DEVELOPMENTS IN POLYGRAPH APPLICATION

The first use o f polygraphy for post-conviction work was introduced by several Judges in America to make decisions about probation (Partee, 1975) and to identify violations o f probation (Tuttle, 1969). Both Judges found that individuals who were polygraphed admitted to other criminal activity.

Judge Tuttle believed that periodic polygraph examination could be a deterrent to further criminal involvement, making known criminals less disposed to associate with these men for fear that their activities might be detected. Schmidt (1973) described the periodic polygraph examination as an “artificial conscience” for this reason, believing it might even influence what offenders ‘allow’ themselves to think about.

By 1973, Judge Beatty had begun a polygraph surveillance program (Riegel, 1974) periodically testing ‘high risk’ with offenders who were conditionally granted probation if they agreed to participate. Teuscher (1978) reported on the four year follow-up for these one hundred and seventeen men; fifty-four failures and sixty successes among these ‘career’ criminals. He also reported extensive admissions to additional crimes.

Abrams and Ogard (1986) polygraphed convicted burglars, drug users and sex offenders. They reported that 69% o f the men who received periodic polygraph examination whilst on probation did not re-offend and successfully completed their probation, whilst only 26% of those individuals on probation supervision (without the use of polygraph examination) refrained from re-offending. These results were statistically significant at the <.001 level.

Unfortunately, the number o f sex offenders in the study was small, but results were encouraging and o f a similar magnitude to the overall effect observed.

Referring to the polygraph’s post conviction role English, Pullen & Jones (1996, p.2.11) advised that it should be viewed as one of several elements necessary to adequately control sexual offending behaviours. They assert that “the goal o f the polygraph examination is not to get the offender to fail the exam but rather to pass, meaning that disclosing the offender’s sexual assault pattern will increase the likelihood that an appropriate treatment and supervision plan will be developed”.

Over the last 15 years the polygraph has increasingly been used in sex offender work. This has given rise to the development o f different types of examinations (Holden and Abrams, 1995).

Holden, (1997a) has been instrumental in developing Clinical Polygraph Examinations as a specialism in the field o f polygraphy (Joint Polygraph Committee on Offender Testing, 1998). Holden distinguished between the psychological changes that occur in subjects before and after conviction and how this influences the polygraph examination. He advised that false positive results are more common at pre-conviction stage and that at post conviction stage, false negatives are more likely. Holden purports (1997b) that this is the result o f circumstances, legal status, anxiety levels, physiological reactivity etc., in the two conditions and he strongly endorses more rigorous procedures and advanced training to assist examiners.

Two distinct disclosure examinations have been advanced (Holden, 1999), one to learn more about the offender’s sexual history and the other to obtain details about the index offence.

Further, periodic maintenance and monitoring examinations have been designed to address treatment and compliance issues, enabling therapists to challenge denial more successfully and to identify abusive fantasies and pro-offending cognitive distortions.

Salter (1997) reported that in the American Northwest the regular use o f polygraphy has reduced resistance to treatment considerably. Denial is commonly viewed as a

significant obstacle to treatment, such that deniers may be excluded from treatment altogether. Through the use o f the polygraph Salter (1997) asserts that these problems can be effectively managed.

Relatedly, the Supreme Court of the State o f Washington has ruled that Trial Courts have the legal authority to subject sex offenders to polygraph examination (Spencer, 1998). The Judges ruled that “although the results of polygraph tests are generally not admissible in a trial, this Court has acknowledged their validity as an investigative tool” (p.3).

Taller (1997) noted a common view that certain personality types may be particularly resistive to effective polygraph examination. In particular, a concern was raised that individuals with high levels o f psychopathy (Hare, 1991 and Hare and Cooke, 1999) may be skilled at deceiving polygraph examiners. There are however indications that the commonly held perception that psychopaths are impervious to polygraph testing is unsubstantiated. Holden (1997a, p.34) described the influence of mental factors in polygraph subjects and concluded that, “ character or personality disorders generally show no significant error effect if examiner understands personality type and prepares examinee properly”. Holden also asserted “generally, drugs and alcohol have very little affect on accuracy o f polygraph opinions; i.e., do not generally cause error to occur”. He fijrther noted that “emotional disorders generally show no significant error effect” if examiners are appropriately prepared. Lastly, Holden asserts that “mental countermeasures (lying or attempts by the examinee at denial, rationalisation, avoidance, and other defensive positions), do not significantly impact belief systems; therefore, these behaviours will not seriously effect the outcome o f a properly conducted examination”.

Sosnowski (1999), an APA Director, noted that “so long as a subject knows he is lying, i.e. has reasonable reality testing abilities; the polygraph examination can reliably identify deception”. Hare, R.D. (personal communication, November 3, 1999) expressed his belief that combining psychopathy measurement with polygraph

examination would make “a major contribution to sex offender work in Britain”. Matte (1996, p.296) cited work by Raskin, Barland and Podlesny (1978), who concluded “results were strongly contradictory to the common belief that psychopaths (sociopaths) can ‘beat the lie detector”. However, Matte’s own conclusions did not dispel a need for caution in dealing with psychopaths as he noted, “perhaps the greatest danger is that a clever or convincing psychopath can talk a polygraph examiner into believing him, even though the polygraph charts indicate deception”.

Developments in sex offender work in Jackson County, Oregon, led to the establishment o f the first formal polygraph monitoring programme for sex offenders in 1991 (Abrams and Abrams, 1993). This provided the model for polygraph use in conjunction with sex offender treatment. Jackson County even introduced legislation offering some ‘leniency’ when offenders voluntarily disclosed additional offences whilst engaging in probation/treatment work (Oregon Licensing Advisory Committee,

1990).

Importantly, sexual history disclosure interviews do not require specific names, addresses, etc. but tend to focus more on patterns of past abuse, e.g. age and sex of victim, methods of coercion employed and acts committed. As such, previous offences may be ‘disclosed’ for treatment purposes, reducing denial but not resulting in formal charges. The periodic monitoring and maintenance examination however, contrasts considerably, seeking detailed information about current offending.

In Texas, comprehensive efforts have been made to integrate sex offender work and polygraphy leading to the establishment o f The Recommended Guidelines for Clinical Polygraph Examinations of Sex Offenders, (JPCOT, 1998). The document incorporates training and procedural guidance for all recognised polygraph tests in the field of sex offender work.

Holden (1999) reported routine use of polygraphy in sex offender work noting that its use is now mandatory with adolescent sex offenders and Colorado have introduced similar legislation.