litigator
Junior Member
The legal guy
Posts: 20
|
Post by litigator on Mar 13, 2007 19:13:07 GMT -5
Before I make any posts on this topic I thought I would solict you all and see if there is any interest. If I see a few replies I will post some stuff that is not for the faint of heart.
|
|
|
Post by Dean on the laptop on Mar 13, 2007 21:33:46 GMT -5
I’m sure some people here are not familiar with what Phallometric testing is so here is the best explanation I can give.
Phallometric testing using the penile plethysmograph involves the measurement of changes in penile circumference in response to sexual and nonsexual stimuli. Phallometric testing provides objective information about male sexual interests, and is therefore useful for identifying deviant sexual interests. (ATSA Practice Standards and Guidelines)
The major advantages:
Identify individuals who show excessive arousal in response to stimuli associated with sexual abuse. Identify lack of sexual arousal to stimuli of consenting sexual relations. Identify offenders whose arousal disorder indicates the need for specialized therapies (e.g. behavioral, hormonal). Data may assist in minimizing distortions evident in self-reported levels of sexual arousal. Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy (best for behavior therapy); and Enhancement of some forms of behavior therapy.
Testing Process:
There are three phases of a Phallometric Test. These phases are described below:
Interview Phase: During this phase, the examinee (person being tested) will be asked questions about their sexual interests and behaviors, as well as be informed about the testing procedure.
In-test Phase: This phase is conducted in the laboratory. The examinee is in a private room. He is instructed on how to place the penile transducer on his penis. He then views and listens to various stimulus materials. As different stimulus material is presented, he may experience varying levels of sexual arousal—which is recorded on a moving chart in a separate room.
Post-test Phase: The data collected in the in-test phase is interpreted and reviewed with the examinee.
Cautions:
Phallometric test results should not be used to make inferences about whether an individual has or has not committed a specific sexual crime; and Phallometric testing should not be used as the sole criterion for estimating risk for engaging in sexually abusive behavior.
|
|
|
Post by powderedsugar on Mar 13, 2007 21:38:37 GMT -5
how often is this used and would it be used if CAS claims sexual abuse even though its not happened?
|
|
litigator
Junior Member
The legal guy
Posts: 20
|
Post by litigator on Mar 13, 2007 22:12:35 GMT -5
This is a favorite tool of cas workers and they try and trick, force or coerce everyone into it at some point. What you need to remember is that the truth is not important to these people. Whether anything happened or not is irrelevant to the monsters at CAS. If anyone mentions this test to you refuse.
Physiological. Physiological assessment techniques such as phallometric evaluation render specific information regarding deviant sexual arousal / preferences. Phallometric evaluation is paramount because the modification of inappropriate sexual preferences is central to many treatment programs for sexual offenders (Correctional Service Canada, 1995a). Physiological assessment of sexual arousal uses various (audiotapes, videotapes, slides) standardized stimuli to determine age and gender preference, as well as interest in sexual violence relative to consensual sexual interactions. Application of this technique requires a sensor or transducer to measure penile tumescence (or vaginal swelling in female sex offenders), a recording system, and a variety of sexual stimuli. The most frequently-used transducers are circumferential plethysmographs and volumetric devices (Abel, Lawry, Karlstrom, Osborn & Gillespie, 1994). It has been well-documented that the use of these instruments in physiological evaluation differentiates pedophiles from non-pedophiles (Abel et al., 1994) and rapists from non-rapists (Lalumière & Quinsey, 1994). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that a higher degree of violence and brutality in the stimulus set (i.e., the rape scenario) is better able to discriminate rapists from men with no known history of sexual assault (Lalumière & Quinsey 1994; Rice, Chaplin, Harris, & Coutts, 1990). There is also some empirical evidence that, amongst rapists, sexual and violent recidivism are well predicted by phallometrically measured sexual interest in nonsexual violence (Rice, Harris, & Quinsey, 1990). Finally, phallometry has proven to be a useful tool in risk prediction, where sex offenders who demonstrate more deviant sexual arousal are more likely to commit new sex offences upon release (Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995). Treatment providers aim to reduce offenders’ deviant sexual arousal. Comparison of pre- and post-treatment phallometric tests (within-subject) enables the assessor to determine whether programming has helped to achieve this goal. There are, however, some noteworthy problems with phallometric testing. The first issue involves the fact that over 20% of the respondents cannot be correctly assessed because sexual arousal levels are consistently too low (less than 10% of full erection) for accurate classification (Abel et al., 1994; Marshall, 1996). The second issue focuses on the reality that most respondents, especially convicted sex offenders, would likely want to inhibit their arousal to deviant stimuli. This limits the utility of phallometric testing. Quinsey and Chaplin (1988) demonstrated that respondents can both inhibit and enhance sexual responding in phallometric assessment procedures when motivated to do so. As Marshall (1996) pointed out, "there is no broadly accepted standardized approach to phallometric testing... [and] some men can successfully fake a response profile without any signs being evident" (p.167). Despite this, research has also shown that it is possible to prevent faking in phallometric assessment procedures. Quinsey and Chaplin (1988) used phallometric evaluations to test non-deviant heterosexual males under three conditions: ordinary instructions, ‘fake’ instructions (i.e., to appear sexually interested in rape and nonsexual violence but not in consenting sex), and fake instructions while performing a secondary semantic tracking task. Audiotaped stimuli was used, and the tracking task required the participants to press a button whenever sexual activity was being described, and to press another button whenever violence occurred. This task ensured that the participants were attending to the stimuli and focused their attention on only the critical elements of the stories. Results showed that the respondents could fake inappropriate preferences (when instructed to do so) when not required to perform the secondary task. However, when required to attend to relevant stimuli through performing the semantic tracking task, group data indicated that arousal was inhibited and despite instructions to fake sexual interest. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings are consistent with sexually-deviant subjects.
The penile plethysmograph attempts to measure physiological indications of sexual arousal in response to particular stimulus materials. The individual is placed in a room and a mercury strain gauge /2/ is placed around the penis so that the circumference of the penis can be measured. And this mercury strain gauge is capable of measuring slight increases in circumference, many times before they are noticeable to the man himself. The individual is then presented with sequential stimulus materials, auditory and visual, encouraging him to think about and look at materials indicative of sexual activity with different ages of people. 459 S.E.2d at 815. Courts applying the Daubert analysis have excluded evidence of penile plethysmography based upon its scientific unreliability. In United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995), the court excluded the penile plethysmograph test because it failed to qualify under Daubert's scientific validity prong: The evidence produced at trial clearly showed that these factors weighed against the admission of the penile plethysmograph test results. First, the Government proffered evidence that the scientific literature addressing penile plethysmography does not regard the test as a valid diagnostic tool because, although useful for treatment of sex offenders, it has no accepted standards in the scientific community. Second, the Government also introduced evidence before the judge that a vast majority of incest offenders who do not admit their guilt, such as Powers, show a normal reaction to the test. The Government argues that such false negatives render the test unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by powderedsugar on Mar 14, 2007 6:58:38 GMT -5
so they haven't come out and actually said he did anything, just suggestions through the court papers? I feel that thats what they are trying to say. (Due to one child touching themselves and one sleeps with their hand in their diaper at night)
|
|
|
Post by powderedsugar on Mar 14, 2007 7:02:01 GMT -5
sorry hit the reply the cat stood on my keyboard,
will they try to charge him or do an investigation? He wants to move out as he didn't do it but because the worker has been caught speaking with our neighbors who don't have any kids nor do I talk to these people as they call on everyone else and pull me into it he feels the neighbors are going to try something as thats the area I live in.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 14, 2007 18:47:01 GMT -5
If they are saying down on paper that your husband is a child molester or along those lines and he has done nothing wrong, have this worker sued, for defamation of character....make sure the papers are filed and in court before all this shit goes down..they have already ruined his life and he has to fight this NOW.
|
|
litigator
Junior Member
The legal guy
Posts: 20
|
Post by litigator on Mar 15, 2007 4:20:05 GMT -5
Although it would be great if you could successfully sue a CAS worker for defamation of character, however the reality is that this type of civil suit is very costly and extremely difficult to prove. You may want to consider small claims instead, your chances of success in nailing a worker for damages are much higher in small claims. The key to winning such a case is that you must prove the worker acted in BAD FAITH. Certainly not hard to do as most workers act in bad faith. Collect your evidence well.
|
|
|
Post by Hung on Jan 23, 2019 9:42:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by WillieMer on Sept 12, 2020 8:24:54 GMT -5
Hi, here on the forum guys advised a cool Dating site, be sure to register - you will not REGRET it bit.ly/2RekhmH
|
|