posted 02-03-2010 11:09 PM            

Muchas gracias in advance,

posted 02-03-2010 11:55 PM            

Then, ask yourself why you can't test about someone's intent. If the only answer is "everybody says you can't", maybe you can.

posted 02-04-2010 11:05 AM            

Lou brings up a very good point. Dr. Raskin tried to explain this intent issue many years back. We can't test on "intent" when the question requires a person to interpret a complex state of mind. Asking if the person killed "in the heat of passion" for example, requires a person to evaluate his mental state at the time, and the answer is probably not all that simple. Asking if he intended to kill the victim when he picked up the gun, for example, is a different question. It's reasonable to think that he had some idea of what he was going to do with the gun when he picked it up. If not, perhaps when he was driving over, just before he entered the home, etc.

posted 02-04-2010 11:32 AM            

your LE side sounds accurate and accute. The defense attorney is looking for a "pipe dream", based on what you presented here.

I have no answers, but considerations.

You find yourself in the dilema many private examiners often do. Proper and ethical testing vs. $$$.

I think the result of research has been; intent can not be tested due to complexity and ever-changing status of mind.

However, from the $$$ side of the question, if you run an "inappropriate" test addressing intent, no-one's gunna know if he fails and it won't be accepted in court if he passes.

Unless you can find a specific action or deed committed at the scene which addresses intent without asking it directly, you find yourself with an age old problem. No envy on my part.

What to do, what to do...?

Jim

posted 02-04-2010 12:44 PM            

You wrote: "I think the result of research has been; intent can not be tested due to complexity and ever-changing status of mind."

What published study or studies are you referring to?

Lou

posted 02-04-2010 01:34 PM            

I was speaking from what I had been trained and taught in the past. I must assume that what I have been taught came from something; whether it be research, general understanding of biological recollection and thought processes, experience, history, etc.

Given the generalized belief within the polygraph community and I think common sense, that a state of mind, which is of itself a flowing and maliable process and not a concrete recollection or memory, could not be tested because of that complexity.

I believe if there was any manner we could test intentions with any degree of accuracy or validity, we would have heard about it by now.

Is there any research you are aware of which supports the accuracy and validity of testing intent and thoughts? I'm all in for a better and newer mouse trap...

posted 02-04-2010 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

I must assume that what I have been taught came from something;

---

Doesn't everything come from "something"? That's a bad assumption, and it works both ways.

I was trained to test on states of mind:

"Did you know in advance that fire was going to be lit?" - or something like that - was a question I've heard for arson cases.

quote:

---

I believe if there was any manner we could test intentions with any degree of accuracy or validity, we would have heard about it by now.

---

Read the writings of David Raskin or Charles Honts. What we don't test on is a state of mind that requires an interpretation.

No memories or recollections are concrete. (There's lots of research on that one.)

All our tests test on thoughts. A person has to think of the relevant issue in order to process it and decide whether to lie or not. (Private thoughts are behavior, by the way, and we test on behavior, don't we?)

Let's say a person claims he accidentally shot a person. Why do you think polygraph isn't robust enough to work when asking if he intended (or planned) to pull the trigger while the gun was aimed at victim? It's not a lie detector, let's not forget.

You're asking the wrong question regarding research. "Why shouldn't it work?" is the better of the two. Otherwise, I could ask what research you have that shows your combination of a particular CQ with a particular RQ works... how about the combination of three of each?

We have valid principles supported by lots of data. One of those is that we must ask RQs that can be answered with a yes or no without any reservation or uncertainty. If a person says he accidentally did something, then answering whether he intended to do the act should be easy to answer in the negative.

Now, asking if the person was "fuming with anger" when he shot... requires a person to interpret a complex mental state. Moreover, "fuming" is a metaphor that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. "Did you intend to kill?" may even be difficult for some. "Did you intend to pull the trigger?" is a different animal though.

Why do we ask intent questions in PCSOT testing? That would seem to argue against your "generalized belief" premise.

posted 02-04-2010 08:26 PM            

An attorney told me his client was arrested with a basement full of stolen merchandise. The client claimed he was about to return the stuff. That was the suggested issue. I declined the test on the theory that his intent was not fixed by any subsequent act.

posted 02-04-2010 11:44 PM            

"Doesn't everything come from "something"? That's a bad assumption, and it works both ways."

There's only an assumption that when taught and repeatedly reinforced that we do not test "state of mind" issues, that this originated from someone more experienced and educated than I in the ways of polygraph. I do not believe it is a "bad idea" just hear something in a formal training environment where the basics are being taught and tested on, and assume to question the basis of the information. This, most especially, when I have yest to meet anyone who was truly trained properly to test on intent and state of mind issues.

I am not a researcher or academic and therefore rely on those that are to be more informed than me. Having said that, I have yet to hear anyone unequivocally state that testing intent is a good idea (valid or accurate) in any type of situation, whether it comes from years of experience or research. So, to summarily dismiss the idea as a "bad assumption" is misdirected on your part.

Also, "I was trained to test on states of mind:"

Really? What school or training did you attend that taught you that? I personally have never heard anyone teach that and on what basis and academic support and research did they teach this?

When you wrote your example, "Did you know in advance that fire was going to be lit?" - or something like that - was a question I've heard for arson cases."

I have to agree; IF, there are others involved and there is a more concrete issue related to an agreement, deal, plan or contract...

"Read the writings of David Raskin or Charles Honts. What we don't test on is a state of mind that requires an interpretation."

What if, in the case presented, the S left the house with the gun with the intention of scarring the man. Got into the car and found the bullets and changed his mind and decide to kill the man. Then, on the way there, he heard a sad country song that made him think, you know, I'll shoot her instead... Then, upon arrival, saw her, changed his mind and decided not to and leave, but before leaving, the man says something insulting and he decided then to shoot the man and leave, but after shooting the man, she grabbed the gun and fight ensured and he accidentally shot her, then left.

My question is, where exactly are you assigning or expecting the S to assign intent in this crime?

Your statement, "No memories or recollections are concrete. (There's lots of research on that one.)"

I agree, that was not my intention. I tried to use the statement as a descriptor, not a fact.

"All our tests test on thoughts. A person has to think of the relevant issue in order to process it and decide whether to lie or not. (Private thoughts are behavior, by the way, and we test on behavior, don't we?)"

Yes, we do test on behavior (actions, words or deeds), but thoughts are NOT actionable behaviors and change, add, delete, modify, repeatedly as exampled above. Related to polygraph and crimes, behavior denotes an physical action and only when we engaged our body to fulfill our thoughts do those thoughts become actual behaviors.

Also, "You're asking the wrong question regarding research. "Why shouldn't it work?" is the better of the two. Otherwise, I could ask what research you have that shows your combination of a particular CQ with a particular RQ works... how about the combination of three of each?"

Again, I'm not a researcher. So I ask, why hasn't this been done in the past 100 years or so of polygraph?

"We have valid principles supported by lots of data. One of those is that we must ask RQs that can be answered with a yes or no without any reservation or uncertainty. If a person says he accidentally did something, then answering whether he intended to do the act should be easy to answer in the negative."

Again, I address the issue of a lack of positive or negative research on the efficacy of testing specific intent of an action.

"Now, asking if the person was "fuming with anger" when he shot... requires a person to interpret a complex mental state. Moreover, "fuming" is a metaphor that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. "Did you intend to kill?" may even be difficult for some. "Did you intend to pull the trigger?" is a different animal though."

Why is there a difference in your examples. Both are intent, yes, one's more complex, but the intent issue is the same. So why separate them here?

"Why do we ask intent questions in PCSOT testing? That would seem to argue against your "generalized belief" premise."

Who asks "intent" relevant questions in PSCOT? Who was trained to do that? I'm PSCOT trained and missed the class on intent questions...

For your consideration,

posted 02-05-2010 01:18 AM            

------------------

posted 02-05-2010 09:32 AM            

Notice that "thought" is a verb and an action.

I don't have time right now to address all the issues, but maybe later.

posted 02-05-2010 11:39 AM            

your opinions are always important as are those of everyone else who takes the time to post.

I await for your input/thoughts.

Jim

posted 02-08-2010 09:43 AM         

I don't think you could sell anyone on the notion that his intent was anything other than do what he did, kill two people.

posted 02-08-2010 04:31 PM            

The term research is appearing here alot lately. Exactly what research are you referring to that was done by Raskin and Honts, with regard to testing intent? And what research found different results?

posted 02-08-2010 05:25 PM            

while the potential of testing intent is the question at hand amungst us; the "intent" of the intent question to be asked as requested by j.b. is that of a defense tactic, plain and simple.

I refer back to my posting concerning the dilema of ethical testing as a private examiner...

posted 02-08-2010 09:24 PM            

But, we do agree that it is wrong to conclude we can't test on states of mind since "knowledge" is a (culpable) state of mind.

posted 02-09-2010 11:44 AM         

LouRovner,

I was referring to this post. Not sure if there was research, knowing Dr Raskin, I would think there was research. I would like to know if there are any "studies" ie "research" on this. My training was very clear, we don't test on intent, we test on actions.

posted 02-09-2010 12:25 PM            

I agree that some cases present opportunities to discern intent from the actions (as in the arson example quoted above). In this case, I did not see any such opportunity and in the end, chose to abandon the test.

Thanks again for the dialog and insight.

posted 02-09-2010 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

"Doesn't everything come from "something"? That's a bad assumption, and it works both ways."

There's only an assumption that when taught and repeatedly reinforced that we do not test "state of mind" issues, that this originated from someone more experienced and educated than I in the ways of polygraph. I do not believe it is a "bad idea" just hear something in a formal training environment where the basics are being taught and tested on, and assume to question the basis of the information. This, most especially, when I have yest to meet anyone who was truly trained properly to test on intent and state of mind issues.

I am not a researcher or academic and therefore rely on those that are to be more informed than me. Having said that, I have yet to hear anyone unequivocally state that testing intent is a good idea (valid or accurate) in any type of situation, whether it comes from years of experience or research. So, to summarily dismiss the idea as a "bad assumption" is misdirected on your part.

---

quote:

---

I was speaking from what I had been trained and taught in the past. I must assume that what I have been taught came from something; whether it be research, general understanding of biological recollection and thought processes, experience, history, etc.

Given the generalized belief within the polygraph community and I think common sense, that a state of mind, which is of itself a flowing and maliable process and not a concrete recollection or memory, could not be tested because of that complexity.

---

You missed my point, and you misses Lou's:

quote:

---

Then, ask yourself why you can't test about someone's intent. If the only answer is "everybody says you can't", maybe you can.

---

We (people in the US) used to be trained in the science of decision making (logic); however, we don't seem to think that is important any more, and we're paying the price as a result. My point - and I think Lou's too - is that an appeal to an authority or an appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy. Experts can be wrong. Additionally, you appealed to the masses, which is also a logical fallacy. (Even a lot of experts can be wrong.) So, your proposition could be correct, but your reasoning is flawed, and it's not logical (or wise) to accept flawed reasoning. That's just the way it is. If we're not going to play by the rules, then be prepared to accept voice stress, because the masses and authorities on the subject tell us it works.

(Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's illogical to accept the consensus of experts when you have lots of data supporting their conclusions. An sound argument can be made to support that reasoning, but it doesn't apply here.)

quote:

---

Really? What school or training did you attend that taught you that? I personally have never heard anyone teach that and on what basis and academic support and research did they teach this?

---

I think I answered this already. Knowledge is a state of mind in the sense that a person has to (cognitively) draw a conclusion about the thoughts and cognitive processes in his head at the time. Our laws require a culpable state of mind for all but strict liability crimes. So, when we ask, "Do you know where that money is now?" or, "Do you have that coin on you now?" We're asking, "Do you know this to be true?" That requires a cognitive assessment of thoughts. We don't really have facts in our heads. We have thoughts or memories of facts, but they are not the facts themselves. Anyhow, I think that's what we do on all tests (test on what a person believes about something).

quote:

---

What if, in the case presented, the S left the house with the gun with the intention of scarring the man. Got into the car and found the bullets and changed his mind and decide to kill the man....
My question is, where exactly are you assigning or expecting the S to assign intent in this crime?

---

In the fact pattern you gave, you told me his intent: He decided to kill the guy. That is, he intended to kill him.

quote:

---

Obviously, defense attorney wants polygraph to whittle 1st degree premeditated down to 2nd degree "heat of passion" which will depend on intent and state of mind.

---

quote:

---

while the potential of testing intent is the question at hand amungst us; the "intent" of the intent question to be asked as requested by j.b. is that of a defense tactic, plain and simple.

---

This is what started this off. I don't think it's obvious or simple. (Now that it's over it sounds like his suspicions were correct, but that didn't make them obvious given what we had for info.) I know attorneys who test clients to break through denials so they can work on a better deal with the prosecutor.

quote:

---

In the case at hand, why test on intent? This subject went to one house and obtained a gun, drove to another home and killed two people.
I don't think you could sell anyone on the notion that his intent was anything other than do what he did, kill two people.

---

I agree, but if we can infer his intent from his actions (and that's the best way to do it), don't you think he knew what his intent was? Do you think he could pass the test if we asked, "At any point after you got the gun did you intend to kill the victim?" I doubt it, and that's what we (examiners - not me) in PCSOT.

quote:

---

Who asks "intent" relevant questions in PSCOT? Who was trained to do that? I'm PSCOT trained and missed the class on intent questions...

---

From our model policy (section 7.1.2) on the subject:

quote:

---

[RQs should be] 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.

---

Translation 1 of a few: if a guys says "I did it," but it was an "accident" or "not for sexual gratification," it is only then that we deal with the intent issue directly.

Why can we test intent there but not elsewhere? We don't prefer to test intent, but we're left with little else, which brings us back to Lou's point. Why should we believe polygraph isn't robust enough to work in these situations? Since the "experts" appear to say that we can never test on intent or any state of mind, then the burden of proof is on them to show us why that is the case. It's not on me to prove you can.

Let me toss up another example (rather than the straw men above): What if two best friends are cleaning their guns. One doesn't realize his gun is loaded, and he (intentionally) pulls the trigger. Sadly, he kills his friend. Why wouldn't this question work? (Remember, the burden is on you.) Did you intend to shoot your friend. (Now, let's pretend the question isn't full of emotion. Let's just get philosophical for a minute.)

How about an easier one? A suspect admits to stealing a safe, but he denies knowledge that a gun was inside, making it a federal crime. Could you test on his state of mind regarding the contents? "When you removed the safe from the house, did you know there was a gun inside?"

Don't forget that a private thought is a behavior, an act that occurs in time. While thoughts (of anything, intent included) can very well be fleeting, I agree they are not your best choice for a test, and I'd probably pass on most. I can think of some rare circumstances where it might be okay, but pretend I didn't say that, and just respond in the interest of a good, intellectual conversation.

Yours truly,

The pot stirrer

posted 02-09-2010 07:59 PM            

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

posted 02-10-2010 09:56 AM            

He places the watch in his pocket in order to get out of the store with it but as he is doing so he sees what appears to be a camera and decides that he should pay for the watch instead of stealing it.

As he walks around the store, he determines that the "camera" is not really a camera at all...merely a decoy globe with nothing in it so he again decides to steal the watch.

As he goes over to the luggage section to buy two pieces of luggage, he sees a man who "apppears" to be following/watching him. He decides he is a store detective so he again decides to pay for the watch.

Later, he goes to the checkout line, pays for the two pieces of luggage he is carrying in his hands but forgets to pay for the watch which he placed in his pocket earlier.

He is nabbed by the "store detective" and accused of stealing the watch. He denies the theft was intentional and alleges that he intended to pay for it but had his hands full with the luggage and forgot about the watch.

If we ask him if he intended to steal the watch, then his truthful answer would need to be yes, two times.

If we asked him if he intended to pay for the watch, then his answer again would be Yes...two times.

If, on the other hand we ask him did you pay for that luggage, knowing at the time that watch was in your pocket? or Did you leave that store knowing that watch was in your pocket? Then if he "intended" to steal it, we catch him. If he is being truthful about forgetting to pay for the watch, he should logically pass.

My concern about the intent issue is that it is abstract and ever changing whereas the physical act does not change.

I think we often test "intent", we just do it by testing physical acts from which we can logically infer intent or lack of intent.

By the way, "Did you know at the time you pulled the trigger that the pistol was loaded?

"Did you pull that trigger, knowing at the time that pistol was loaded?

Both should get us to where we want to be.

posted 02-10-2010 10:32 AM            

quote:

---

I think we often test "intent", we just do it by testing physical acts from which we can logically infer intent or lack of intent.

By the way, "Did you know at the time you pulled the trigger that the pistol was loaded?

"Did you pull that trigger, knowing at the time that pistol was loaded?

Both should get us to where we want to be.

---

Agreed. Generally we infer intent from actions. These questions aren't direct intent questions, they are knowledge questions, which are "state of mind" issues, and it's been said we don't do that - ever. My point is that we do on occasion. The question that remains is this: If you had asked "Did you intend to shoot victim?" (or "fire that gun to avoid probing the death) would polygraph "work"? Some of the answers above indicate the answer is no; however, nobody has proven it won't work, and the burden is on them. (I agree the did you know is a better approach, but "intent" actually means he had a thought to do something - that is, to commit and act, and we test on acts. "Knowledge" has been debated by the philosophers since the beginning of time. It is a mental state, that arguably, isn't an action. "I know something" is different from "I intended to know (via learning) something."

One thing I didn't mention before, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So, to say nobody has proven it (whatever it is), doesn't mean that "it" can't be proven. That's another logical fallacy.

You can "what if?" anything, and in so doing, create a straw man that you immediately knock down and run victory laps. It doesn't prove the argument. The what ifs here just show that there are circumstances in which testing on intent won't work depending on your purpose in testing, I suppose.