posted 03-21-2007 06:42 PM            

It's anecdotal I know (and I'm sure we could all add numbers to this one), but I have only tested one juvenile (that I can think of) for a sex offense. He failed and confessed. Without polygraph he likely never would have received the "intervention" he needed to make sure it never goes beyond that. Would it have been better to avoid polygraph with this one? I doubt it.

What about the victims?

posted 03-22-2007 09:06 AM            

Right now in Utah, half of the therapists won't test people under 16....the other half won't proceed without the polygraph becuase of its benefit.

This therapist kept pressing me to find out if there was any research and I told her I would check and see if anyone I knew was aware of any lasting impact research on juveniles. My experience with the kiddos is after the polygraph they move forward not backwards!

posted 03-22-2007 12:50 PM            

I'm curious about the exact concern here, and I'm suspicious that your therapist is not really interested in the answer as much as handicapping the conversation.

Most therapists are well aware that tests themselves are not generally attached to concerns about long-term impact in the way that clinical or therapeutic interventions are. Tests are just tests. They give information. Is she asking about the long term impact of accessing more information?

On the other hand, we polygraph examiners have sometimes sold PCSOT as a form of intervention, and sometimes sold PCSOT as a form of consequence. Interventions and consequences are subject to long term impacts, and most therapists are well aware that there is a great absence of good long term outcome studies pertaining to most forms of intervention.

Keep in mind that not all therapists are dumb. I once observed a conversation between a polygraph examiner and a nationally recognized/published mental health expert. The examiner attempted to tell the mental health expert that she knows nothing about her clients without the polygraph. Regarding her clients' serious mental health issues, another examiner stated "the polygraph slices through all that pathology." Unfortunately, the therapist has been around for decades and knows Stan Abrams and his work from the 1970s regarding the polygraph and psychotic and mentally retarded persons.

We cannot afford to keep saying silly things. The Ohio supreme court case last year is an important lesson about the need to be careful about what we say and attempt to do with polygraph validity questions.

Most therapists (especially those working with juveniles) are going to be very cautious about generalizing carelessly from adults to juveniles, and from "normal" persons to persons with clearly identified exceptionalities.

You should be aware, that your therapist may be taking cues from the dialog at ATSA, whose membership and leadership is sometimes not real fond of the polygraph. Just look at the things they print and the conversation on their listserve.

We have long favored a scientific form of psychology in the US, and the current buzz words around the country are "evidence based."

We should also keep in mind that about half of all caught sex offenders are juveniles. Because the care and well-being of juveniles is a legislative mandate, with the obligatory fiscal appropriations, there is money to be made. Now, many of those legislative mandates require standards of practice and intervention methods be empirically based (evidence based).

Enter the good folks like Borduin and the Multisystemic Therapy (MST) crowd, and their ability to create and publish written descriptions of the validity and outcomes of a trademarked and proprietary (expen$ive) model, based on a carefully controlled intervention system (that is basically just good-ole social work) that does not include polygraph (don't ask/don't tell), and does not permit adjunct forms of intervention alongside MST (fidelity to the validated model - for research integrity - but coincidentally discourages generalization of knowlege to or from MST - can you say "LOCK-IN" - very good, now louder like Bill Gates would say it).

We've got work to do.

----------

(I loved the pic from the Kubrick film. I'll have my son photoshop it onto a shot of the Haggard/Jones massage table.)

r

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

posted 03-22-2007 03:30 PM         

Opportunity=privelidge of parole/probation, MH treatment, ability to prove merit/varacity, ability to work (under fire huh), ability to live with society (under nuclear fire huh)

Capacity= Native inteligence, responsibility, ability to be accurately evaluated (risk assessment), Ability to work (physical/mental), ability to empathize (!)

Motivation (pain + hope)= feels the bottom, recognizes the pain to others and self from past/present behavior, dreads or even experiences the polygraph (unearthed)consequences and being "outed" in front of peers, and finally has hope to be a better person, live a better life, and treat people with respect---which will lead to less or no pain.

A staggeringly simplistic rendition, But, when you apply the formula to both unsuccessful Offenders and successful Offenders, the formula reveals the weaknesses of the team, the laws, and more importantly the Offenders themselves.

That being said, when you remove or have a void of any of these components (exponents) there is a risk to society (imo.) Polygraph (disclosures)serve to be a far better revealer of capacity, and the more consistant invoker of pain than any other tool in use today. I never believed poly charts (sorry "chart rollers")to be the end all, but the disclosures of undiscovered risk -assessment adjusting behaviors (in my book) are unmatched.

As for kiddie testing, sometimes boys do some pretty nasty stuff once only----and get caught (we all know this stuff). Those youths I feel rather sorry for. Other boys (imo) are full blown pediphiles-----fixated for life. How else is the therapist going to be able do a reality-based risk eval----her gut?
If you use the formula on youths, there are some stark defficiencies within their capacities, and motivations---probably (IMO) more so than the adult population.

Lastly, if we waited for repeated, peer reviewed studies on efficacy of long term treatment, my kids would have already been molested at the ymca. (slight exaggeration, but you get the point).Studies show that treatment is better than no treatment, and poly is better than no poly. Last week I had 2 offenders locked up for confessing to reoffending. On one case, the man was a "star" in group. rant done.

p.s. Regarding the Haggard issue---I love to see right-wing evangelicals exposed as sexual "deviants" as much as conservatives love to see liberals revealed as thieves.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-22-2007).]

posted 03-22-2007 06:55 PM            

Gail Ryan, (who literally wrote the book on juvenile sex offending) correctly admonished the arrogant examiner that good therapists know an awful lot about the clients even before and/or without the polygraph.
http://www.amazon.com/Juvenile-Sexual-Offending-Consequences-Correction/dp/0787908436

The polygraph is additive to the assessment, intervention and risk management process, but does not itself define those processes.

Gail is not a big fan of the polygraph, but has referred a few juveniles to me.

She was vocal in many discussions before the Colorado SOMB decided to require polygraph with juveniles (age 14), but once conceded that going to a polygraph, or PPG, may be easier or less invasive to a youth than been questioned and doubted in group for weeks or months at a time - just get it done.

The main way we won that approval or requirement was by providing language, in standards of practice, that clearly defined how we would thoughtfully identify those youths for whom we might anticipate the test to be of seriously compromised or questionable validity, and by forgoing the language of "deception indicated" in favor of "significant reactions." Semantics is everything sometimes. Another important achievement was to assure clinical and team judgment around every test. For example: we don't have 6 month maintenance polygraph with juveniles. We do them when we want to - randomly. We use the polygraph as a transition support tool - to assess compliance at a certain level of structure prior to transitioning to a less restrictive environment. Or, we tell the kid we're going to polygraph him within about two to four months after a mandatory transition (mandatory parole), in attempt to leverage maximum deterrent value to support stable adjustment/compliance in the new placement. Research in D&A intervention shows that random testing is a more effective deterrent than scheduled periodic testing. (You can go to Las Vegas to observe the other potent and durable effects of randomized reinforcement schedules.)

At some point, we may need to start answering the tough questions about juveniles, screening validity, and contribution to outcomes. There are some not so stupid people at ATSA, who are sometimes willing to ask the questions and publish their expert opinion on the matter. Read the Kokish article - in which they state that offenders claim to have admitted to things they didn't do.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g25l0110367h0240/

We can be as arrogant as makes us feel good about ourselves or helps us sell polygraph tests, but arrogance does not earn long term respect. On the other hand, its not hard to anticipate the long term of effects of a steady trickle of statements from "respected" folks like Kokish, Levinson, and Blasingame.

The real challenge is to find credible evidence based answers to the tough questions.

r

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

posted 03-22-2007 08:47 PM         

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-22-2007).]

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-22-2007).]

posted 03-22-2007 09:29 PM            

I hope your not suggesting I'm not being "real," (its beginning to feel like an EST workshop).

I'm a little uncomfortable putting numbers to it the way you do, but I agree with you if your point is that sex offender treatment may represent a captive market that attracts "therapists" that might not otherwise attract therapy clients.

Peace,

r

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

posted 03-23-2007 09:01 PM            

The work week is over. Time for some punch and cookies.

I would rather prioritize ethical values to the field of therapy, though I do think that testing, diagnosis and measurement is inherently scientific and mathematical. If not, then we too are a bunch of artists or shamen, and the voodoo accusations are rather tough to counter. Lessee what happens if we tell the not-so-dumb folks at ATSA that polygraph isn't really science but art. I predict they would lose interest in PCSOT - real fast.

Can you send me an email offline? I have a form of proposal or question for you.

Niters,

(I'm off to smudge the poltergiest out of my house now.)

r

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