posted 03-17-2010 03:55 PM            

What if your "victim" is making the whole thing up, which leads to Dr. Horvath's famous question: "What is a victim?"

posted 03-17-2010 10:37 PM         

Yes she would be a good candidate, she has memory of the incident. Not sure what the purpose of the test would be, she does have a memory of the instant offense/incident.

posted 03-18-2010 11:56 PM            

Barry, if a victim in a crime has identified a suspect, do you test the suspect? I doubt you decide they are guilty and not conduct any test.

In the current example the test is needed as she may have been intoxicated (alcohol/drugs) to such an extent she may believe, due to intoxication & circumstances the acts occurred and were committed by the officer. Before we get close to a fabrication comment regarding an incident we'd better be well prepared to defend it.

I'd like to know more about the circumstances before I would test this victim. At this point I'm not inclined to test her.

Any evidence in this case?

posted 03-19-2010 11:00 AM            

quote:

---

In the current example the test is needed as she may have been intoxicated (alcohol/drugs) to such an extent she may believe, due to intoxication & circumstances the acts occurred and were committed by the officer. Before we get close to a fabrication comment regarding an incident we'd better be well prepared to defend it.

---

I have to disagree. Believing something that is not real is called psychotic, which is a term that refers to a loss of contact with reality. If she is not generally psychotic, which would most likely be obvious and documented, then we are supposing a psychotic level of intoxication. Are we also supposing that the polygraph can magically tease out the facts of an incident during which someone was impaired at the level of psychotic intoxication. We may need a test, but this is probably not the reason.

This would be one of those dreaded confirmatory testing problems - which seems to always prompt us to forget that the polygraph doesn't actually measure lies. It measures reaction to a stimulus, just like every other test.

So we have to wonder, might there be any reason , other than deception, why a female, who was the victim of an assault, could possibly show a significant reaction to a stimulus question about the assault. In other words, might she have some strong emotional reaction about that? Or, might she have some kind of cognitive reaction to such a question, in the form of remembering the details of the incident and her involvement in it? Or, might she possess some form of conditioned response potential to a stimulus that describes an incident in which she was involved. Sure there are reasons. Any positive test results would therefore have very suspicious meaning. On the other hand, if the polygraph doesn't really measure lies, but measures reaction to a stimulus - for which we can calculate the level of significance and make inferences about truth and decption - then we have to also wonder this: might there be reasons why a deceptive person (not actually involved) would show no significant response, including no particularly strong emotional reaction, no cognitive memory or re-experiencing of an event that didn't occur, and no conditioned response because no such event occurred. Again, sure. So, negative responses would also be suspect for error. All of this is why we should not test victims. If it is a bad idea to test victims, what makes it a good idea to test this victim? Is it a good idea simply because the alleged perpetrator is a police officer? If so, then we are really not unbiased, are we.

I'm with Donna, test the officer first.

r

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

posted 03-19-2010 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

Barry, if a victim in a crime has identified a suspect, do you test the suspect? I doubt you decide they are guilty and not conduct any test.

---

I think you missed my point completely. If you have decided she's a "victim," then you've decided somebody did something criminal to her. If she made it up, then the officer is the "victim," which will be his position. That is, they are now both "victims," (alleging the other is the criminal - one a rapist and one false reporter) and we don't test victims, right?

posted 03-19-2010 03:02 PM            

More often than not it is not the examiner that makes the decision to request or require a test. As examiners we review a request to determine if it is an issue suitable for testing. In addition, once the examinee has been interviewed we determine if they are also suitable for testing. As you know, we don't require any examinee to test for any reason.

Not enough information/circumstances are known to say I would test the victim in this example. Intoxicated with a medical condition for which Rx meds were also ingested may be an issue. I don't believe we'd presuppose anything. This victim states the officer committed a sexual act, this is a fact. All the concerns cited that would make a test suspect are also reasons I may not test this sex crime victim. I specify "sex crime" victim as it has been my experience these have been difficult exams to administer. Sex and child molest. "Hot" and sensitive suject matter. Can you refer me to research indicating victims are not subjects suitable for testing?

Might just end up with a "she said he said" issue if neither are required to test.

END.....

posted 03-19-2010 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

This victim states the officer committed a sexual act

---

posted 03-19-2010 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

I think your missing the point of some of the posts.

---

Okay. Why don't you tell me what it is.

quote:

---

IF she is a victim. IF the officer committed the alleged incident.

---

You're going to have to write complete thoughts. I have no idea what you tried to say there.

quote:

---

When can then give a fair and unbalanced examination.

---

posted 03-20-2010 12:05 AM            

I don't go into any deep philosophical discussions with examinees, I keep it simple, i.e., "A" reports this is what you did and this is what I want to discuss. I continue from this statement or something that fits based on the issue.

posted 03-20-2010 10:25 AM            

Are you really going to talk to a policeman accused of a crime by making reference to his "victim" and think he's going to see you as a neutral party? That's insane.

So no, we do not automatically accept that a reporter of an alleged crime (a complainant or alleged victim) is in fact a victim. A couple years back one of our investigators looked only at her rape cases over the prior year and found over half were false (based on the victims' own later admissions). That's not out of the norm.

posted 03-20-2010 08:32 PM            

What do you suggest about how to proceed?

I will suggest that false reporting is the target, and the questions should be answered "no."

And all the fancy psychologizing about intoxication, blackout, and memory, is for the clinicians - not the polygraph. She remembers enough to report - so she remembers it. Or she says she remembers it, and doesn't because it's false. False reporting, is therefore the best target because it refers directly to a behavior that providers her the opportunity to think about, remember, and re-experience the action, react due to behavioral conditioning resulting from involvement in the target behavior, and anticipate consequences from her own actions.

.02

r

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

posted 03-21-2010 12:34 AM            

Barry, as an examiner, I don't recall using the terms addressed (during) an exam. As I stated in my last post, to this examinee I'd likely state words to the effect: "Mary has accused you of (fill in the act) and this is what I'd like to discuss." I don't think most of us would say "the victim has accused you of - ." In order to show an examinee you are neutral do you state, "the complainant says (---)?

The accusation was made by the victim/complainant and this is likely one of the main reasons the examinee is to be tested. The approach I use also helps me narrow the relevant questions to the female involved and we both understand whom it is we are talking about. I don't leave any doubt regarding the female we speak of or the allegations (she) has made.

In speaking with a suspect, I don't recall ever referring to the "victim" as a victim. This includes interviews, interrogations and during polygraph examinations.

I've only had the misfortune of testing an officer twice but my approach doesn't change. Especially with an officer, I might be more direct & state "Susan says you (fill in the blank)." To gain the officer/examinee's confidence in what I'm doing I'm likely to make comments indicating I know many of these complaints aren't accurate or are false, there's likely a lot that hasn't been said, etc. Depending on my rapport with the examinee and their background, I'll likely continue with comments to instill confidence in the examinee that I am objective. I hope to instill in the officer/examinee the (fact) that I am a neutral party in their case by making statements, "BS" if I must, that gives them the confidence that I'm only the examiner. That I will conduct the best exam possible to help resolve the issue. At the same time I share enough information with them so they understand I am a competent examiner and they can be confident in this procedure. As you know this is what pre-test is all about.

This has been my approach over the years to these issues and it has worked for me.

Not certain I understand what you meant by your CA comment. What do you say about MN?

END.....

posted 03-21-2010 04:59 PM            

My point - I thought - was just a simply cautionary note: We in law enforcement get tunnel vision, and sometimes we forget we need to test and challenge our own theories of what we think happened. Once we make up our minds that a person making an allegation is a true victim, then we've made some decisions already.

If you happen to classify all who reports crimes as "victims" and therefore don't mean "victim" means "victim," then okay - I guess. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I can follow that thinking.

posted 03-23-2010 11:55 AM            

quote:

---

What do y’all think about conducting a test on a person who was intoxicated at the time an alleged incident occurred?

---

Getting back to the question that was asked, we routinely test people who have been alleged to have had involvement in a crime while they were under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Her description of the act certainly shows that she remembers what happened.

We haven't been told whether or not the officer was on or off duty and whether or not the alleged act occured as part of some official police action. This makes a difference to me as to who would be tested first. Our manual and regulation spells it out for us as follows:

quote:

---

The mere fact that a person makes an unsupported allegation against a law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their assigned duties does not normally justify immediate PDD testing of the police officer or agent. It is appropriate to determine the veracity of the complaint before testing police or agents. If the results of a PDD examination of the accuser indicate the allegation is factual, consider administering a PDD examination to the accused law enforcement officer.

---

That tells us two things; if the officer was in the performance of his/her assigned duties and is being accused by the person involved in the action of misconduct, then we will test the accuser first. This is done so that we don't set up a situation where every person who gets arrested just makes a complaint against the officer and ties our officers up in polygraphs.

If the allegation of misconduct does not involve official performance then our standard regulatory guidance applies as follows:

quote:

---

(1) Suspects should be afforded the opportunity to undergo polygraph testing prior to consideration being given to examining victims, complainants and/or witnesses,

(2) Victims, complainants and/or witnesses may be authorized for polygraph testing when investigation through other means is unable to resolve conflicting issues. Such individuals should be examined first only in exceptional l cases. This should in no way be interpreted to mean that it is necessary to conduct polygraph examinations of victims, complainants and/or witnesses in all cases. Decisions regarding such authorizations will be made on a case by case basis.

---

posted 03-23-2010 01:16 PM            

Language like that is helpful, even if it is is not as concrete as we might wish it to be at times.

It is instructive, but does not try to answer every question in advance.

It also establishes that it is ethically sound for the examiner to proceed in a number of different ways. It is ethical because it has been considered, discussed and decided, in a declarative way, that it is reasonable to do these things under certain circumstances.

r

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

posted 03-27-2010 12:05 PM         

Editorial: Cuyahoga Judge Floyd's order subjecting sexual assault victims to polygraph tests requires explanation
By The Plain Dealer Editorial Board

March 27, 2010, 4:48AM
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Judge Alison Floyd has her detractors and her fans. After a decade of making hard calls on young people's lives, the notoriety probably comes with the territory.

It doesn't excuse the judge from failing to explain an astonishing series of rulings in which she ordered three teenage girls who were sexually assaulted in separate incidents to submit to polygraph tests.

Nothing in Floyd's tenure on the bench approaches the seemingly pointless and cold-hearted logic of these edicts -- issued after she found their attackers delinquent, the Juvenile Court equivalent of guilty.

In effect, the judge is treating three young survivors of a crime likely to scar them for life as if they were guilty of something.'

Floyd isn't helping by behaving as if she has something to hide. She did not return three phone calls from Plain Dealer reporters before a story ran last Friday. And she did not return three phone calls from The Plain Dealer's editorial board seeking an explanation.

Floyd's idiosyncrasies are well known. She comforts some of the kids who appear before her with teddy bears -- yet, according to critics quoted in a Plain Dealer profile last year, fails to manage her docket, stranding kids in overcrowded jails while dithering over decisions.

But being idiosyncratic is not the same as being malicious, heedless or arbitrary -- the overriding impressions left by Floyd's rulings in the sexual assault cases. To make matters worse, under her orders, the families of the young women must pay for their polygraph tests.

As Megan O'Bryan, president and CEO of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, told Plain Dealer reporters Rachel Dissell and Leila Atassi, Floyd's decisions in these cases will intimidate other young survivors of sexual assault who already are reluctant to come forward. It also sends the message that they are not credible. That is inexcusable.