题名

測謊於性侵害受刑犯否認態度之應用

并列篇名

Application of Polygraph in Assessment of Denial Attitude of Incarcereted Sexual Offenders in Prison

DOI

10.29478/TJP.200612.0003

作者

蔡景宏(Ching-Hong Tsai)；龍佛衛(For-Wey Lung)；曾冬勝(Dong-Sheng Tzeng)

关键词

否認態度 ； 測謊技術 ； 性侵害犯 ； polygraph technique ； denial attitude ； sex offenders

期刊名称

台灣精神醫學

卷期/出版年月

20卷4期（2006 / 12 / 01）

页次

264 - 271

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

目的：本研究之目的即針對南部某監獄性侵害犯，運用測謊技術，探討「否認」現象，以了解此一技術在國內的使用狀況。方法：選取40名南部某一監獄中之性侵害罪犯，實施測謊技術，特別鎖定罪犯過去性侵害史在揭露測驗(complete disclosure testing)方面之圖譜分析，以了解其性侵害史之否認現象。結果：40名性侵害罪犯個案中，在過去性侵害史測試上，有13位呈現DI(deception indicated)反應，代表有高度否認現象；11位呈現inconclusive反應，代表可能有否認現象；16位呈現NDI(no deception indicated)，代表較無否認現象。刑期長短在說謊與非說謊組有統計意義(t=-3.328, p=0.002)，而年齡、教育程度、婚姻、宗教及過去性與暴力因素則無統計相關。結論：監獄中接受強制診療之性侵害犯可能有60%採取不同程度之否認態度；另外分析也發現否認現象與個案刑期長短有明顯相關，即刑期愈長其否認現象程度愈高。
英文摘要

Objective: Most convicted sex offenders deny or minimize their crimes. Post-conviction polygraph technique examinations are increasingly used as a tool to assist in managing denial attitude in sex offenders more safely and effectively. There has been little study of the problem of denial attitude among offenders in Taiwan. This study used the complete disclosure examination to investigate the denial attitude of incarcerated male sexual offenders. Method: Forty incarcerated male sex offenders were included in this study. All of the subjects gave informed consent to undergo polygraph examination. Data obtained by complete disclosure examination were analyzed to estimate the probability of deception regarding sexual history. All data were recorded with a Lafayette 4000 Computerized Polygraph System by a certificated polygraph examiner. The charts were analysed by POLYSCORE scoring system and by an experienced examiner. Result: Chart analysis led to the classification of deception in 13 subjects, inconclusive results in 11 subjects and no deception in 16 subjects. A significant difference in the duration sentence was found between (deception indicated + inconclusive) and no deception indicated groups. No significant difference was found in age, level of education, marital status and prior sexual offense or violence record among these three groups of subjects. Conclusion: This study found that 60% of incarcerated sex offenders maintained a denial attitude during an interview with their psychiatric treatment provider. This finding suggests the importance of monitoring of the denial problem of sexual offenders by treatment professionals.
主题分类 醫藥衛生 > 社會醫學
参考文献
  1. 翁景惠、高一書(2004)。測謊在我國法院使用之實證研究。臺大法學論叢，32，149-207。
    連結：
  2. 總統華總一義字第09400017721號令修正公布全文25條
  3. Abel G(1998).Multiple Paraphilic Diagnoses Among Sex Offenders.Bull Am Acad of Psychiatry and the Law,16,153-168.
  4. Abram S(1986).Polygraph surveillance of probation.Polygraph,13,174-182.
  5. Abram S(1989).The Complete Polygraph Handbook.Lexington, KY:Lexington Books.
  6. Abram S,Simmon G(2000).Post-conviction polygraph testing: then and now.Polygraph,29,63-67.
  7. Abrams S(1993).Polygraph Testing of the Pedophile.Ryan Gwinner Press.
  8. 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
  9. Alexander MA(1999).Sexual Offender Treatment Efficacy Revisited. Sexual Abuse.A Journal of Research and Treatment,11,101-116.
  10. Barbaree HE(1991).Denial and minimization among sex offenders: assessment and treatment outcome.Forum on corrections research,3,30-33.
  11. Community Supervision of the Sex Offender(2000).An Overview of Current and Promising Practices.Silver Spring, MD:
  12. English K,Pullen S,Jones L(1996).Managing Adult Sex Offenders on Probation and Parole: A Containment Approach.Lexington, KY:American Probation and Parole Association.
  13. Fox D(1992).Polygraph techniques for sex offenders on probation.Polygraph,21,44-50.
  14. Hall GCN(1995).Sex Offender Recidivism Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Treatment Studies.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,63,802-809.
  15. Happel RM,Auffrey JJ(1995).Sex offender assessment: interrupting the dance of denial.Am J Forensic Psychol,13,5-22.
  16. Happel RM,Auffrey JJ(1995).Sex offender assessment: interrupting the dance of denial.Am J Forensic Psychol,13,5-12.
  17. Heilbrun K(1992).The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment.Law Hum Behav,16,257-272.
  18. Laflen B,Sturm WR(1994).Understanding and working with denial in sexual offenders.J Child Sexual Abuse,3,19-36.
  19. Marshall WL,Barbaree HE(1988).The long-term evaluation of a behavioral treatment program for child molesters.Behav Res Ther,26,33-42.
  20. Prentky RA,Lee AFS,Knight RA,Cerce D(1997).Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: a methodological analysis.Law Hum Behav,21,635-659.
  21. Quinsey V(1993).Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders.J Interper Violence,8,512-523.
  22. Salter A.Treating child sex offenders and victims.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
  23. Sefarbi R(1990).Admitters and deniers among adolescent sex offenders and their families: a preliminary study.Am J Orthopsychiatry,60,460-465.
  24. Seto MC,Barbaree HE(1999).Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism.J Interpers Viol,14,1235-1248.
  25. Special Issue.Post-conviction Sex Offender Testing.Polygraph.
  26. Walsh E,Cohen F(2000).Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: A "Megan 73 Law" Sourcebook.Kingston, NJ:Civic Research Institute.
  27. 羅時強(2002)。碩士論文。
被引用次数
  1. 李育政(2013)。觀護人運作預防性測謊所覺知的關係困境及其因應策略。中華心理衛生學刊，26(1)，141-177。
  2. 林明傑、李育政(2012)。觀護人對測謊在性侵害加害人觀護效能之知覺研究。臺大社會工作學刊，26，87-138。
  3. 楊錦青(2012)。性侵害犯罪防治與人權議題之探討—兼論社區處遇之作法。國際文化研究，8(2)，1-25。
print cancel