Author
|
Topic: Opposite results in sex offender tests
|
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-07-2004 08:15 AM
I have an attorney asking me why an examinee failed a police exam (by the examiner who preceded me), but (a few years) later passed a private exam.The private examiner asked the following (in a DoDPI Bi-zone): Did you ever fondle X's vagina for your own sexual gratification? Did you fondle X's vagina for your own sexual gratification while she was alone in your care? The police examiner asked the following (in a ZCT with the old "knowledge module"): Did you ever touch X's genitals for any sexual purpose? Have you ever touched X's genitals for a sexual reason? Other than what you told me, have you ever touched X's genitals? Do you know for sure who touched X? (Knowledge module) (It's not listed in the report, but he must have asked the "YOU" portion of the knowledge module as well.) I have not attended the PCSOT training, but have studied sex offense testing in basic polygraph school. I've also had training in investigating sex offenses, and I know that not all sex offenders offend for "sexual gratification." If this examinee is one of those who offended (if he really did it) for some other reason - or has at least rationalized he did so for another reason - he might have considered himself truthful in his denials. Am I reading too much into this, or am I right to be skeptical? I haven't seen any charts yet, but I want to take a look at both of them (old and new) to see if the examinee has "studied" one of the CM sites since it was a few years between tests. While on the topic, what does everybody like to use for questions in these situations (generically, of course)? IP: Logged |
Ted Todd Member
|
posted 06-07-2004 10:08 AM
BarryIn my opinion, the private examiner's questions left the door wide open for rationalization. IE: "Hell no we were not alone-my wife was downstairs" or "I didn't do it for sexual gratification-I did it so I could masturbate late and get gratification". Looking at the private examiner's charts may tell you something but I would want to see the video! Did he down play the allegation and jack up the controlls? Take care, Ted IP: Logged |
sackett Moderator
|
posted 06-07-2004 11:42 AM
Barry, your answer may be in the testing techniques used. It appears the police examiner ran an MGQT and the private guy used a Bi-Zone. There are a lot of opinions out there, but I would suggest that the Bi-Zone affords every chance for the examinee to pass, while the MGQT is a lot harder to do so. One reason, bracketing controls versus 2 CQ for 4 RQ's. I woud not opine further on the "why" of this testing; however, I do not think the word fondling, versus touching, with rationale, allows for that much rationalization. Another issue... what of the CQ's used at both. Were they appropriate? This is a big possible reason. Further, on a specific accusation, why would anyone ask a do you know for sure question? I do not think the answer is deeply rooted in the problem with proper PCSOT training, but somewhere above. Lastly you wrote, "I know that not all sex offenders offend for "sexual gratification." I disagree. It IS about the sex and sexual gratification (power through sex and all that...), otherwise abuse would manifest itself in other forms/manners. That's like saying rape is a crime of violence, not sex... Huh? If this was the case, why not just beat the crap out of her...? Sorry for the political incorrectness. Looking at the charts would be a start. Also, the CQ's (refer to above). Normally, on non-PCSOT testing, sex and sex- lie CQ's are what I have used sucessfully. I do not do PCSOT, but recall there is a special consideration of CQ's for them. Good Luck, Jim IP: Logged |
skipwebb Member
|
posted 06-07-2004 11:48 AM
I'm not aware of any DODPI protocol that would have someone ask an examine accused of sexually touching someone's vagina "Do you know for sure who touched X 's vagina?" as part of a ZCT test format. It seems to be a prettty weird question to ask on this type of test to me. I'm also a little confused with the question "Other than what you told me, have you ever touched X's genitals?. Wouldn't a question such as "Have you ever touched X's genitals for a reason different than what you told me about?" account for any alleged innocent touching for hygiene purposes or accidental touching the examinee may have admitted to during the pre-test? IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-07-2004 12:03 PM
The "Do you know for sure..." question is part of the old SKY (Suspicion - Knowledge - You) add-on to a DoDPI ZCT. It's not an MGQT test. (The "Do you know..." and "Did you..." are compared against the "Do you suspect..." question.) So, there are three CQs per test (lie controls in this - the police - test), plus the "suspicion" question when the SKY module is added on. (In this case - and I haven't seen the whole video yet - it looks like he added it to charts two and three.)In question 10, which is usually an evidence-connecting question, the examiner used another strong relevant instead of a weak relevant. Why I don't know. I just started watching the video. In regard to the "sexual gratification" issue (and I agree it is about sex, but it doesn't matter what I think), some rationalize they were only "educating" the victim at the time, etc. (Yes, I caught the "while she was alone in your care" phrase, but I was more curious about what people thought of the "sexual gratification" phrase.) IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-07-2004 12:10 PM
Skip, it looks like we were posting at the same time, and I think I addressed the first portion of your question in my last post.As far as the "Other than what you told me..." question goes, the examiner was talking about those things you mentioned (bathing, etc), which the examinee had disclosed. (I like your version better, but I don't see much difference - unless I'm missing something.) Once I watch the entire video I might have more to add (or maybe more questions). Thanks. IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie Moderator
|
posted 06-07-2004 06:38 PM
If the private test came later it is possible the subject had nothing to lose. Nothing to lose sometimes equals no fear of the outcome, therefore, no response to the relevant issue.Remember, sometimes a private examiner has to let the subject know that the results can have consequences, regardless of what their attorney says. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-08-2004 07:47 AM
I've been thinking about the "for your own sexual gratification" phrase some more. Doesn't that shift the focus off the act (the wrongful touching) and towards one's motives, purpose or intent - something we should avoid at all costs?I don't necessarily care why he did it (presuming the given examinee is guilty), but I do want to know (based on polygraph) he did do it. Once he comes to grips with performing the offense, then we can discuss the whys - if he knows. I have a hard time believing a situational offender who loses control (for whatever reason I can't understand) is going to be willing to admit to himself - let alone me or anybody else - he did something like this for "sexual" gratification. What if he felt no "gratification" at all, but rather intense guilt and remorse? Did he then do it for that purpose? Again, the issue is intent, and if he didn't achieve his initial goal I would expect him to have to rationalize and minimize his acts in order to live with himself. (Reasoning, "I wasn't gratified. I was miserable, angry, etc. Therefore, the answer is 'no.'") I agree the person who prefers or needs sex with a child does so for sexual gratification, among other things, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Perhaps I am thinking too much about this after all? Thanks everyone. IP: Logged |
skipwebb Member
|
posted 06-08-2004 08:11 AM
I'm very familiar with the S-K-Y phase of the ZCT. I still use it from time to time when there are multiple suspects, such as a stolen weapon or government property where "everyone" had access. At one time, in CID, we were required to use it on any test in which there were several possible suspects. I just didn't see the need to use it in a sex test where one person was alleged to have committed the offense.IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-08-2004 08:17 AM
I agree. It doesn't make sense. What effect do you think that might have on validity?(It seems to me the question is asked so many times anybody would have a hard time NOT focusing on the RQs. It's almost like the "DI test" (the Army MGQT).) IP: Logged |
Ned Member
|
posted 06-09-2004 10:28 PM
Barry,My two cents. I have conducted specific issue exams regarding molestation / indecent assault issues and have successfully used the phrase "...for sexual gratification." If the examinee is not a relative of the alleged victim and/or had never cared for him / her, then I would simply cover the specific allegation. "Did you ever touch (rub) Sally's vagina?" "Did you ever touch (rub) Sally's vagina while in your house?" etc. Now, if the examinee is a caregiver and mentions that he (she) has bathed the alleged victim, changed diapers, or applied medication, etc, then perhaps I'll add the phrase "...for sexual gratification." I'll pre-test it to mean your sexual gratification or Sally's sexual gratification. It is my belief that is why they molest...for sexual gratification. I'll sometimes use "education" as a post-test theme. "I imagine Bob that you only touched Sally's vagina to help teach her about sex...the proper way. After all, her parents are never there for her." If there is enough material, I'll use an MGQT. If not, I'll go with a ZCT. I agree with the responses above. What comparisons were used...were they relevant? (What time bars were used?) Also, I agree that the private examiner setting and/or the time that passed could help diminish any responses. Lastly, as already stated, we can't forget about possible use of CMs. Ned [This message has been edited by Ned (edited 06-09-2004).] IP: Logged |
sackett Moderator
|
posted 06-10-2004 06:55 AM
The problem with caregiver suspect testing is that a father or even an older brother or step-brother, one can touch the vagina of a daughter/sister for legitimate hygiene or medical purposes. This is the rub (pardon the pun).Use "fondle" and pretest it to include touch, rub, massage, insert, etc... for sexual gratification. No-one, not even a caregiver can "fondle" a girls vagina (or breasts, buttocks, etc) for innocent purposes or rationalize out of it. It works for me, Jim IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-10-2004 08:03 AM
Update:I contacted two psychologists and Jim Morris, president of N.A.P.S, and they all agree sex offenders do NOT all offend for sexual gratification. For reasons that are well beyond my training as a polygraph examiner (I understood her reasoning, but I couldn't do it any justice), one of the psychologists thought even it were that reason at first, it's unlikely he'd believe that to be the case today, allowing him to pass even if he did it. I still haven't seen the details of that exam, so I don't know what the controls were or if CMs were used, etc. IP: Logged |
sackett Moderator
|
posted 06-10-2004 08:27 AM
Perhaps true, but sex offenders still understand the difference between fondling (for any reason) and touching for a specific gratification or irresponsible reason (which, based on your input the latter could be rationalized).Additionally, I, as you also indicated, am not as learned as others, but it would seem to me those who advocate "other" reasons for molesting are trying to possibly suggest that after the initial sexual gratification is over, it's all just a "bad habit?" I have a real problem with that; BUT, I ain't that learned...(LOL) Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 06-10-2004).] IP: Logged |
Barry C Member
|
posted 06-10-2004 11:25 AM
What they're saying is there is not necessarily any sexual gratification as one's motive, e.g., one might molest a child as a means of revenge against the child's mother (we've seen it in murders, so why not sex offenses?).As for it being a "bad habit," I don't think that's the reasoning. Some offenders (and this is out of my league somewhat) blame the victims for the offenses. Over time, they internalize that bizzare reasoning until they truly believe they are the victims. (It makes more sense when the psychologist explains it. It's all very twisted to me.) The bottom line: such a phrase might work, but it might result in false negatives. That is something we as examiners can control. IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan Administrator
|
posted 06-10-2004 02:29 PM
I agree that the term “bad habit” is not a good term to use when talking about sexual molestation, although we do readily adapt such a term into our minimization and rationalization of the action to the offender. However, sexual molestation can be a learned behavior. A child in an urban setting who sees his brother selling drugs, making money, buying those things that are desirable, and with no social ramifications he too may take up the trade. Similarly, a sexually molested child with little or no social intervention may take up the trade as the offender at some age appropriate time in their life. For the most part erotic imagery, the thoughts that accompany a sexual experience, is involved in incidents of sexual stimulation, but not always. Through this process there are a number of different things for which a person may be sexually stimulated by. Pain infliction, fear, and control are included in these things for which sexual stimulation occurs. More importantly, the phrase “for sexual purposes” is adeptly used in the legal terminology of the crime to separate socially acceptable and deviant behaviors that have reached the status of criminal behavior. If the individual has been socially conditioned to accept the process and maybe even enjoy it as a victim and/or offender, they often will develop techniques of neutralization, which is pretty much synonymous with rationalization. In this case, such an act can be internally justified by the individual as an acceptable one. It is my opinion that the best way to combat this problem is to stay away from the intent and focus on the action. There is most certainly an action, as Jim stated, involved in the commission of a sex act (i.e. rubbing, squeezing, licking, putting inside). To get this action, the investigators need to pay close attention to the victim’s terminology when describing the act and define that terminology so that it may be readily adapted for latter questioning of the suspect. Then we can incorporate that earlier obtained terminology from the victim into the interview with the suspect to help formulate the appropriate questions based on their definitions. If we just remember to use the K.I.S.S. principle while constructing our relevant test questions, we should have good understandable relevant questions. Just my long winded thoughts on the issue.
[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 06-10-2004).] IP: Logged |
Lieguy Member
|
posted 07-07-2004 10:55 PM
For my two cents worth, I use the phrase "Did you ever touch .....'s vagina for non-hygienic purposes?Seems to work for me...separates out the legitimate parental touching to administer medicine, bathing, etc. Chip Morgan ------------------
IP: Logged | |