题名

觀護人運作預防性測謊所覺知的關係困境及其因應策略

并列篇名

Perceived Relationship Difficulties in Using the Polygraph in Sex Offender Supervision and the Coping Strategies: Findings from Taiwanese Probation and Parole Officers

DOI

10.30074/FJMH.201303_26(1).0005

作者

李育政(Yu-Jeng Li)

关键词

性侵害加害人 ； 測謊 ； 觀護 ； 關係 ； 角色衝突 ； 兩難 ； sex offender ； polygraph ； supervision ； relationship ； role conflict ； dilemma

期刊名称

中華心理衛生學刊

卷期/出版年月

26卷1期（2013 / 03 / 01）

页次

141 - 177

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

研究目的：本研究從微觀層面探究觀護人在運作預防性測謊時，其與加害人互動所覺知的困境及其因應策略。研究方法：研究者以立意及滾雪球取樣，選取七名觀護人進行個別的深度訪談，質性訪談資料則以主題分析法進行分析。研究結果：受訪觀護人在運作預防性測謊時，經驗到加害人的不安及抗拒行為，影響觀護關係中的信任感。然而，大多數觀護人認為可以藉由採取協助的角度，向加害人清楚說明其在觀護期間的義務及各項觀護措施的目的，以處理這樣的困境。此外，由於觀護人肩負再犯監督與輔導的雙重衝突角色、測謊的角色定位，及測謊準確度和證據力仍有限制下，本研究的觀護人在面對測謊結果時，採取不同的策略以為因應，包含：「再犯監督重於輔導的處置」、「輔導重於再犯監督的處置」及「再犯監督與輔導折衷下的處置」。研究結論：觀護人對於自身工作角色取向的認定和對觀護措施的觀點，影響其後續運用該觀護措施和對加害人進行觀護的方式。本研究藉由呈現觀護人在運作預防性測謊的決策過程，以提供其未來在加害人觀護中運作測謊，甚或其他觀護措施的反身性思考機會。
英文摘要

Purpose: Little empirical research is available on polygraph use in sex offender supervision and treatment in Taiwan. Particularly, first-line law enforcement officers' (i.e., probation and parole officers) experiences in using polygraph testing in supervision plans remain unknown. Accordingly, this study explores at a micro level how probation and parole officers perceive and cope with difficulties in using the polygraph when working with sex offenders. Methods: The author conducted in-depth interviews individually with seven probation and parole officers recruited by purposeful and snowball sampling. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Results: The probation and parole officers found that sex offenders were anxious and had some resistant behaviors because of the use of polygraph testing in supervision, which affected the trust in the supervisory relationship. One officer even regarded polygraph testing as the last resort in the supervision plan. However, most of the officers acknowledged that such difficulties could be dealt with by explaining clearly to offenders their duties during supervision as well as the objective of every supervisory measure from the angle of helping offenders. On the other hand, due to the conflicting dual roles of surveillance and guidance undertaken by the probation and parole officer, the perceived role of polygraph testing, and the limited accuracy and power of evidence of polygraph tests, the officers in this study adopted different strategies to respond to polygraph results: (a) ”Surveillance was superior to guidance” indicated that the officer would report to the prosecutor offenses involving specific victims disclosed from polygraph tests, so that welfare services could be delivered to the victims. (b) ”Guidance was superior to surveillance” denoted that the officer would not report to the prosecutor offenses involving unknown victims revealed from polygraph tests, because he or she viewed polygraph tests as an indicator of making and adjusting the supervision plan rather than the one of starting criminal investigation. (c) ”A compromise between surveillance and guidance” was twofold: not to use sexual history disclosure tests and monitoring tests; to refer offenses involving specific victims uncovered as a result of polygraph tests to the sexual assault prevention center. Conclusions: The author argues that the negative effects stemming from using the polygraph in sex offender supervision may be addressed by the probation and parole officer's embracing a rehabilitation-based and caring supervision style. In addition, the ways supervisory measures are employed and offenders are supervised are subject to how officers perceive their role orientation and the supervisory measures. Although the findings are preliminary, the present study documents probation and parole officers' decision-making processes in using the polygraph, thus providing officers with the opportunity for reflexive thinking about the future use of polygraph testing or other supervisory measures in sex offender supervision. Future research should pay attention to the relationships between probation and parole officers' role orientation, their viewpoints on supervisory measures, and other possible influencing factors. Offenders' perceptions of the ways officers employ supervisory measures are needed to be explored as well.
主题分类 社會科學 > 心理學
参考文献
  1. 王郁文、修慧蘭(2008)。性侵害加害人否認行為之研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，23，177-211。
    連結：
  2. 林順昌(2008)。平成觀護法之啟示與我國觀護法案之芻議。犯罪學期刊，11(2)，33-64。
    連結：
  3. 蔡景宏、龍佛衛、曾東勝(2006)。測謊於性侵害受刑犯否認態度之應用。台灣精神醫學，20(4)，264-271。
    連結：
  4. 司法院(2005)：〈最高法院刑事判決94年度台上字第4391號〉。2012年1月10日，取自http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD。
  5. 法務部(2012)：〈法務統計年報〉。2012年8月7日，取自http://www.moj.gov.tw/site/moj/public/MMO/moj/stat/yearbook/ER0003-354-401.pdf。
  6. Offender Management Act. (2007). Retrieved July 2, 2012, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/21/pdfs/ukpga_20070021_en.pdf
  7. American Polygraph Association. (2009). Model policy for post-conviction sex offender testing. Retrieved December 28, 2011, from http://www.polygraph.org/files/Model_Policy_for_Post-Conviction_Sex_Offender_Testing.doc
  8. Abrams, S.,Ogard, E.(1986).Polygraph surveillance of probationers.Polygraph,15,175-182.
  9. Ahlmeyer, S.,Heil, P.,McKee, B.,English, K.(2000).The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,12,123-138.
  10. Aronson, J.(1994).A pragmatic view of thematic analysis.The Qualitative Report,2,1-3.
  11. Ben-Shakhar, G.(2008).The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders.Legal and Criminological Psychology,13,191-207.
  12. Braun, V.,Clarke, V.(2006).Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology,3,77-101.
  13. Burnett, R.,McNeill, F.(2005).The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime.Probation Journal,52,221-242.
  14. Cross, T. P.,Saxe, L.(2001).Polygraph testing and sexual abuse: The lure of the magic lasso.Child Maltreatment,6,195-206.
  15. Cumming, G. F.,Buell, M. M.(1996).Relapse prevention as a supervision strategy for sex offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,8,231-241.
  16. Elliott, G. C.,Kao, S.,Grant, A.-M.(2004).Mattering: Empirical validation of a socialpsychological construct.Self and Identity,3,339-354.
  17. English, K.(1998).The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex offenders.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,4,218-235.
  18. English, K.,Jones, L.,Patrick, D.,Pasini-Hill, D.(2003).Sexual offender containment: Use of the postconviction polygraph.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,989,411-427.
  19. Fiedler, K.,Schmid, J.,Stahl, T.(2002).What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection?.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,24,313-324.
  20. Glasman, L. R.,Albarracín, D.(2006).Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation.Psychological Bulletin,132,778-822.
  21. Golafshani, N.(2003).Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.The Qualitative Report,8,597-607.
  22. Grubin, D.(2010).A trial of voluntary polygraphy testing in 10 English probation areas.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,22,266-278.
  23. Grubin, D.(2008).The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders.Legal and Criminological Psychology,13,177-189.
  24. Grubin, D.,Madsen, L.(2006).Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders.British Journal of Psychiatry,188,479-483.
  25. Grubin, D.,Madsen, L.,Parsons, S.,Sosnowski, D.,Warberg, B.(2004).A prospective study of the impact of polygraphy on high-risk behaviors in adult sex offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,16,209-222.
  26. Gunnison, E.,Helfgott, J. B.(2011).Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,55,287-304.
  27. Hanson, R. K.,Harris, A. J. R.(2000).Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism.Criminal Justice and Behavior,27,6-35.
  28. Heil, P.,Ahlmeyer, S.,Simons, D.(2003).Crossover sexual offenses.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,15,221-236.
  29. Hindman, J.,Peters, J. M.(2001).Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile sex offenders.Federal Probation,65,8-15.
  30. Iacono, W. G.(2001).Forensic lie detection: Procedures without scientific basis.Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,1,75-86.
  31. Kennealy, P. J.,Skeem, J. L.,Manchak, S. M.,Eno Louden, J.(2012).Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure.Law and Human Behavior,36,496-505.
  32. King, W. R.,Dunn, T. M.(2010).Detecting deception in field settings: A review and critique of the criminal justice and psychological literatures.Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,33,305-320.
  33. Koch, T.(2006).Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail.Journal of Advanced Nursing,53,91-100.
  34. Kokish, R.,Levenson, J. S.,Blasingame, G. D.(2005).Post-conviction sex offender polygraph examination: Client-reported perceptions of utility and accuracy.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,17,211-221.
  35. Long, T.,Johnson, M.(2000).Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research.Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing,4,30-37.
  36. Madsen, L.,Parsons, S.,Grubin, D.(2004).A preliminary study of the contribution of periodic polygraph testing to the treatment and supervision of sex offenders.Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology,15,682-695.
  37. Marks, D. F.(Ed.),Yardley, L.(Ed.)(2003).Research methods for clinical and health psychology.London, UK:Sage.
  38. Marshall, W. L.(2005).Therapist style in sexual offender treatment: Influence on indices of change.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,17,109-116.
  39. Marshall, W. L.,Serran, G.,Moulden, H.,Mulloy, R.,Fernandez, Y. M.,Mann, R.,Thornton, D.(2002).Therapist features in sexual offender treatment: Their reliable identification and influence on behaviour change.Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,9,395-405.
  40. May, D. C.,Wood, P. B.,Mooney, J. L.,Minor, K. I.(2005).Predicting offender-generated exchange rates: Implications for a theory of sentence severity.Crime & Delinquency,51,373-399.
  41. McGrath, R. J.,Cumming, G. F.,Hoke, S. E.,Bonn-Miller, M. O.(2007).Outcomes in a community sex offender treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-polygraphed offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,19,381-393.
  42. National Association of Social Workers(2008).Code of Ethics.Washington, DC:Author.
  43. National Research Council.(2003).The polygraph and lie detection.Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
  44. Neuman, W. L.(2000).Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
  45. Patton, M. Q.(2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  46. Payne, B. K.,Gainey, R. R.(1998).A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,42,149-163.
  47. Quinn, J. F.,Gould, L. A.(2003).The prioritization of treatment among Texas parole officers.The Prison Journal,83,323-336.
  48. Rayle, A. D.(2006).Mattering to others: Implications for the counseling relationship.Journal of Counseling & Development,84,483-487.
  49. Robinson, G.,Raynor, P.(2006).The future of rehabilitation: What role for the probation service?.Probation Journal,53,334-346.
  50. Rogers, C. R.(1957).The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.Journal of Consulting Psychology,21,95-103.
  51. Saxe, L.,Dougherty, D.,Cross, T.(1985).The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific analysis and public controversy.American Psychologist,40,355-366.
  52. Schneider, S. L.,Wright, R. C.(2004).Understanding denial in sexual offenders: A review of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid responsibility.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,5,3-20.
  53. Schutt, R. K.(2006).Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (5th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge Press.
  54. Seiter, R. P.,West, A. D.(2003).Supervision styles in probation and parole: An analysis of activities.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,38,57-75.
  55. Trotter, C.(2006).Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  56. Vess, J.(2011).Ethical practice in sex offender assessment: Consideration of actuarial and polygraph methods.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,23,381-396.
  57. Vrij, A.(2004).Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve.Legal and Criminological Psychology,9,159-181.
  58. Ward, T.,Gannon, T. A.,Birgden, A.(2007).Human rights and the treatment of sex offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,19,195-216.
  59. Wilcox, D. T.(Ed.)(2009).The use of the polygraph in assessing, treating and supervising sex offenders: A practitioner's guide.Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons.
  60. Wilcox, D.,Buschman, J.(2011).Case studies in the utility of the polygraph.Sexual Offender Treatment,6(1)
  61. 沈勝昂、翁景惠(2003)。內政部委託研究計畫內政部委託研究計畫,內政部。
  62. 林故廷(2009)。性侵害加害人社區再犯監控測謊之運用。刑事雙月刊，30，48-51。
  63. 林故廷(2010)。性侵害加害人預防性測謊與臺灣現況。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，6(1)，87-104。
  64. 陳振煜(2006)。性侵害犯罪者之監控治療─美國測謊之旅。刑事雙月刊，10，34-36。
  65. 謝秀芬(2006)。社會個案工作：理論與技巧（二版）。台北:雙葉。
print cancel