posted 06-17-2008 10:15 PM         

Issue: Client is on probation for an Internet Initiated Sex Crime (IISC). Client engaged in sexual conversations with who he believed to be a 15-year-old female on several occasions via chat room. During the conversations with the undercover persona, he discussed several sexual acts that they would engage in if they met in person. After several communications, they arranged for an in person meeting. The client traveled approximately 50 miles. Upon reaching the location where they planned to meet, he was arrested by law enforcement.

The client does not dispute traveling to meet the minor; however, he stated he was going to tell them to go home when he arrived. The client stated that that he realized what he was doing was wrong after leaving his home. He has maintained this explanation since his arrest and adamantly denies that he was planning to have sexual contact with the individual. The client is not progressing in treatment. So, I’m interested in anyone’s thoughts associated with this. So here are my questions: (1) Can this be addressed since the primary issue is related to intent?; and (2) If yes, what relevant questions would you ask?

Marty

posted 06-18-2008 12:03 AM         

This is an easy one. Read the police report!

What was in his possession at the time of arrest? Condoms? Beer? Zema? Pot? Other drugs? Photos? Sex toys? Clothing? Bathing suit?

Or was it informational material on how not to be a victim on the internet?

These freaks always say that they were just trying to prevent a young child from falling prey to a pervert.BULL@*%^ !!

Ted

posted 06-18-2008 01:06 AM         

That was not an attempt to highlight a type of cognitive distortion. No items were in possession at the time of arrest. Upon search, seizure and forensic analysis of hard drives, external storage devices, etc. no additional evidence was found.

posted 06-18-2008 10:54 AM         

Someone is not giving you the full story. If the "client" was conversing on the net with an undercover cop that the "client" thought was a 15 year old girl, the entire conversation would be retained as evidence. Althought the polygraph won't help you to find out what this guys "intent" was, his conversation on the net and his behavior clearly does.

posted 06-18-2008 04:31 PM            

please clarify the purpose of this examination. What type of test are you considering employing? Is this sexual history, instant offense, maint, monitoring, etc?

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm confused as to what you are trying to discover through the use of polygraph?

posted 06-19-2008 12:50 AM         

Please refer to the previous thread about my "Louisville Slugger Fib Detectin' Unit"

posted 06-19-2008 12:04 PM         

I should have provided additional clarification when I initially posted this issue. There are two primary issues of denial with Internet solicitations to law enforcement by the offenders: (1) denial that there is a victim; and (2) denial regarding the intent of their meeting. This comes in spite of the fact that the offender perceived the online persona as a minor and discussed engaging in sexual contact with the individual upon meeting. It is clear cut on the front end assessment: they engaged in sexual communication with someone who they believed to be a minor, the set up an in person meeting, and they went to the location.

Following conviction and placement in sex offender treatment many of the individuals continue denial (e.g. I’m not one of those sex offenders…I wouldn’t have done anything, etc.). The issue is specific to the instant offense polygraph which is used to assist in breaking denial. When the primary issue of denial is specific to intent, we encounter serious difficulties due to the limitations of testable issues. Unfortunately, the ability to discharge individuals from treatment due to this single issue can be limited.

So at the end of the day, are there any testable issues if they brought no items with (i.e. drugs, ETOL, sexual paraphernalia, etc.), there was no motel rented, etc.? Do you believe that behaviors such as traveling and the set-up qualify as testable issues if pretested extensively? For example:

(1) Are you lying about the meeting you set-up with X?
(2) Are you withholding any information about the meeting you set-up with X?
(3) Etc.

Set-up could be defined as any preparatory behaviors they engaged in preparing for the meeting (i.e. grooming behaviors such as shaving, showering, cleaning their vehicle so the minor could get in, finding another location to go after meeting the minor, etc.). Now I don’t like the questions listed above and I know they’re pushing limits, but if they were extensively pretested might they be effective in breaking denial? Possibly. So, I’m looking for anyone’s thoughts.

posted 06-19-2008 01:08 PM         

I think your questions are way too broad for a specific issue test. It leaves your subject with way too much wiggle room. Why not just hit him between the eyes with a copy of the chat log. It contains his own words which are the same words that convicted him!

posted 06-19-2008 01:55 PM            

Sounds to me like you may have a wimpy therapist who is trying to use the polygraph to avoid direct positive confrontation with the offender. Tell the therapist to buck up and be a man (or woMAN).

If not, you may see more and more testing requests falling outside of your abilities and outside the scope of polygraph's abilities.

posted 06-19-2008 03:59 PM         

I appreciate your responses. Unfortunately I have two papers due tomorrow night, along with a presentation and a final this weekend for grad school. So I may have come across as a bit serious lately.

I generally agree that the issues allow for too much “wiggle room” due to their broad nature. Obviously there are inherent differences between multiple issue examinations vs. single issue examinations, and the signal value is decreased with such questions due to the number of factors involved with the relevant question. However, how significantly different is it from asking someone if they are withholding or “intentionally” withholding information about their involvement with illegal drug use or falsifying information about their application, etc.? Does one question provide more salience than another if pretested similarly? I understand that the questions become more exploratory in nature, however, I am interesting in gaining an understanding about what our logic is in using certain relevant questions in one context compared to another.

posted 06-19-2008 05:21 PM            

Does anybody remember back in the 80's when cops working kiddy porn ended up exchanging letters back and forth between each other trying to make a case?

Seriously, laws are being re-written because of the argument that you can't really have an attempt to commit a crime unless there was a possibility of a suspect completing the crime. If a suspect was grooming what ultimately turned out to be an adult, there was no way that his specific acts of corespondance could have led to the commission of a crime because the intended victim was not really underage.

Don't get me wrong, identify a real perv and I'll bring the skinning knife, but in reality a whole lot of government grant money is being spent so cops can talk dirty to each other.
End of Rant

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

posted 06-20-2008 10:16 AM            

Think about it. The guy knew weather he was going there intent on having sex or not. Why would the question not have enough salience to provoke a response? Or, do you think the question is so broad polygraph has become an interrogation prop?

We use "intent" questions in screening exams to make it easier for people to pass a test. Rather than ask "In your entire life have you used more drugs than you disclosed?" which might be accurately answered with an "I don't know," we might ask "Are you now intentionally withholding information regarding your use of drugs?" It's pre-tested with an explanation that the question isn't asking if there might be drugs he's forgotten about, but rather the question means "right now, do you KNOW you should be telling me something that you haven't and are INTENTIONALLY not telling me about it?" Does that make sense?