posted 11-15-2011 10:27 AM            

The client admits to sending the e-mails. He states that he sent them to show the daughter what kind of people were out there and the kind of things they would send her. The probation officer wants me to test the client about the purpose of the e-mails, i.e. did he send them for sexual gratification.

posted 11-16-2011 10:47 AM            

There are two points of ambiguity that are written into the PCSOT Model Policy.

This in one of them.

7.1.2.G states this:

quote:

---

free of references to mental state or motivational terminology except
to the extent that memory or sexual motivation may be the subject of
an examination following an admission of behavior

---

The ambiguity is intentional because sex offenders play a lot of silly games around issues of intent. In doing this, he PSCOT committee and the people that crafted and drafted this language provided us an effective solution.

In general we do not test issues of intent.

However, it is sometimes useful to do so (test mental state or intent)

When the offender admits the behavior but denies intent or memory or sexual motivation... then the target issue for polygraph testing IS mental-state/memory/intent.

So, questions re intent could be argued as compliant with the objectives and design of the PCSOT Model Policy.

For example:

• Did you send those emails to your daughter for for your own sexual reasons?

• Where you attempting to engage your daughter into sexual activities when you sent those emails?

• Were you intending to gain your daughter's interest in sexual activities when you sent those emails?
  

We would also invoke 7.1.2.G when we test sex offenders who are convicted on DNA evidence of sexual contact with an intoxicated female while the offender tries to claim no memory or culpability for the offense.

In my experience - they all fail. I saw two people pass in 10 years, and these two have obvious toxicology that supports the lack of memory. These two also recite the details of the allegations as they read them in the report. Most others, who fail, in my experience, claim not to know the details of the allegations and claim their attorney has that information.

Anyway, I believe you can test this issue of intent in this situation and remain compliant with the APA Model Policy for PCSOT testing.

If you are uncomfortable with the issue, then make a note in your report that issues of intent are geneerally considered non-testable, but are permitted under 7.1.2.G., and that the result should be considered qualified.

as always,

my .02

r

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

posted 11-17-2011 09:34 AM            

It's a single issue "did you do it" type test that - I would think - doesn't require the PCSOT training. It's the same test you'd give pre-conviction, if you were so inclined to give one.

posted 11-17-2011 10:26 AM            

I agree one could simply ask "Did you lie to me about why you sent those emails to that girl?(your daughter). That would be no different than asking a shoplifter "Did you know that watch was in your pocket when you walked out of that store?" as opposed to "Did you intend to steal that watch?" when testing a suspect who "forgot" he placed the watch in his pocket as his defense.