posted 05-29-2008 06:57 PM            

We use it routinely in Colorado.

The .pdf was from a powerpoint that included suggested PCSOT target questions for maintenance, monitoring, and disclosure exams, and included examples of what I consider to be "questionable-questions."

So, my question is...

what's wrong with "sexual contact" in a test question?

r

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

posted 05-29-2008 08:18 PM            

In my conversation with Ray he stated: 'Sexual Contact' is a behavior that is statutorily defined in all states. It has a well constructed meaning: rubbing or touching of someone's private parts for sexual arousal or sexual stimulation.

I personally hate questions w/for any reason other than hygiene? Why can't we ask 'dyh sexual contact with ... and define hygiene and sexual contact ?

So if this term is in statute why has there been all the concern over this verbiage?

I would also like a discussion over the term 'Victim - DYH any additional victims' and 'amount of abuse' As Ray stated to me earlier - victim refers to someone else's status, not the offenders behavior......

(Thanks Ray for your input)

posted 05-29-2008 10:35 PM            

That said, I like "DY...for sexual reasons" and for the smarter examinees "DY....for the purpose of sexual arousal" or "DY....to create a sexual event." (that last one to get around the bathing issue for parents)

My examples can easily be argued to have the same ambiguities. But I'd be happy to debate them point by point.

Lastly, I think we should be careful when "defining the meanings" of words/ phrases" in the "pretest." We can define 'til we're blue in the face, but words mean to me what they meant long before an examiner with bad teeth told me what they REALLY mean. I'm guilty of attempting to redefine meanings in pretests---and it's a clusterF. Take the word "pornography." Ya better ask what the therapist is calling porn before you arbitrarily put it in a series and pretest what YOUR definition of it is. You just might find that the offender's therapist tells the group week after week after week---outnumbering your song and dance pretest 20-1---that porn is ANYTHING sexually arousing to include even cleavage on a soap opera. Such vague definitions of porn---and in my opinion even "sexual contact" ---can take on the aura of a control (comparson) question to some of the more hypervigileant offenders.

posted 05-29-2008 10:36 PM            

I routinely use "sexual contact" in maintenance/monitoring examinations. When you say we know and they know what we mean, I disagree.

We may look at it as a statutory issue but sex offenders can watch Disney movies and see "porn", touch a child on the buttocks like in sports, (harmless for us) and see an "in" for development of fantasy for their own use.

As long as we know and can apply what we know to the offender then we're OK. If we take a non-predatory attitude or legalistic opinion when dealing with the perv's, we will miss it.

posted 05-29-2008 11:48 PM            

Part of the challenge of PCSOT and polygraph in general is, to borrow a phrase from stat, "keep it real."

Playing too many word games only causes confusion and makes us look silly. I recently had a conversation with a therapist who was arguing that exhibitionism and voyeurism constitute "sexual contact." Legally they do not, though they do constitute a form of sexual offense or indecency.

here is a description 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.

---

To behavioral scientists, this is what is called an "operational definition." Its the answer to the questions "what do we mean when we say..." and "what would it look like if someone did that?"

This definition parallels the statutory description of the term "sexual contact," but is intentionally broader. First, you'll notice the term "sexual curiosity" (in quote). This is because offenders try to de-sexualize their behavior, and we want to know about it. Its an obvious distortion of logic and justification for bad behavior. But its productive - its gets the disclosure going. Another difference with statutory definitions is the inclusion of sexual kissing (yes, they know they difference between the way they kiss their ma and the way they kiss their girlfriends). Most sex offender therapists and POs would be interested to know about an adult offender who has engaged in kissing activities with any underage person. The behavior itself may not meet legal definitions for sexual contact, but the point of PCSOT tests is generally for supervision and treatment, and rarely for court/evidentiary purposes. So kissing matters. Most married people would have an awful lot of 'splainin to do if they were involved in some kissing activities with someone who was not their spouse.

A few years back I heard Dan Sosnowski give examples with the language "for a sexual reason." That language is not well respected here in Colorado, because we've become careful to avoid language that refers to motivation or intent.

There was a revocation case a few years ago, in which an offender was reported as having admitted to sexual contact with a minor while riding the bus. The description, excavated later during the court proceedings, was that a minor touched his arm incidentally. He admitted to some arousal or sexual thoughts about that, and examiner reported it as sexual contact because he thought sexually about it. I believe the revocation was not upheld.

Masturbating to a Disney movie does not "make" the Disney movie into pornography, any more than sitting on a table makes a table into a chair. It is being used "as if" it were pornography or a table. That is all. To suggest otherwise, takes us back to the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound. Human behavior (human observation) does not define the existence of things or events. Things and events are what they are. We sometimes observe them and sometimes don't. Just as we sometimes sit on tables, and sometimes pound tent stakes with a rock (as if it were a hammer).

Sure masturbating to Disney movies is a problem. Masturbating to the cherubs on the Kleenex box would be consider a problem behavior - but its still a Kleenex box (though evidently some people can't be trusted or can't control themselves with them). Communicating a description of the behavior would be much more useful that to report to a therapist or PO that someone had masturbated to pornography.

This confusion occurs because we over-utilize labels as a means of communication, and under-utilized descriptions of problem behavior. That said, it is still important to have a clear operational definitions (OD) for what we mean. Well-intentioned therapists have sometimes mucked things up, with terms like pornography, exhibitionism, and other terms.

Just as human behavior does not define the existence of things or events, motivation and intent does not define a behavior. We get confused on this because of legalistic thinking which does seem to emphasize establishment of a crime through intent or culpability (mens rhea).

In behavioral science, and linguistics, behaviors are not defined by intent. Riding a bike is riding a bike. Walking is walking. Sexual contact is a form of exception, because sexual contact is defined by intent - sexual arousal/gratification/stimulation. Lying is another example - intent to deceive (Therefore we have varying opinions on whether the famous 16 words "we have it on credible evidence..." were or were not a lie - depending on whether someone was or was not misinformed himself.)

There is no easy or simple answer for this.

It is the therapists role to teach the offender to understand what constitutes unlawful and abusive behavior, what behavior is probably a real bad idea even if not unlawful, and what is within normal limits. And yes, therapists are concerned about intent and motivation, self-actualization, what is the the meaning of life, what is the meaning of death, and why do we spend so much time in between wearing digital watches. All these things are far too intangible for polygraph testing.

In Colorado, we reviewed this point by point, in a committee of experienced POs, therapists, and polygraph examiners. It made no sense to do it any other way, because the points of divergence, as stat points out, are to many and too troublesome.

The best solution, in my view, is to stick to the basic principles, and remain reasonably aligned with the language that will make or break a court decision, in the event it has to go there. The purpose of the test is not for court, but it would be nice to win if there is ever going to be a contest. Such a contest would involve the court deciding something like whether "sexual contact" had or had not occurred, along with the other circumstances that define the unlawful context of that sexual contact. Playing a bunch of psychologized motivational/intent word-games like "to create," and "for a sexual reason," don't seem to facilitate the most direct resolution of the concern.

We're best off learning to deal with the commonly accepted language of sexual contact.

Story: A while ago i staffed a case on an adult offender, and had one of those "therapeutic shit-fits" over the revelation of a secret girlfriend. Somewhere in the process we timed-out all sexual contact, and I told the guy "no smashing bodies together and no swapping fluids." He took that literally, not realizing that was just Ray's hyperbole, and he revealed at the next polygraph all kinds of continued sexual touching/fondling - but no smashing bodies together and no swapping fluids...

.02

PS: stat, how's the new house? Are painting still? Did you start the kids clubhouse yet? Is your yard big enough for my catapult if I bring it to Indy for APA?

r

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

posted 05-30-2008 08:45 AM            

Sex Sex Sex. WE are a twisted lot. Dirty Sanchez', Rusty Trombone, Spacedocking, Watersports-----we have too much human perversion rolling around in our heads. Too bad God wasn't clearer on commandments i.e. "Though Shalt not Stimulate a Vagina with a Turd (spacedocking)"

I have been nonestop battling the house and even my cars and truck. Here is a partial list of what I've been doin the last week:
1. Put up new gutters-----the old ones had seen too many Indiana springs. The guy who came out to bend the seemless gutters for me to intastall was a first class ass. Welcome to Evansville!

2. Half of the electrical outlets were crap. It's like a constant contest 'round here--"WILL the next outlet give power?" Find out after these messages.

3. I had to replace a side window in my shitbox minivan---the wind took it off the hinges. While I was centering the window, the epoxy dried so fast, it's forever misalligned with the others. Great. Oxidized paint AND now a crooked rear quarter window. Classy for sure.

4. I accidentally over charged the R134 refridgerant in my Silverado and sprung a chuck leak. I'll never forgive myself for that one. I took my eyes off of the guage for a milisecond while charging-----"Danger Will Robinson."

5. My riding mower was left out in the elements at brother-in-laws for 3 years and had more problems that I can shake a stick at. Tore it down to bare cylinders and unscored the head. It's a sin to spend so much time on a GD lawn mower----only in America. People starving in Africa, and I'm pouring sweat over a lawn tractor like it's a vital agricultural life saver.

6. No club house yet. There is 20 milivolts of electricity coming out of the water---as the numbnut who wired this house didn't ground the mains into the ground, but rather grounded it to the cold water spicket. Idiot. I can't feel it, but wife and kids with thinner skin get shocked when washing hands. In years to come, I'll laugh. Right now, I've upped the prozac.

7. Ray, I cannot be trusted with your catapult, as I'm afraid at 4am I'll use it to launch the neighbors barking dog into the nearby VFW dumpster. I've never hated an animal so much. I'm praying for it to get some form of unpronounceable dog's disease.

Life is good though, thanks for the good will.

EJ

posted 05-30-2008 10:02 AM            

quote:

---

I understand and respect your point Bill2, but as was mentioned earlier, sexual contact doesn't address the world of innapropriate "events" that take place between offender and mark. Sexual contact and a "sexual act"/sexual event" is slightly different. I do agree that "sexual reasons" is also a goofy phrase---arguably as smokey as "...contact"

---

I disagree. "Sexual contact" is arguably far less smokey than "sexual act" or "sexual event," as it has a common definition.

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

---

from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s039.htm

quote:

---

Sex Sex Sex. WE are a twisted lot. Dirty Sanchez', Rusty Trombone, Spacedocking, Watersports-----we have too much human perversion rolling around in our heads. Too bad God wasn't clearer on commandments i.e. "Though Shalt not Stimulate a Vagina with a Turd (spacedocking)"

---

I'm afraid to Google that stuff, and I haven't heard of it except from a small minority of the most deviant offenders.

It is important to be clear about the sometimes different language we use during the pre-test/shake-down and the actual testing phase of the examination.

Nothing will ever inform us of every single transaction that occurs between some offenders and victims. We will never know everything, and it is a disservice to victims to assume or pretend that we do. I know a well respected examiner from Colorado who used to ask, "Did you do anything else to your victim that you have not included on your victim form?" Having run a victim treatment program, I know that there is always more impact that appears later. We cannot ever allow ourselves to assume we know everything an offender did to a victim. We cannot. I was not our rectum that was ripped open. Some of the impact of the abuse may not have even yet appeared, and may manifest itself in some later difficulty.

The point is to get enough detail that a treatment and supervision team gain an understanding of the possible impact on the victim and the range of behaviors for the offender.

In a sexual history or maintenance exam, the investigation is generally about sexual offenses against or sexual contact with yet unreported persons.

quote:

---

Ray, I cannot be trusted with your catapult, as I'm afraid at 4am I'll use it to launch the neighbors barking dog into the nearby VFW dumpster. I've never hated an animal so much. I'm praying for it to get some form of unpronounceable dog's disease.

---

Just as well. I haven't yet figured out how to mount a catapult onto a pick-up truck.

r

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

posted 05-30-2008 01:27 PM            

That is why it is dangerous to ask a question that includes motive in it, e.g., sexual "gratification."

She has a great website with lots of handouts:
http://www.annasalter.com/handouts.html

(We need to get her to a seminar. She's pro-polygraph.)

In any event, if you read the definition Ray quoted, you will see how lawmakers have recognized that not all "sexual" offenses are necessarily "sexual" in nature - as far as the offender is concerned. We should be as cautious as examiners too. (If the government can't prove the necessary intent, e.g., sexual gratification, then a person motivated by something else, e.g., humiliation of the victim, could avoid prosecution or conviction. The question is, could we ask the wrong question and miss our target?

posted 05-30-2008 01:56 PM            

However, it makes sense to adopt the simplest and most commonly understood solution to the problem. That solution is "sexual contact."

Adopting some fancy-language, fancy-concept, or fancy-question solution doesn't solve anything. It only complicates the mess further, and makes us look silly to our detractors.

I've talked to Dr. Salter. She is supportive of the use of polygraph, but there are some things about polygraph which she does not quite understand. She will also tell you that sexual arousal, sexual gratification, sexual thinking are a component of most sexual offenses. Most garden-variety sexual offenders do so for sexual gratification. Legal minds have grapelled with this, and don't have a comprehensive solution. Thankfully, it is only a small minority of the most deviant and dangerous offenders that do so for reasons other than sexual gratification - rage, revenge, some traumatic abreaction, who knows.

Having talked to a few thousand sex offenders, I'll argue that most will eventually admit that it's about sexual gratification. I recently spoke with an offender that was kissing with an adult female, who was not his girlfriend. He said "but it wasn't sexual." One question: would do that there kissing with a male friend? Cleared the matter up.

Another recent offender, was hugging on women at his workplace - in violation of instructions from his probation officer. He said "it wasn't sexual." One question: do you hug your male coworkers that same way? Alternate question: would you hug on the homely or ugly female coworkers? Answer: no way, OK it's for sexual gratification.

Most sex offenders do not possess magical powers of rationalization - its obvious, and un-tangleable. We pin them down and they admit. It does no real good to mystify their powers. They are just damaged and dangerous people.

Asking about sexual contact works just fine. At times thought, it is helpful to ask about more descriptive behaviors such as "rubbing or touching the sexual organs of another person," or "rubbing or touching anyone's bare private parts."

Obviously exposing and voyeuring present special problems. More on this later. The thing to keep in mind is that we'll never know everything, and we're never going to solve all the problems. The correct thing to to do is to endorse the most parsimonious solution, given our present knowledge. That parsimonious solution is "sexual contact." If we have other, more specific, then we ask about those directly.

.02

r

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

posted 06-01-2008 10:44 AM            

As an adult, HYH sexual contact with any other mintors?

DYH sexual contact with any family member?

DY penetrate any of the minors you had sexual contact with?

DYH oral contact with any of the minors you had sexual contact with?

DYE threaten any of the minors you had sexual contact with?

Can we use a broad question: Are you withholding any sexual abuse you did to the minors?

We really need to keep the amount of questions down so what questions would or are you all using on a SH?

posted 06-01-2008 11:14 AM            

Did you have sexual contact with any other family member that you did not disclose on your questionnaire?

Did you engage in a sex act with any other person under the age of 10 that you did not disclose in your questionnaire?

Other than one time, did you ever have sexual contact with your brother/sister?

Did you sexaully touch any other person that you did not disclose on your questionnaire?

------------------
"Truth Seekers"

posted 06-01-2008 11:29 AM            

I thought the comments in the past couple of years was not to refer to 'the questionnaire' or history report.

See this is one major gripe I have with Polygraphs - nothing is consistent and it depends on who you talk to as to what answer you will get.

What about the rest of you? Do you use 'questionnaire?'

posted 06-01-2008 08:04 PM            

When I went to PCSOT certification (2002) I was told not to ask if they were withholding any info from the SH report/questionnaire as it was too broad. B4 that we ran a lot of additional tests but we also got to the bottom of ALL of their deviant behaviors.

When I first started in polys we asked:

Are you withholding any additional victims? Are you withholding any additional abuse on your victims that you have not reported? and - Did you add anything to your sexual history report that is not true?

I can't tell you how many times they hit on the third question - and most of it related to their own abuse.

I have worked with SO's for over 20 years and been in Polys for 7 years. This past week I went back to the term S/C. I would really like to hear specific questions everyone is asking on SH tests to deal with the amount of abuse they inflicted on their victims? and are they referring to thier questionnaire?

posted 06-01-2008 09:13 PM            

Test results are ideally useful not only to the examiner, but to risk managers (probation) and risk evaluators (clinicians) And that speaks to why we wan't therapists involved with sex offenders: not because we can change them, but because clinical expertise is useful in understanding them (their behavior, motivation, pathology, and risks). Questions about lying to the examiner, or lying to the questionaire are of little use. Questions about behaviorally descriptive offense activities, pertaining to victim selection and victim impact, are of great usefulness to risk evaluators and risk managers. For example: violent offenses, (for offenders who are violent, we monitor their relationships more carefully. For those who are not, we monitor their grooming and manipulativeness aggressively, because their next victims might not notice they are being assaulted at the time. Incest offenses tell us to manage the threat to those closest to the offenders. Underage victims: we'll have to be very careful about any contact or relationships with minors. Sleeping/incapacitated victims - you get the picture.

We do not ask about the booklet. The booklet is not the stimulus. Nor is the examiner. The stimulus is the question, representing a behavior in which the offender may have engaged. To introduce other dimentions of stimuli is to provide excuses (e.g., "I was confused about the booklet," or "he scared me and I was reaction to the examiner"). The question regarding a behavior is the stimulus. That way, we reduce the likelihood that causes other than involvement in the behavior would cause a reaction.

more later.

r

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