posted 08-11-2008 04:43 PM            

They said this is often done even without an allegation of sexual abuse or identifying a victim. At some point during the interview process the suspect is asked if he would be willing to take a polygraph test and then on a subsequent interview the examiner "just happens to be available" the suspect is asked to fill out a disclosure form (19 Questions) which is then used to formulate their relevant questions. It seems like the purpose is to identify possible state crimes to tack on to the Federal Pornography case.

Is anyone here familiar with this procedure? Unfortunately the course materials and handouts were not included on the disk provided at the conference.

From what I have heard so far it seems like a fishing expedition.

Any info would be appreciated

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

posted 08-11-2008 06:48 PM            

The first is, of course, Miranda.

The second is the ill fated belief that all sex offenders who peddle, transfer or possess child pornography actually have hands-on victims.

Just my thoughts,

posted 08-11-2008 07:21 PM            

I share Sackett's concerns and have a few of my own.

The questionairre they are using appears to be similar to the disclosure form used for a sexual history exam that a convicted offender would complete for each victim mentioned in his/her sexual history packet.

posted 08-12-2008 07:36 AM         

The information may reflect results of the Bureau of Prisons SOTP Studies which were conducted in 2000 and 2006. I will be presenting "Interviewing the Cybersex Offender" at APA and discussing some of these issues. I don't have time to elaborate on this at the moment.

posted 08-12-2008 08:27 AM            

Maybe Bob can fill us in on an examiner's view of the protocol. I am curious as to how many passed the test and "made admissions" as well as how many failed and didn't make admissions. If "Have you had sexual contact with anyone under 17 years of age?" is your relevant question what do you routinely use for a comparison question?
Are you using a multi-issue, specific issue, or multi-facet question format?

Based on the limited information I now have it appears to be an attempt to move the sexual history disclosure examination out of the clinical setting and into the pre-arrest/pre-conviction setting. I'm not yet convinced that this is a good idea.

If it is a good idea, why shouldn't Police Examiners start randomly contacting known sex offenders and asking them to submit to a disclosure polygraph so they can identify new victims?

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

posted 08-12-2008 01:06 PM            

OK you've said that twice now, and I still don't get exactly what you mean. Do you mean that even among those who passed the test all but one have admitted physical contact victims? Do you interrogate for admissions to crimes and victims even after NDI charts? If so, why? Are you just using the exam suite as an interrogation prop?

Regarding your comment " but when you investigate a burglar for one burglary, don't you ask him if he committed any others?" I'll say yes you always ask about other burglaries, but how many burglars have you polygraphed with a relevant question "Have you committed any other burglaries?" in an attempt to find undiscovered breakins?

I am not trying to be contentious. I'm looking for the answer to the big question. WHY?
Why does someone think this is a suitable/appropriate use for polygraph and why would they choose it over other investigative techniques?

If it is a suitable/appropriate and it works better than other investigative techniques why aren't we running random police polygraphs on known sex offenders as long as we can persuade them to consent?

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

posted 08-12-2008 01:44 PM         

In all the tests that I have done in support of investigations regarding Internet preditors, i.e. suspects who have set up meetings with detectives posing as children, I have had only one pass (NDI) with no pretest admission. I have had some pass (NDI) (I can't tell you how many becasue I don't keep stats by crime) after making pretest admissions to sexual contact with children, and I have had many fail (DI). I can't remember any that did not make a posttest admission. No, I don't interrogate with NDI charts.

To answer your question, why? I would say Why not? This is pre conviction. The suspect is in custody for a crime against children. Let's gather as much evidence as we can. Let's identify as many victims as we can and get them the help they need. Let's charge the suspect with all the crimes he committed. We can, and do use other methods of investigation, computer forensics, interviews of friends and neighbors, but no one knows the offender better than the offender. If he says this is the only time he ever attempted to contact a child for sex, let's test him and find out if it is true. Suitable/appropriate use for polygraph? I believe it is, and my experience has been that it works very well.

In answer to your question, "Why we aren't running random police polygraphs on known sex offenders as long as we can persuade them to consent?" In a sense we do, its called PCSOT. Remember the people we are talking about are not convicted, but have been arrested for attempting to contact/or contacting a child for sex. We are in the evidence gathering phase of the process and based on the number of confessions I've obtained and additional victims identified, I would have to say polygraph works well in this situation. The examinee is not being compelled by probation or parole to participate in the interview/exam (and has been advised of his rights) so there is no self-incrimination issue like there is with PCSOT. If he confesses to the crime, and identifies the victim, he is probably going to be charged.

If you are going to be at APA next week, we can discuss this over a beer.

posted 08-12-2008 04:26 PM            

In going back to the original question; Do you use polygraph as described in the original scenario in child pornography cases? ie surprise appointment, sexual disclosure form, no allegation of actual or attempted physical contact with a victim or allegation of a specific crime.

Your comment that PCSOT equates to a random police polygraph of known sex offenders is a bit off the mark in my opinion.

A "Police Polygraph" or Investigative Polygraph is designed reveal truth or deception regarding specific acts for the purpose of furthering an investigation of criminal activity.

A Sexual Disclosure Examination under PCSOT is designed to Reduce denial/minimization.
Improve engagement/participation in treatment.
Identify previously undisclosed paraphelias that may undermine treatment if left undiscovered etc. All of which are intended to identify treatment objectives and improve communication between an offender and therapist inside the treatment setting.

VERY RARELY and only incedentally does a sexual disclosure exam during PCSOT result in additional crimes being charged.

The two are no more the same thing that an investigative polygraph and a pre-employment exam are the same even though occasionally information gained in a pre-employment exam results in criminal charges.

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

posted 08-12-2008 09:55 PM            

Incidentally, those tests pay great (1000-2000) as the rate is built into the alotted defense fund----a fund which is beefier than lower courts, and accounts for "travel time." and other expenses---provided the proper forms are filled out.
So, my limited experience is in pre-conviction---orange jumpsuit with the permanent body-odor being-held-until-court ...type of case. I s'pose the point is that poly helps shape the evaluators' report which can attribute to the thick or thinness of the final sentence. Yes, it (like the sex history test) is near impossible to pass, and yes, it gets a lot of scoopy, and yes, it's a dirty test as the additional "crimes" may be nasty but not necessarily "federal crimes"---and such admissions can make the difference between an extra decade of prison time. Yikes. Unlike pcsot, frottage, beastiality and other garden variety hands-on offenses can mean much, much more in the pre-conviction scheme of things. I'm not a huge fan of that modality, yet I ain't picketing the courthouse either. Just another risky facet of polygraph. Ebvan is right to point out that in presentencing, such fishing expeeditions, while useful, are pretty low-blow.

p.s. ....and no, the polygraph report never sees the light of day----and in some cases, not even viewed by the attorney. It's a therapists' tool.

posted 08-13-2008 09:19 AM            

While the end may (appear to) justify the means; I agree that it seems like a fishing trip. Is this the "new" direction of PCSOT polygraph? I'm not saying this isn't appropriate for detectives looking for information on other crimes; but to use polygraph in this manner? I'm not sure.

Seems like a good topic for the ethics discussion.

posted 08-13-2008 10:30 AM            

I will agree sex offenders, most specifically child molesters are the scum of the earth and need a bullet in the back of the head rather than therapy. I just think we are setting ourselves up as a profession, for not only failure in a professional sense, but also severe scrutiny at a variety of external levels.

As explained here, I see the use of polygraph as an expeditionary investigative tool as a problem, not only operationally but ethically. We all know (I think) that single issue tests are the most valid and reliable. How many issues do we really want to address through polygraph during an investigation?

Now, some (based on the postings here) are advocating using this tool in the interrogation of sex offender suspects in a pre-conviction method as if it were a post-conviction sexual history test; "just to see what we can come up with?" No known crime, no known victim, no known jurisdiction, no known elements of proof, no known statute of limitations, just a historical probability that there is more...

I just see this as a dangerous precedent of application and operations of polygraph AND potentially an ethical issue within the profession.

posted 08-13-2008 11:28 AM            

As far as this issue goes, we do the same thing in pre-employment screening all the time. ("And what else did you do?") How many of us have gotten confessions from criminals by fishing about crimes we didn't even know happened?

Investigator: "Do you know why I'm here?"

Suspect: "Yeah, it's about blah, blah, blah."

Investigator: (To himself, "Okay, he fell for it. This could be better than the case I've got.") "Yeah, I'd like to talk to you about it and get your side of the story."

Later...

Investigator: "Now I'd like to switch gears and talk about [the real reason I came here]."

Still later...

Investigator: (To himself again, "Okay, it's time to see if I can find the victim for the case he confessed to that I didn't know about.")

posted 08-13-2008 01:09 PM            

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

posted 08-13-2008 02:50 PM            

Arguably and based on some of the research I have read "screening" exams are somewhat less accurate and reliable than properly constructed specisfic issue exams. NAS agrees. Proper protocol for a screening exam reuires a specific issue test to confirm a significant reaction. This tends to bar hard interrogation based solely on the screening charts. Absent admissions following the screening exam a specific issue exam is just a shot in the dark. In the procedure described to me that led to this post,interrogation follows the screening charts.

If that is the case, I believe that any expansion regarding the use of these types of examinations should proceed at a cautious pace. We have all read in this forum about examiners who are more or less at the mercy of their employers regarding when and where and why they conduct examinations. Endorsing this type of criminal screening exam absent some allegation or evidence puts a toll in the hands of "the bosses" that they lack the skill training or discretion to use properly.

I believe that if Polygraph, as a profession begins to engage regularly in this type of exam we run the risk of exposing ourselves to new legislation that could possibly end polygraph as an investigative tool.

Barry, Suppose an investigator came to you and asked you to polygraph a suspect. You of course would ask him for details about the crime he was suspected of committing.
If the investigator said, "I don't know what he's done, but he's guilty of something. You're the examiner. You find out what he's done." What would you do ?

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

posted 08-13-2008 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Barry, Suppose an investigator came to you and asked you to polygraph a suspect. You of course would ask him for details about the crime he was suspected of committing.
If the investigator said, "I don't know what he's done, but he's guilty of something. You're the examiner. You find out what he's done." What would you do ?

---

You just described many screening exams. The BI leads to a "something's not right, but Barry will figure it out" polygraph.

Why is a breakout screening test (single issue) less accurate than a specific issue test? (I'm not saying what I think. I'm asking if we know or are just guessing.) Why would my RQs of "Did you fail to disclose all requested info about your use of illegal drugs?" or "Did you use drugs since 1995?" be less accurate than a "Did you steal that car?" test?

How about this: "As an adult, have you ever had sexual contact with a person under the age of 13?" Would you expect more false positives with that? Why or why not?

posted 08-13-2008 03:39 PM            

this is not a matter of what I like or not. It is about the ethical and professional application of our profession. And, this issue is NOT the same as pre-employment testing and in my opinion could lead to very dubious results and application which could lead to other more serious problems; legal and otherwise.

Yes, a suspect comes in and he is advised, waives his rights and submits to the test, fine! Ope, now that we're satisfied on that issue we wanna talk about this other issue we don't have any reasonable suspicion you're involved in., we just wanna clear you on it. Why? Uh, well, cuz we wanna..... Ope, now that we cleared you on those issues, we'd like to talk to you about these issues?

When an applicant comes in, he knows why he is there, what will be looked into and later tested on and as it relates to his past and how it relates to his application for the position. It is an expected process. And while I agree there are many things about a screening test which is debatable, it is simply not the same as this presentation.

Maybe I'm wrong and possibly you could give me examples, but no polygraph program I know of allows for the fishing of unknown crimes through the use of polygraph. Why not? Because many minds, older, wiser, better and smarter than mine feel it is inappropriate. Why? I would imagine it has something to do with what I am suggesting here. It seems wrong. Why do I think it is unethical? Because this can lead to abuse and misuse which will harm us as a profession in the end. Just because we can do something does not mean we should.

First off, how do you pre-test a crime(s) where you have no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, evidence, victim, etc? Where do you start, and more importantly, where do you end? Do you base your testing topics on type of original crime suspected or simply pull stuff out of the air to use as a test topics?

What if the subject passes one series, so since the detective is not satisfied, because "he must have done something illegal" in the past; now I have to find it...or, we're not stopping this until he invokes or fails and confesses... how much do I get paid for a series? Ope, gotta do another series...

And you don't see any manner this could be unethical as an application of polygraph? I see this differently and a dangerous precedent for the profession as a whole.

Future - New and improved polygraph: "Pre-conviction sex offender testing" we'll call it Pre-CSOT. Then what happens when the chief wants to know if that burglary suspect has committed any hit and runs... What about that drug dealer, has he beat up any of the hookers downtown in the last 6 months? Does he fence stolen property in exchange for sex? What about the tagger who gets caughth at school, the boss wants to know if he has any involvement in the boat theft from last week... What do you mean you can't do it? You do it to pre-convicted sex crime suspects...

Better yet, let's have a program developed so we all have to go to ANOTHER class to learn how to properly apply the protocol. Because as you know, this is not the same as regular polygraph and not the same as PCSOT. Seems to me to be just another "professional" looking for new and "improved" ways of making a buck and using polygraph inappropriately. This, of course, is just my cynicism showing.

Problem is, this type of thinking can and will be abused and through improper use or abuse, may cost us all in the end, as previously stated by ebvan.

I just read it all again and my first thought is the robot on Lost and Space,

Warning! Warning!

Danger Will Robinson...!

My $.01

Jim

posted 08-13-2008 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

First off, how do you pre-test a crime(s) where you have no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, evidence, victim, etc?

---

Yes, often in missing persons cases. We have no idea where the person is, why the person "disappeared," or much of anything else, and yet we test (usually as if it's a murder) for a number of reasons.

The same is done in PCSOT. That is why therapists don't want LE running tests. We ask for victim names, which means new charges and responsibilities, which they don't want.

posted 08-13-2008 06:36 PM            

I won't say that there is an ethical argument here because no-one seems to be able to point to a code of conduct that might be violated by this practice.

That does not preclude establishing a moral position that may in the future lead to it's addition to a professional code of conduct. This would be a Deontological moral argument which would require that one has to identify the reasons why an act is moral or immoral in order to include it or prohibit it by moral code. In other words, you require an explanation as to why something is moral or immoral in order for it to be included.

On the other hand my position is that the unrestricted practice of this type of test "just because we can" has potential to damage our profession by causing an uproar that leads to prohibitive legislation ala EPPA. A teleological moral argument that the morality of an action must take into consideration the potential consequences, both good and bad, is just as valid when discussing the morality and ethics of a practice.

A pre-employment examination is conducted within the constraints of the application process with the goal of determining the suitability of a particular applicant for employment and is part of a process that includes multiple parts testing, physical agility, background investigation oral interview, all of which provide information affecting the hiring decision. All of these evaluations are entered into with the prior knowledge and written consent of the applicant.

PCSOT is conducted POST-CONVICTION within the constraints of training and protocols defined by the courts, treatment providers, corrections and at least a general consensus by the polygraph profession as to how, when and why these tests are conducted. The sexual history screening exam is conducted to Reduce denial/minimization.
Improve engagement/participation in treatment.
Identify previously undisclosed paraphelias that may undermine treatment if left undiscovered etc. All of which are intended to identify treatment objectives and improve communication between an offender and therapist inside the treatment setting. Generally this process is entered into with prior knowledge and consent of the examinee as a trade-off for being allowed to walk the streets.

Knock and Talk Polygraph has NO such constraints.

Without some type of restraint I believe the potential long term negative consequences of this type of examination becoming general practice outweigh its potential benefits.

As a criminal investigator with years experience I don't recall a single time that I just went out and picked up a guy off the street and interrogated him because I thought he was the type of guy who might commit a burglary absent some articulable reasonable suspicion that he was involved in a particular crime. Why should I do it with Polygraph?

I know that being drunk appears to increase the likelhood that an person involved in a minor collision will leave the scene to avoid the consequences of the accident and the penalties associated with DUI. Just because we know or suspect this, do you think that we should polygraph all drunk drivers to see if they have ever committeed a hit and run?

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

posted 08-14-2008 10:31 AM            

the ethical argument is (apparently) buried in the potential for misuse and abuse the application that "fishing" polygraph presents.

It is further secreted somewhere in the interpretation the public will have in its abuse when it is applied against otherwise and seemingly honest people who (for a multitude of reasons) will present false results and cause investigations to deviate from it's normal progressive path and true perpetrators will go unidentified.

Somewhere deep in the annals of "pre-conviction" sex offender testing will hide the fact that some examiners will abuse this protocol not as a means to seek and search for unknown and unsolved crimes, but rather a means to make more money.

More towards the surface, our detrators will attack us for abuse in the application of polygraph, all in the name of job security and financial payoff. That the apparent (not actual, because someone waived their rights) violation of constitutional rights of citizens not to be unduly harrassed by the government will go unheeded. Not to mention the actual harrassment that will exist because some detective, somewhere, is convinced a crime has been committed, the exmainee is guilty and we, the examiners just can't seem to put our fingers on it; keep testing!

Meanwhile, the father's of modern polygraph will sit and ponder (or roll over in their graves) the direction our profession has gone, now that we are testing people on unknown criminal activities, of which we do not suspect them of committing, have no knowledge of their crime, no identity of a victim, and all because, we can...

Good enough argument for me, Barry. No ethical issues exists here. Don't bother bringing this up next week; I'm in!

BTW, how much should I charge for all the additional series I'll be conducting...?

posted 08-14-2008 01:20 PM            

quote:

---

its abuse when it is applied against otherwise and seemingly honest people who (for a multitude of reasons) will present false results and cause investigations to deviate from it's normal progressive path and true perpetrators will go unidentified.

---

Hello Jim. They're not innocent. They're guys in possession of child porn. The public won't mind what you do to them, fair or not. (That doesn't make it right either.)

Jim,

My point is not to argue if this is good or not. It's to get people to stop declaring things ethical and unethical when it's becoming clear "ethical" and "unethical" have become words with a proprietary meaning in the polygraph community. We call things unethical when we don't like them - not because they are in fact unethical. And it seems we only do so to win arguments. In essence, we appeal to our own authority and don't reason things through.

If you want to use the term, then use it correctly and make an ethical argument. (You might have one.) To do otherwise is irresponsible, and it perpetuates our perceived ignorance of both science and philosophy.

posted 08-14-2008 02:59 PM            

I think I have identified why I see the proposition that testing people (i.e. criminal suspects) on issues they're not suspected of, just because we can, as an unethical application of polygraph.

I also understand the issue that you're attempting to limit the indiscriminate usage of the term "ethics." But, just because one person sees something (it) as an ethical act does not mean it is (or visa versus).

Just because one is guilty of say, "child porn" does not mean he is also involved in other, unknown, undetected criminal actions and the assumptive, presumptive quality of that belief is dangerous at many levels. Therefore, misusing polygraph as a so called tool to find other criminal acts, is, in my oinion, unethical.

Ethics, as a topic, is, a matter for manipulation and therefore not standardized or consistent. There are individual ethics, personal ethics, profession(al) ethics, organizational ethics, regional ethics, national ethics, etc. Not all are the same and not all are set in stone at the same levels by all involved.

I am not simply throwing around the term because it suits me. I use the term ethics very dilligently and deliberately; not because I am trying to win an argument.

It would seem that because I can not present an argument relative to an outlined and published statement of ethics suitable for modifying your opinion, and because my point is received simply as my "feelings" on the matter, that it is wrong and therefore not an issue of ethics, is in itself shortsighted.

posted 08-14-2008 03:31 PM            

Jim, my point is that we need ethical standards, I agree. How are we going to do that though? Shall we base it on consensus opinion, or should we think about issues reasonably and rationally to come to our conclusions and create the standards?

As far as this issue goes, I suggest you read the section on child porn in "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis." It's published by the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children. It's by Ken Lanning, formerly of the FBI, and it probably one of the most quoted sources in search warrant affidavits in child sex cases.

posted 08-14-2008 08:38 PM            

The really sad part is that these rules will be written and enforced by a group of legislators who don't know "come here" from "sickem" when it comes to anything but wasting our tax dollars.

We, as a profession need to establish reasonable guidelines for this type of test or we will be doomed by unreasonable ones. Call it ethics, call it morals, or just call it protecting our collective asses, we don't write standards for the ebvans, Barrys, Sacketts, etc in our profession we write them for the chart rollers, Grogans and 45 pounder with Geez polygraph graduates.

Our National Associations don't seem overly interested in setting standards that restrict anybodys ability to make a buck ethically, unethically, or otherwise. Until they (which is really we)are willing to take a stand in writing then the only way we can police ourselves is by consensus.

In my not so humble opinion running this type of "Knock and Talk" polygraph when you have ZERO information regarding Who, When, Where, Why, and How and only a vague idea of what, is not a good or proper use of polygraph. High motives does not turn a bad idea into a good idea. I really believe the consequences will involve more damage to polygraph than George and his evil minions could ever hope to accomplish on their best day.

At this point I feel I have made my feelings quite clear. You have made your feelings quite clear and we appear to be at impass.

I am interested on what the other examiners who have been observing this discussion from the peanut gallery think about this subject.

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

posted 08-14-2008 08:56 PM            

It was FBI presenters cited in the original post. The APA says we don't DQ based on screening exam results. Has that stopped the federal government from doing so? It hasn't (from what we here on this site anyhow).

What evidence do you have to show that this will hurt polygraph? We are now going to make moral judgments based on what could happen in the future by examiners who likely don't belong to our associations anyhow?

How about we take the lead and figure out how to do it right rather than run from it and leave it to the Graganites of the world. Do we have any idea how many police examiners Grogan might have "trained"? I'd bet there are some out there.

posted 08-15-2008 08:43 AM            

I have never had a request for one of these, but after reading the posts from both sides, I see no reason to decline if I did. As long as the suspect is willing to test and a client is willing to pay, why not? I doubt suspects in child porn cases will ever have enough public support for a protection type law.

One aspect of private polygraph practice, grossly underestimated by agency examiners, is the difficulty of earning a living in this profession. Except in those states that prohibit certain types of tests, no one and no association polices this profession. State boards and associations, where they exist are paper tigers. We can't police ourselves by consnesus because there is none. We do it individually, or not at all, and sadly not at all is leading. The examiners who post here are, in my estimation, the cream of the crop in this profession, and yet we can't even agree on the definition of an ethical issue.

posted 08-15-2008 06:27 PM            

Ultimately we have to avoid creating a market in an unethical way. I am reminded of a tire store that had a very slow quarter in sales. Under great pressure to keep his job, the store manager took some secret late- night drives around town tossing out various roofing nails and tacks of differing sizes in areas he and his family didn't traverse. Sure enough, business picked up. The work he did was good---never overcharging a customer and always selling tires, patches and plugs at a fair price. Of course polygraph examiners aren't creating bad guys, but we certainly have created some markets that many of us feel are a little staged. Perhaps it's not good enough to run great tests if the market is contrived.

posted 08-16-2008 05:30 AM            

I mean why in the heck should we wait until someone actually reports a crime before we start investigating? We're polygraph examiners.

Better yet, every time a parent finds a skin mag under their kid's mattress, let's polygraph him and then just to be safe put him in a treatment program for potential sex offenders and require periodic polygraphs in case he might decide to commit a crime in the future.

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