posted 09-17-2009 08:44 PM            

So, where would you guys go with this. Would you just test for additional victims or go for another offense specific. I don't know that the agent is real clear on the order in which we are supposed to conduct tests.

His offense was that he was drunk and tried to have sex with his wifes little sister and the wife caught him in the act. His explanation was that he was drunk and he decided to have sex with his wife. he climbed on top of the girl in bed and he started feeling her up then he realized it wasnt his wife but that is exactly when his wife walked in...oh yeah, the next day he tried to buy her a 'morning after' pill.

This guy is a real slimeball.

posted 09-17-2009 10:53 PM            

Instead of testing the guy on the KNOWN INCIDENT (specific bank location, named injured bank teller, specified ammount of money missing, and known date), your investigator asks instead to attempt to determine whether he had robbed any others banks, or perhaps and 7-11 stores.

So,

R5: Not including that known allegation, did you rob any other/unreported banks?

(or some version of this)

Under the circumstances, it becomes very difficult to attribute any real interpretable meaning to any result. If he fails, you don't know if he reacted to the stimulus because of the known issue. If he passes, you don't know of it is a false-negative.

This is why section 5.4 of the Model Policy advises "if possible" to test known issues before attempting to resolve unknown issues. Sure, "if possible" is weasily. It's a Model Policy.

.02

r

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

posted 09-18-2009 01:10 AM         

Frankly, I wonder 'why not address the issue of 'other victims'. Prefixing the relevant questions with a qualifer "Before XYZ (the date of committing the instant offense)" Therefore you are not addressing whether or not he committed the instant offense.

Don't we apply the same kind of qualifiers in PCSOT maintenace exams? Such as "After XYZ date, Did you drink alcohol- DY look at porn- or DY have unreported sex?"

The delimma is what is going to happen if the Prob.Off. wants an 'instant offense test' at some point(since he is unaware one was done previously)- and would You be willing do a re-test? and if you did do a re-test, what happens if he 'passes'?

Bob

posted 09-18-2009 10:11 AM            

This guy is an "admitter of fact" (denier of intent), which is a very stubborn posture.

We know already that this offense occured.

The existence or non-existence of other victims would better inform the treatment and risk management plan.

And there should probably be a complete alcohol eveluation at some point - a person who could assault his wife's little sis, mistaking her for his wife, and then be in denial (which is uncear: denial of intent or denial of memory), might have a big problem that could require lots of expensive court ordered treatment in that area too - on behalf of community safety.

Section 7.1.2 G of the Model Policy states that relevant questions should be free references to mental states or motivation, except to the extent that questions about memory or sexual motivation may be used after an admission of the behavior. So, it would be possible to test him on whether he remembers it or knew at the time that it was not his wife.

There should be no real problem with re-testing this. In other circumstances, retesting a failed test, with no admission, could become a form of collusion - that the test was somehow wrong. In this case, the previous test is unusable due to privilege. Just make sure he pays for it, not probation - he'll be happy to waste other people's money. There is nothing wrong with re-doing a test if the previous test is unusable. There is a problem if re-doing the test represents collusion with the examinee.

The only reason he would pass is if the polygraph is really unreliable - or he succeeds at altering his test data this time (and not looking stupid while doing it), where he failed before. If the polygraph is that unreliable, we'd better look for other work. Still, you might want to make a plan for some courtesy consultation or QA review before submitting the report if that does occur.

.02

r

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

posted 09-18-2009 08:05 PM            

Bob - 'what if he passes?'...Not likely. More likely he will attempt CM and get a PNC. I remember his last test and he said he had failed one instant offense (practice test) and a pre-employment before that. Of course he thinks he is just not a good polygraph candidate. ha Would I be willing to do a retest? Sure. Plus where I have dealt with him before and know about all his offense and CM research I am probably better suited to deal with him.

Ray, I also believe that additional victims would be more helpful for the therapy and risk assessment.

Thanks again

posted 09-19-2009 01:57 PM            

now I'm a little confused.

Why is the Prob Officer asking for a pre-conviction issue test?

If the guy's therapist wants him to undergo a sexual history test that's one thing, as it is designed for breaking denial and assisting in therapy. A Prob Officer asking for a sexual history seems strange since that is traditionaly outside his responsibility.

Now, if the Prob Officer wants a maintenance test that is focused on his behaviors since conviction, that sounds normal.

My $.02

Jim

posted 09-19-2009 02:43 PM            

POs, like everyone else, are in the risk assessment and risk management business. They might need history information in order to get the most accurate risk assessment. Of course, risk assessment has typically been a clincians job, not because they are good at it, but because they claimed the turf with their expertise in things like assessment and interviewing, and testing. Clinicians do a better job of risk assessment when they set aside their clinical interests and use actuarial tools. Risk assessment (risk level) itself if of only mildly informative value in formulating a clinical treatment plan. A phenomenological understanding of the issues is much more helpful.

While we say that a disclosure exam re other victims is intended to "break denial" (even though clinicians don't talk like that anymore) and help with therapy, there is actually on a small and emerging bit of evidence that discloure information contributes to successful treatment outcomes or is related to recidivism or failure under supervision. So, we have to be careful about engaging in reductionistic assumptions about this. Good clinicials will be just as interested in compliance as the POs. The point of muliti-system therapy (containment) is to avoid compartmentalizing our roles. There is convincing evidence that multi-systemic treatment approaches may work better than other approaches.

.02

r

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

posted 09-20-2009 09:22 AM            

Its sad, but in Utah (and probably all the other states) we have a few therapists that do not order polygraphs even though it is part of the requirement to be an approved provider.

posted 09-20-2009 04:25 PM            

I would hate to be in the PO's shoes, if he/she's being asked to provide that specific of a guess regarding any offender's potential for recidivism.

As for your therapists not ordering something mandated by the courts or laws, sounds to me like you have an adherance problem that needs to be addresseed by the Parole Probation Division (I think).

More directly to the point you asked about. If you are asked to test the guy, the only issue that came and faded was the postential conflict of interest and I don't really see one here, as long are you maintain confidentiality of your original pre-conviction test and follow the rules in PCSOT for any follow up tests with this idiot. When he fails; and he will, then you report it like any original test and let the courts do what they're supposed to do.

Jim