There has been much talk of late about polygraphy and sexual offender risk management in a number of forums. Recent issues of The Forum of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers have included both articles and reviews of books about the polygraph. Similarly, the list-serve of the same organization has seen a number of recent threads on this topic, with heated debate from both sides. Further, at a couple of recent trainings conducted in New York State (by RJW), the topic also came up, with equally spirited discussion. From our observations (and, perhaps, participations in those discussions), it is pretty clear that this topic includes a significant degree of passion and has the potential to polarize (alienate?) persons who, by our estimation, are all similarly inclined towards public safety.
Overall, the debate seems to progress along a number of lines:
- How do denial and minimization affect recidivism?
- How much “truth” is necessary in order to provide effective treatment or risk management?
- Do we need to “honor” the victims of sexual abuse by making sure that offenders take full responsibility for their actions?
- What does the research tell us about the overall utility of the polygraph itself as a tool for use in sexual offender risk management?
The meta-analytic data suggest that neither denial nor minimization are particularly fruitful as indicators of reoffense risk, but we are aware that other data seek to clarify that global perspective. As clinicians, we find it interesting that full disclosure is a prerequisite for treatment entry or continued participation for sexual offenders, and sexual offenders only. In no other aspect of mental health or impulse control do we compel clients to enunciate in painstaking detail the particulars of every instance in which they either did or might experience the negative symptoms or manifestations of their difficulties. Think what might happen if we held schizophrenics or drug addicts to the same standard? Would anyone ever get better?
Third, while many of us feel that the rapid accountability that polygraphy provides is part of a victim-centered approach, we are unfamiliar with any research showing that survivors of sexual abuse want compelled disclosure. If it were us, we would prefer that someone who hurt us had demonstrated meaningful change rather than confess merely because he/she was compelled to do so by representatives of the legal system. Admission does not equal understanding. Most of the survivors with whom we’ve worked have simply said they just wanted the behavior to stop. It is clear that sexual offender treatment can be of assistance to victims; however, we question by what authority we presume to speak for survivors.
Last, there seems to be no research showing that the polygraph is directly beneficial to clients’ treatment progress in the long term. The available data (from McGrath and crew in Vermont), scant as they are, would seem to suggest either the opposite or simply no effect. Nonetheless, many of us believe that the polygraph is an important part of the equation for various reasons, such as the fact that it produces more information. What is less clear is that more information is necessarily better information. How much of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is required for offenders to appreciate the harm caused by their behavior and to make genuine and real efforts to stop? Similar to our questions above, if we were providing treatment for other kinds of crime, would it be necessary to account for every instance of criminal behavior? Or, is it that we feel compelled to account for every hurtful sexual behavior because of the high stakes?
As noted above, the current data underscoring the reliability and validity of polygraphy as used with sexual offenders are scant or questionable. That is not to say that polygraph assessment doesn’t assist some clients some of the time, and we get that. Rather, we believe that, as a field of inquiry and practice, we owe it to our clients, victims, and the community-at-large to employ methods supported by sound science. Perhaps, this is the reason why many courts have qualms about accepting polygraph results? For us, we’re all about the data. Show us the data and we’re good to go. Otherwise, we likely ought to be more circumspect.
We also wonder why a tool used so extensively in common practice has not been the subject of more research? Other technologies—actuarial risk assessment scales, PPG, and VRT measures—all routinely used in sexual offender risk management have been subject to extensive inquiry as to their relative utility in our cause. Why not polygraphy? As one ATSA list-serve poster noted, we don’t need extensive research to accept that parachutes are an important preventive measure when jumping out of a plane. However, is this degree of face validity appropriate regarding the polygraph? In this regard, we are very mindful of Marshall’s research on the deleterious effects of confrontation in treatment and means by which to offer effective treatment to “deniers”. Perhaps, the issue is more about how we use polygraph and for what purpose. This brings us back to our questions about how much “truth” is required and what methods of eliciting those truths are most likely to get us what we want—increased public safety?
Perhaps, we need to be more honest with ourselves: Our field uses the polygraph to meet our needs more than those of our clients. Whether that is good or bad depends on one’s orientation and definition of what sexual offender treatment actually is. However, it might also be time to address an irony in this discussion: An essential part of the polygraph examinations involves being certain of the technology and the results. When our field is as uncertain as it is, where does our own credibility start to come into question?