Deception NOS

587 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
587
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Deception NOS

  1. 1. DECEPTION NOS<br />The Polygraph During the Identification and Management of Sex Offenders<br />KEN BLACKSTONE<br />ACFP – 2010<br />
  2. 2. There once was a doctor named Hugo, a lawyer named John and a doctor/lawyer named William.<br />Hugo had a square peg, John had a round hole, and William started carving.<br />The carving continues.<br />
  3. 3. Ph.D. – 1885<br />M.D. – 1887<br />HARVARD PSYCHOLOGY LAB - 1902<br />“ON THE WITNESS STAND” – 1908<br />HUGO MUNSTERBERG (1863 – 1916)<br />
  4. 4. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY<br />FALSE CONFESSIONS<br />INTERROGATIONS<br />PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY<br />ON THE WITNESS STAND<br />
  5. 5. If “there is ever devised a psychological test for the valuation of witnesses, the law will run to meet it.” <br />Illinois Law Review, 3, 399-445  (1909)<br />Evidence § 875 (2d ed. 1923)<br />JOHN HENRY WIGMORE (1863-1943)<br />
  6. 6. Wigmore encouraged William Marston, who was then a graduate student at Harvard, to “build a device that would monitor the pulse of a witness and would display the activity to the jury.” <br />Assistant Secretary of War<br />Medal of Freedom<br />Harvard Law degree – 1918<br />Harvard Ph.D. (Psychology) – 1921<br />Marston(1893-1947)<br />
  7. 7. Marston, William, “The Physiological Possibilities of the Deception Test”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1921.<br />Trial courts in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio admitted <br />Marston tested witnesses while on the witness stand<br />MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST<br />
  8. 8. 1922 FRYE TEST<br />
  9. 9. STENOGRAPHER<br />BLOOD PRESSURE OPERATIVE<br />CROSS EXAMINER<br />STETHESCOPE AND BP CUFF<br />DISCONTINUOUS<br />MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST<br />
  10. 10. MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST<br />
  11. 11. Tobacco Smoke Enema<br />
  12. 12. First “polygraph” was a copy machine – 1804<br />First multi-channel instrument - 1921<br />All electronic analog - 1974<br />Computer aided analog - 1988<br />Fully Computerized recording – 1992<br />CHANGES<br />
  13. 13. PNEUMOGRAPH (2)<br />THORACIC BREATHING<br />ABDOMINAL BREATHING<br />GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSE (GSR)<br />ELECTRO DERMAL ACTIVITY<br />POLYGRAPH INSTRUMENT<br />
  14. 14. CARDIOGRAPH<br />BLOOD VOLUME<br />PULSE<br />PHOTOPLETHYSMOGRAPH<br />VASOCONSTRICTION<br />POLYGRAPH INSTRUMENT<br />
  15. 15.
  16. 16. EXAMINATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED USING A TESTING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE THAT HAS BEEN VALIDATED THROUGH PUBLISHED AND REPLICATED RESEARCH. <br />AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION<br />
  17. 17. examinations are not permitted to materially deviate from the protocols of a validated testing technique. <br />AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION<br />
  18. 18.
  19. 19. EVIDENTIARY – min 90% OVERALL ACCURACY<br />INVESTIGATIVE – min 80% OVERALL ACCURACY<br />Post Conviction Sex Offender Tests<br />AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION<br />
  20. 20.
  21. 21. Examiners should use multi-issue polygraph techniques only in the absence of a known incident, known allegation, or a particular reason to suspect wrongful behavior. <br />AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION<br />
  22. 22. Examiners should use a successive hurdles approach to testing to maximize both the informational efficiency and sensitivity of multi-issue (mixed-issue) screening polygraphs and the diagnostic efficiency and specificity of event-specific single-issue exams. <br />AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION<br />
  23. 23. FAILURE TO DISCERN BETWEEN<br />FORENSIC – DIAGNOSTIC POLYGRAPH <br />UTILITY – NON-DIAGNOSTIC POLYGRAPH<br />WHY HAS WIGMORE’S PROPHESY FAILED?<br />
  24. 24. DIAGNOSIS<br />DISCLOSURE<br />FORENSIC EXAMINER:<br />
  25. 25. <ul><li>DIAGNOSTIC @ SINGLE-ISSUE
  26. 26. IF MULTIPLE ISSUES EXIST
  27. 27. PRIORITIZE
  28. 28. SUCCESSIVE HURDLES APPROACH </li></ul>FORENSIC APPROACH<br />
  29. 29. DISCLOSURE<br />DIAGNOSIS<br />UTILITY EXAMINER:<br />
  30. 30. SCREENING @ MULTIPLE ISSUES<br />CREATES UNCERTAINTY<br />DISCLOSURES + CONFESSIONS<br />UTILITY APPROACH<br />
  31. 31. IGNORES RULE OF NO POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS (DI) ON A SCREENING TEST<br />DIAGNOSIS FROM A NON-DIAGNOSTIC TEST<br />UTILITY APPROACH<br />
  32. 32. CAN MONITOR ACTIVITY<br />CAN NOT DETERMINE VERACITY<br />UTILITY EXAMINATIONS<br />
  33. 33. MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966<br />
  34. 34. THE NORM FOR POST-ADJUDICATION TESTING OF SEX OFFENDERS<br />LOVE OF DISCLOSURES <br />FEAR OF FALSE NEGATIVES<br />THE UTILITY APPROACH<br />
  35. 35. SALEM WITCH TRIALS<br />RED-SCARE<br />CSA - SATANIC SCARE<br />RICHARD A. GARDNER, M.D.<br />THREE WAVES OF HYSTERIA<br />
  36. 36. SEXUAL PSYCHOPATH LAWS<br />FOCUS ON DOMESTIC SEX CRIMES – FEMINISM<br />SVP LAWS<br />LIEB,QUINSEY,BERLINER 1998<br />THREE WAVES OF SOCIAL POLICY<br />
  37. 37. 1966 - ILLINOIS JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SUBSTANCE ABUSERS.<br />1969 - WASHINGTON JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SHOPLIFTERS.<br />1973 - OREGON JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SEX OFFENDERS.<br />POLYGRAPH SURVEILLANCE<br />
  38. 38. SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT + MANAGEMENT NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY<br />PRISON<br />COMMUNITY – ALL STATES<br />CIVIL COMMITMENT – 19 OF 20 STATES<br />TODAY:<br />
  39. 39. AT ITS BEST: STEP TOWARDS DIAGNOSIS<br />AT ITS WORST: INSTRUMENTAL INTERROGATION<br />UTILITY APPROACH<br />
  40. 40. UTILITY OUTCOMES IMPACT <br />SENTENCING<br />HABEAS HEARINGS<br />PAROLE HEARINGS<br />REVOCATION HEARINGS<br />
  41. 41. SVP TRIALS<br />SVP LRA<br />SVP RELEASE<br />
  42. 42. ALL YOU HAVE ARE THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND THE OUTCOME “DECEPTION INDICATED”.<br />
  43. 43. DID YOU TOUCH THAT BOY’S PENIS?<br />DID YOU SHOW THAT BOY PORNOGRAPHY?<br />DID YOU ENCOURAGE THAT BOY TO DRINK ALCOHOL?<br />HAVE YOU EVER FANTASIZED ABOUT SEX WITH A MINOR?<br />MULTIPLE ISSUE<br />
  44. 44. DID YOU HAVE SEX WITH (ANOTHER INMATE) LAST WEEK?<br />SYLT, HAVE YOU LIED TO YOUR THERAPIST ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL VICTIMS?<br />SYLT, HAVE YOU LIED TO YOUR THERAPIST ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL FANTASIES?<br />
  45. 45. ARGUE THAT POLYGRAPH DOESN’T WORK<br />NEURALYZER - MEN IN BLACK<br />OPTION 1:<br />
  46. 46. BUT WILL IT ERASE IT FROM THE MIND OF EVALUATOR WHO HAS READ AND QUOTED THE POLYGRAPH REPORT?<br />MAY KEEP IT OUT OF COURT<br />
  47. 47. PROFESSIONAL APPROACH<br />FIVE RULES<br />OPTION 2<br />
  48. 48. MULTIPLE ISSUE SCREENING TESTS ARE NOT USED TO MAKE A POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS (DI)<br />RULE #1<br />
  49. 49. USE SUCCESIVE HURDLES APPROACH <br />RULE #2<br />
  50. 50. RULE #3<br />ACCURACY INCREASES AS THE SCOPE OF THE RELEVANT ISSUE DECREASES<br />GROUP<br />INDIVIDUAL<br />
  51. 51. RULE #4<br />ERRORS IN QUESTION FORMULATION ARE FATAL ERRORS<br />
  52. 52. NEVER MIX KNOWN WITH UNKNOWN ISSUES<br />RULE #5<br />
  53. 53. 770-630-2485<br />2951 FLOWERS ROAD SOUTH<br />SUITE 243<br />ATLANTA, GA 30341<br />www.blackstonepolygraph.com<br />kenblackstone@gmail.com<br />ANOTHER OPTION:<br />
  54. 54. QUESTIONS?<br />
  55. 55. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION – www.polygraph.org<br />Blackstone, K.E. (2008). Post-Conviction Polygraph in the Community and Court: Raising the Bar on PCSOT Examiners, The Forensic Examiner, 17 (3), 72-79 <br />Krapohl, D. (2006). Validated Polygraph Techniques. Polygraph, 35(3), 149-155<br />Lieb, R., Quinsey, R., Berliner, L. (1998) Sexual Predators and Social Policy (M. Tonry, Ed.). Crime and Justice: A review of Research, 23, 43-114<br />Marston, W. (1938). The Lie Detector Test. New York: Richard R. Smith, 1938, pp. 1-179<br />References:<br />

×