posted 06-08-2012 01:18 PM            

I was asked about this and told the examiner I did not like it because it violates basic rules for testing the examinee's intent. Do others' here agree? Is there any other way to phrase this type of question?

posted 06-08-2012 01:55 PM            

Q: "Did you intend to kill John when you shot him?" A: "I don't know. I was mad when I saw him in bed with my wife. I intended to hurt him or at least scare him, but I hadn't really considered that he'd die from a shot in the leg (which I missed...)."

It leads to this question:

posted 06-08-2012 07:59 PM         

Regarding.......do you INTEND to answer each of my questions truthfully?

posted 06-08-2012 10:59 PM            

Barry, I still argue that "Did you deliberately lie in Court? " concerns the examinees intent at the time they testified.... and therefore a bad relevant. The question " were you robbed..." is also a bad question because it does not describe a specific action committed by the examinee...

Anyone else have any thoughts? Anyone else going to next week's TALEPI conference ?

posted 06-09-2012 12:19 AM            

Lying is a behavior. We know what it means (or maybe we don't?). Asking "Did you lie" is similar to asking "Did you steal, kill, whatever.

I think Ted's point was that this "no intent question" issue is a bit absurd given that liars seem to react just as strongly to the SR that asks about intent as they do the other RQs. Why are they okay there?

We should avoid intent questions unless we can't avoid them is the rule of thumb. Usually when you have to, you aren't dealing with those situations that require a person to interpret a complex state of mind. If the person would know if he or she intended to act, then it's not an issue to get worked up over.

For example, "Did you intend to steal the candy bar when you put it in your bag?" The person either put it away to carry it or to steal it (pretty much). If you conceal something with the intent to steal it, you know what you did. "Intent" is embedded in much of what we ask a person. "Did you steal...?" What does it mean to steal? It means exercising unauthorized control over the property of another with the intent to deprive that person of it. No intent, no theft.

Have you ever heard the story about the guy who was feeling happy, shall we say, who tripped over the rug and landed on top of the woman, and could you believe it, a hole in one? Is he not testable because the issue is one of intent?

posted 06-09-2012 12:35 AM            

As to restructuring, I'd want to know more of the facts regarding the perjured testimony for possible use in one or more questions.

I'm not interested in whether or not the witness (intended) to lie, I want to know if in fact they did lie in their response to a specific question. Intent is simply a state of mind. I suspect we'll all agree pre-test is critical again relative to question construction and the words used.

Do I understand accurately it is known the subject's testimony is false; and the subject apparently admits the testimony is not truthful (after testifying)? How did this person learn their testimony was not accurate/truthful?

If I were to pretest this examinee, I'd want to ensure they understood the difference between saying something they knew was not true in response to a question versus learning (after) their answer/testimony what they stated was not accurate. Whether the subject intended to lie is not the issue. The issue is clearly whether or not when they answered a question(s) they knew their answer was not 100% accurate/truthful.

END.....

posted 06-09-2012 10:06 AM         

I'm sure you know, but Cleve says the use of "deliberately" is acceptable under some circumstances

posted 06-09-2012 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

"When you said XXXXX in court, did you know it was not true?"

---

That's no different than "Did you intentionally (or deliberately) provide false testimony...?"

I think the difference is probably more like Ford verses Chevy.

As long as the question is phrased in a way that allows the examinee to know without any complex reasoning, etc, that his or her answer is either true or false, then go with it.

posted 06-11-2012 12:56 PM            

Did you make that statement knowing at the time it was untrue?

Did you make that statement under oath knowing at the time it was untue?

Did you know that statement was false when you made it?

I personally don't care for "deliberately" or "intentionally" as they are states of mind that can change back and forth quickly depending on changing circunmstances.

For example you could ask a subject of alleged shoplifting who has given the defense that he forgot he placed the item in his coat pocket the following and have problems:

"Did you intentionally steal that item from that store?"

He may have thought about stealing the item and then decided to pay for it after seeing someone looking at him. He could then see that person leave the store and again decide to steal the item until he saw a camera in the ceiling and decided to pay for the item. He could then place the item in his pocket with the intention to pay for it and forget it was there while paying for several other items and leave.
The question "did you intend to steal" occurred at least twice in this case but he also intended to pay for the item twice as well. The beter question might be

"Did you pay for those others items, knowing at the time you had that "item" in your pocket?

"Did you leave that store, knowing at the time, you had not paid for "that item"?"

If he is asked "Did you intend to steal" he can't pass the test when in fact he did not actually kowingly remove the item from the store without paying for it as his intent switched from intending to steal to intending to pay twice over a very short period.

posted 06-11-2012 03:16 PM            

Back to my question from above, which Dan answered, but I want to spin this way since it got little movement: Does the question matter depending on whether the person is a true victim? What if the question were in regard to a rape instead of a robbery? Does it matter either way?

posted 06-12-2012 11:58 AM            

Not sure I understand your comment "The crime was complete when he exercised unauthorized control over the property of another [concealing it] with the intent - at any point - to deprive the owner of it." Getting away from polygraph and more into the elements of a crime with my next question.

Let's say you enter a store to buy a box of nails. While in the store you begin to look at some large items and holding the nails makes it difficult so you place the nails in your coat pocket. While continuing to browse you know you were not observed placing the nails in your coat and decide you will just walk out without paying for them. Are you suggesting a crime has been committed?

posted 06-13-2012 03:13 PM            

We generally want to address the behavior because that is what matters most - and because behavioral experience probably anchors response potential to polygraph questions, in the form of memory/cognition, emotion/fear of consequences, and conditioning/learning related to the stimulus question.

7.1.2.G states that we can ask question about memory, intent, state of mind or motivation when the examinee admits the behavioral concern and the issue of intent, memory, state of mind or motivation is the target of the investigation.

This proves useful when investigating those occasional incidents in which people enjoy too much punch and cookies and later claim not to remember and incident of sexual assault or sexual contact for which there may be some form of evidence that precludes denial of the incident.

The same rationale could be applied to other (non-sex) cases. If they admit the behavior and the target of the investigation is the intent then why not do it.

If we enact a hard and fast rule that we cannot then we might limit our ability to be helpful to referring professionals.

.02

r

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