discussion, but that does not make them adequate for a formal or operational definition. Neglecting to honor the excuses and minimization aspect might be perceived as endorsing the distorted idea, and insulting to victims.

It may be better if you simply put these in "quotes."

The term sexual display seems unusual to me. Is it part of a statute somewhere? If not, then it might be better to avoid coining new terms. "Sexual display" just as easily refer to public displays of affection or public displays of sexual acts.

It is said that some exposers are motivated by the power they experience from the shock-value of their activities. I haven't met many people that admit to that. A number of exhibitionists seem to be hoping to gain some form of favorable first impression.

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-31-2009 09:09 PM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 02-01-2009 06:52 PM         

An easy answer to a tough question is that not all cases may be good candidates for a polygraph examination. If the target issue is intent, we may have to find another tool other than the polygraph.

posted 02-02-2009 02:40 PM            

The problem is one of linguistics, and all we have to do is stick to a few basic linguistic principles. It would also be a good idea to stop engaging in senseless tail-chasing and silly fancy solutions.

Start with a basic linguistic principle: behavior, and descriptions of behavior, are not defined by intent.

Then recognize that there are two prominent exceptions to that basic principle: 1) lying, and 2) sexual contact. Both of these behaviors (action verbs) are defined, in part, by intent.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie[3]

quote:

---

Main Entry:
3lie
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
lied; ly·ing  \ˈlī-iŋ\
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati
Date:
before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impressiontransitive verb: to bring about by telling lies 

---

quote:

---

SEXUAL CONTACT - The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC

---

If we disagree that there are non-sexual reasons for touching someone's private areas, then we'll have to put every parent, nurse, and doctor in the country on the sex offender registry and on probation. Non-sense.

Let's not complicate this beyond necessity.

The dictionary and legal definitions, though imperfect, do work. They are the best solutions we have at present.

I see nothing wrong with asking a nurse or health-care professional accused of a crime if they touched someone's private parts for a sexual arousal, or for a sexual reason. There is also nothing wrong with a question about sexually touching someone's private parts. Sure, it's imperfect. So what.

As Skip said before, polygraph is sledge-hammer, not a jeweler's tool.

There is still a need for a good operational definition of the term sexual contact. This was discussed last year in this thread.
http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivateνmber=11&topic=000745

Operational definitions, you will recall, provide an answer to the questions “what does it look like when someone does that?”

Here is another suggestion from the Colorado SOMB:

quote:

---

Include all persons with whom you engaged in any form of rubbing or touching (including attempts) of a person's sexual organs (i.e., breasts/chest area, buttocks, vaginal area, penis), either over or under clothing, if it was for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification or stimulation, or “sexual curiosity,” along with all persons whom you caused or allowed to rub or touch your private parts, either over or under clothing, for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification or stimulation or sexual curiosity. Also include persons with whom you engaged in any sexual petting (i.e. sexual hugging and kissing) behaviors.

---

and yet another suggestion:

quote:

---

refers to rubbing or touching another person's sexual organs (i.e., breasts, buttocks, vagina or penis) whether over or under clothing, if for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual stimulation or sexual “curiosity.” This includes having, allowing, or causing another person to rub or touching one's own sexual organs, whether over or under clothing, for purposes of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual “curiosity,” or sexual stimulation. This does not include parental contact with children's private areas, in the form of diapering, wiping, bathing, dressing, or changing, unless done for the purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation.

---

The bottom line is that the polygraph works because non-psychotic people know what they have done and why they did it.

The solution is to simply accept the ambiguity and imperfection of human/verbal language as a basis for communication, and rest assured the every parent, nurse and doctor knows whether they have touched someone's private parts “with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-02-2009 04:43 PM            

Regarding rnelson's contribution:

What is the difference between asking someone if they "sexually touched" someone or if they "lied" about something, since intent seems to be an integral element of both concepts?

I think we are getting lost in the definition of “INTENT”.

While I will agree that Polygraph is a questionable tool for determining "INTENT" as it pertains to a future plan or act, (for no other reason than one’s ability to change their mind concerning something that has not yet occurred); I really can't see why polygraph cannot be used to detect deception regarding "INTENT" as it pertains to the examinee’s state of mind at the time he carried out some past action. He cannot subsequently alter his intent at the time of the act anymore than he can alter the act itself. In a polygraph setting he will either lie or tell the truth when asked about either one.

In its most basic description, polygraph does not allow us to detect “Who Shot J.R.?, it only helps us discern whether or not Kristen Sheppard is lying when asked “Did you shoot J.R? If carefully pre-tested, why would Kristin lying about her intent at the time of the trigger was pulled, be any less detectable than her lying about pulling the trigger itself.

Generally the first argument you find when this question arises is rationalization. Where in psychology is it established that it would be easier to effectively rationalize ones intent at the time the trigger was pulled than it would be to rationalize, “Hey, I didn’t Shoot J.R. The gun did, it went off by accident.” ?

The unstated portion of the “Did you do it?” question is always “Did you intend to do it?

If polygraph is rendered useless by the introduction of intent then wouldn’t we be incapable of detecting anyone who could justify or rationalize their crime?

I can’t help but wonder if we are actually bumping against an old axiom that no-one has ever taken the time to prove or disprove.

My argument is that a sexual offender knows why he was diddling the kid.

If he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he has a definition for the term “Sexual Touching”, he should react if he lies when as asked “Did you sexually touch Sally Sue? Alternately, if he is not an offender, and was merely providing care related contact, the definition of “Sexually Touching” should allow him to separate his acts from wrong-doing, and truthfully answer the question without reaction.

I would further argue that since an "intent" question might be interpreted as ambiguous regarding whether or some specific act has occurred, that maybe we should consider reserving these types of questions to those situations where the examinee admits to the act, but offers a lawful explanation for the act.

For example, an admission of “I touched her vaginal area, but only to apply lotion to her rash”

I would appreciate your thoughts on this or if you could point me to any research to the contrary.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 02-02-2009 11:27 PM         

It was never my "intent" to stir up such a lively debate on this issue but I am glad I did. That is why I love this forum.

Eb-
I am unaware of any research either for or against this issue. I do know that not testing on intent is still being taught at many of the schools. Perhaps it is time to open this up a little and do some research. Ray noted some discussion at APA on this issue and perhaps he could provide some more info?

I for one, would rather construct a test that examines the act itself rather than what the subject was thinking about while comitting the act.

Maybe we could get Dr. Barland to ring in here?

posted 02-03-2009 07:40 AM            

I too would rather construct a test that examines the act itself. It's quicker to pre-test and it provides dichotomy without a lot of explanation.

However, once one has set aside the time to review a case, obtained the suspect's consent for the examination and completed a good sized portion of a pre-test, (generally over half but I never know how long one will take for sure) only to find all of a sudden ones brilliantly constructed RQ "Did you touch Sally Sue's vaginal area?" is destroyed by the examinee's statement “I touched her vaginal area, but only to apply lotion to her rash”

What do we do? Shut everything down and cancel the exam because our “act” polygraph just became an intent polygraph? Shake Skippy the Perv's hand and explain to him that as long as he has a justifiable explanation for why he diddles kids he has nothing to fear from polygraph because somebody once said we couldn't test intent?

For the reasons previously stated, I don't think that we should be barred from proceeding simply because of some un-researched poorly defined “rule” when common sense tells us that there is a clear, easily explainable, easily understandable dichotomy between sexual touching and non-sexual touching.

If some rule states we shouldn’t test under these circumstances, then surely someone should be able to explain why and where. Why we shouldn’t test? Why this is taught in Polygraph Schools and where is the research that supports the rule?

posted 02-03-2009 10:11 AM            

For example: I go into a store with the intention of buying a watch. As I walk up to the counter, I see that the store clerk is engaged in deep conversation with an associate and is ignoring me. I decide to steal the watch rather than pay for it. I then notice that there is a man standing nearby who appears to be watching me. I change my mind thinking he might be a store detective. I decide that I will buy the watch as I previously intended. He walks away and leaves the store so I again decide to steal the watch. I then notice a black globe in the ceiling and decide it might be a camera. I decide not to steal the watch but decide to buy it as I originally intended. I pick up the watch and carry it around the store picking up other items. One is a suit case and the other is a large box, so I put the watch in my coat pocket as both of my hands are full. I still plan to buy the watch but inadvertently pass through the cashier line, paying for the other items but forgetting to remove the watch and pay for it. As I leave the store, I'm grabbed by a store security officer.

If I take a polygraph and I am asked if I intended to steal the watch, the answer would be yes as that was my intent on at least several times. If I am asked if I intended to pay for the watch my answer would also be yes as that was my initial and final intent, but it did not occur.

If I am asked, "Did you pay for those others items knowing that watch was in your pocket? or "Did you leave that store, knowing at the time that watch was in your pocket? I have a better chance of being truthful on the test and therefore showing no deception. I am being tested on the act, not the intent.

In the case of sexual touching, I would ask a health care provider "Did you touch that woman's vagina for other than necessary medical reasons? or "Did you touch that woman's breast in an unprofessional (or non-medical) manner?

With parents, or caregivers of small children I would ask much the same question. "Did you touch that child's (vagina, penis, breasts) for other than required hygienic reasons? if that is their allegation. If the allegation is something else such as during roughhousing or play, my question would be “Are you lying about the manner in which your hand came into contact with that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)? Or Did you make up that story about how you came to touch that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)?

posted 02-03-2009 10:12 AM            

quote:

---

However, once one has set aside the time to review a case, obtained the suspect's consent for the examination and completed a good sized portion of a pre-test, (generally over half but I never know how long one will take for sure) only to find all of a sudden ones brilliantly constructed RQ "Did you touch Sally Sue's vaginal area?" is destroyed by the examinee's statement “I touched her vaginal area, but only to apply lotion to her rash”

What do we do? Shut everything down and cancel the exam because our “act” polygraph just became an intent polygraph? Shake Skippy the Perv's hand and explain to him that as long as he has a justifiable explanation for why he diddles kids he has nothing to fear from polygraph because somebody once said we couldn't test intent?

---

"Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's...?

"Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's ... at any time?"

or some other version.

Every parent in the work knows whether they have ever touched a child for a sexual purpose, or have ever sexually touched their own child.

The PCSOT committee at APA presented some alarming language suggesting that it is acceptable to test for "culpable mental status" at the time of an incident. The language appeared at several locations in the presentation materials, giving the impression this was a discussed solution.

Try to imagine what happens next if the APA endorses the notion of testing for "culpable mental status."

The committee seems to have heard the feedback on the matter. Holden's subsequent training materials (UPA, and MRP conferences) states that it is acceptable to test for sexual intent following an admission of the behavioral allegation.

This is probably a good solution for now.

The real value of this discussion is that it helps unlock us from mindless dogmatic thinking.

Just yesterday I receive an email from an attorney who had a client acquitted on a sexual offense allegation. Child alleged he touched her vaginal area over her clothing while he sat on her lap. Adult admitted to police investigators that he put his hand over her clothed vaginal area while pulling her onto his lap.

He failed my polygraph.

quote:

---

Question: Did you ever engage in sexual contact with ********?
Answer: (No)
Result: (significant reactions)

Question: Did you ever sexually touch *********'s private parts?
Answer: (No)
Result: (significant reactions)

---

I was thinking we'd see this guy on probation, but I'm told the jury found him credible.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-03-2009 11:12 AM            

quote:

---

In the case of sexual touching, I would ask a health care provider "Did you touch that woman's vagina for other than necessary medical reasons? or "Did you touch that woman's breast in an unprofessional (or non-medical) manner?

With parents, or caregivers of small children I would ask much the same question. "Did you touch that child's (vagina, penis, breasts) for other than required hygienic reasons? if that is their allegation. If the allegation is something else such as during roughhousing or play, my question would be “Are you lying about the manner in which your hand came into contact with that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)? Or Did you make up that story about how you came to touch that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)?

---

On the other hand we have rnelson and myself who prefer

quote:

---

"Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's...?

"Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's ... at any time?"

or some other version.

---

Question #1 Do either of these approaches violate the nebulous/vague rule against asking "intent" questions?

Question #2 If the answer to #1 is yes, How is the rule violated?

Question #3 Is there some difference in these two approaches, other than semantic?

I too am concerned with the phrase "Culpable Mental Status" because while it may include the character or state of someone's thought process during a specific incident its definition in the psychiatric community may be significantly broader that the solution we seek.

What we are trying to determine is whether or not the examinee is lying about having a guilty mind (Mens rea) at the time the incident occurred. It seems to me that the phrase "Culpable State of Mind" would necessarily have to consider mental disease or defect, a chemically altered mental process or psychosis.

I don't think we are talking scalpel here I think the "Sexual Touching" question is a more than sufficient target for our sledge hammer.

But then, that's just one man's opinion.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 02-03-2009 02:59 PM            

very little is more satisfying to the average field examiner than the opportunity to nit-pick some polygraph questions...

ebvan

quote:

---

• "Did you touch that woman's vagina for other than necessary medical reasons?

• "Did you touch that woman's breast in an unprofessional (or non-medical) manner?
  

And

• "Did you touch that child's (vagina, penis, breasts) for other than required hygienic reasons?”

• “Are you lying about the manner in which your hand came into contact with that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)?

  “Did you make up that story about how you came to touch that child’s (vagina, penis, breasts)?”

---

We've all met people who've done all of these things. What they'll generally attempt to assert is...

• it was “necessary” to touch that patient's vagina (they simply took the touching a different direction)

• they were very “professional” in their attitude and demeanor during that there touching

• touching that child's private parts was required for hygenic reasons – and they wouldn't have done it otherwise

• they are not lying about the “manner” in which their hand touched the child's private parts – it occurred in the context of parental/medical care

• they made up nothing about how they came to touch the child's parts – it was in the context of medical/parental care
  

To me, these questions (above) don't seem to get the job done.

quote:

---

• "Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's...?

• "Did you sexually touch Sally Sue's ... at any time?"
  

or some other version, such as

• ”Did you touch X's private parts for a sexual reason?”
  

---

All of these can be argued as imperfect in some way. They rely on the notion of sexual touching as defined as the touching of someone's private parts for the purpose of sexual arousal...

quote:

---

Question #1 Do either of these approaches violate the nebulous/vague rule against asking "intent" questions?

Question #2 If the answer to #1 is yes, How is the rule violated?

Question #3 Is there some difference in these two approaches, other than semantic?

---

1. No. As I understand it, the problem with testing INTENT, has mostly to do with testing future intent – what someone is going to do at a later time.

It might be clearer to refer to this concern as related to one's motivation or state of mind at the time of a past alleged and admitted event – but that has it's own complications.

These questions ask about a behavior (sexual touching). It is an interesting complication that sexual touching is defined in part by motivation related to sexual arousal. It makes no sense to engage in a circular discussion over this – the definition is clear enough for legal purposes, and anyone with a sense of decency knows the difference between sexual touching and non-sexually touching.

Furthermore, people with no sense of decency also know the difference between sexual touching and non-sexual touching – else they would perceive no need to keep secrets, lie, or make excuses.

3. The difference may exist in: 1) our assumptions about what the polygraph monitors (lies, or reactions to a stimulus), 2) whether we favor a direct or indirect approach to the presentation of a test question stimulus, and 3) how we want to interpret the meaning of the results.

I think the evidence is weak that the polygraph monitors lies. On the other hand, there is convincing rationale to suggest the polygraph monitors reactions to a stimulus. With that in mind, I favor a direct presentation of the stimulus (did you do it – where it describes a behavior).

If I were to submit a test question to a local DA's office in attempt to dismiss or mitigate a sexual assault allegation, and used a question such as “... touch private parts in an unprofessional or non-medical manner,” or “... touching for any reason other than required medical/hygiene care,” or “did you make up that story about how to came to touch that patient/child's private parts,” the test would probably be rejected as weak. The allegation is “sexual touching.” The test question stimulus to which we want to observe the presence or absence of reactions, is therefore “sexual touching.” Not asking about “sexual touching,” is to soft-shoe around the issue. How would we interpret the results if someone passed that test – not having stimulated the issue directly?

If we assume the polygraph monitors lies, then we might endorse a question such as “did you lie to me about...” Again, the evidence is weak that it monitors lies per se – (look at DLCs, number stim tests, silent answer tests, and YES answer tests). Similarly the evidence is weak that the polygraph is primarily dependent on fear or some other form of emotionality (psychopaths are unemotional persons with low levels of fear conditioning – yet the polygraph works on them too).

The parsimonious and economical approach is to stimulate the issue simply and directly, with any version of “did you do it” where “it” describes the behavioral concern.

That way, when someone reacts, we can reasonably assume they are reacting to the stimulus and not some complicated fanciful inverse logical formulation of the issue. When they don't react, we have less to wonder about in terms of why they didn't react to a direct presentation of the stimulus issue – they were not involved in any activity that would cause them to react to that stimulus.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-04-2009 09:19 AM            

My concern is for the innocent person. My concern is that we don't jeopardize the NDI person's opportunity to successfully pass the polygraph. For that reason, I prefer questions that logically remove the "legal" or "ethical" reasons one might have done something so that they can pass the polygraph.

My reasons for using non-intent questions and for using statements such as "Did you touch that woman's vagina for other than necessary medical reasons? or "Did you touch that woman's breast in an unprofessional (or non-medical) manner?
provide the innocent person the ability to pass. The person who fondled or touched for sexual gratification will fail without any help from me. He knows what he did and he also knows it was wrong/illegal.

posted 02-04-2009 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

My reasons for using non-intent questions and for using statements such as "Did you touch that woman's vagina for other than necessary medical reasons? or "Did you touch that woman's breast in an unprofessional (or non-medical) manner?

---

Skip, those are "intent" questions. Just to be sure, I looked up "intent" (online) in the American Heritage Dictionary:

quote:

---

NOUN: 1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See synonyms at intention. 2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action. 3. Meaning; purport.

---

posted 02-04-2009 05:49 PM            

I agree with Barry, in that we agree more than disagree on this.

Besides, we're all just makin' this up as we go along...

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-04-2009 09:27 PM            

I think for the purpose of responding to questions about what constitutes "Sexual Contact" perhaps we can confine ourselves to the definition previously quoted by Raymond Nelson and contained in:

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 109A > § 2246
Paragraph (3)

quote:

---

the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

---

Since it is codified in Federal Statues, we have a common point of reference.

Without delving into a broad range of paraphilias, can anyone think of any reason why this definition of sexual contact would be unsuitable for defining sexual contact in a polygraph pretest?

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 02-04-2009 11:28 PM         

Ted