tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post7280669231382102998..comments2024-03-20T02:49:01.256-04:00Comments on Sexual Abuse: Denial, Minimization, and PolygraphySAJRT Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09979090355557632191noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post-23276801977935035872012-01-15T16:15:52.722-05:002012-01-15T16:15:52.722-05:00Yes, I believe the "how" the polygraph i...Yes, I believe the "how" the polygraph is implemented is crucial. I remember realizing this in 1982 when I saw how some of the leaders in the field at that time were implementing theirs. I would imagine that even the research you cite does not separate out whether the introduction and implementation approach is humanistic or not.<br />On another note, I would like to be more blunt towards an aspect of the problem with sex offenders. MANY people that are in the Justice system (in the various roles) have been sexually offended, and NOT dealt with the complete impact, and MANY more have cared deeply about someone that has. <br />At the same time, we live in cultures that refuse to acknowledge that with the exception of a electively small number of genetically predisposed people who suffer from impulse disorders (those genetic conditions that preclude learning, and therefore make the only effective treatment plan = complete, or close to completely external controls). <br />This culture at large has yet to take responsibility for their own sexual and physical violence towards the less powerful, and therefore, continues to "blame the victim" in a variety of areas where social policy is based on values of aggression and revenge – the same ethic that often creates – or in a major way contributes to – the sexual acting out that we then have trouble seeing as a symptom of non-processed wounds in the overwhelming majority of our sex offender clients.<br />Maybe it's not as bad in Canada, and from comments I've observed from many of my Canadian colleagues, I think that is probably true, however, it has always appeared to me that the justice system in the United States is certainly based, to a large part, on the aggressive/avoidant values and thinking and feeling processes that the very untreated generations of family systems that contribute to the "birthing" many sex offenders in the first place. <br />So, when I view the picture in that way, it does not surprise that the way this limbic (behaviors and beliefs based on aggression or avoidance, fueled by anger and emotional reasoning) policy is implemented creates another obstacle to a sex offender's recovery. <br />The Silver lining beauty of this dark cloud is that in spite of that, the desire to not harm children any longer is still the primary motivation for most sex offenders in recovery, and since it is based on the very foundation of being human – our connections with each other (when safe). (To be fair, this is true only after alternatives to acting out are identified, while simultaneously educating about the defenses that when dropped, kept the client from acting out – often the same defenses they used to tell themselves that THEIR abuse really didn't matter, or wasn't that bad…) <br />Secure attachments – at first with one person, then extended to a support group that can give what we all originally wanted from our original "power people" (parents) are more powerful than the aggressive/avoidant sequilae of good intended but evil in impact social policy– with its emotional reasoning, aggressive and avoidant thinking/justifications, and the marginalization of the objects (scapegoats) of its revenge and punishment.<br />I sometimes wonder whether sex offenders have become the projection of our cultures' "shadows", and is even partly so, care and research, evaluation, and therapy practice needs to "tease out" the specifics around how any treatment technique is implemented.<br />Not to be too extreme: I also find hope in the proliferation of circles of support and restorative justice techniques that you have, as I understand it, had an important role in promoting. Thanks very much for your work and guidance in that regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post-24307987550312564002011-10-17T09:21:42.889-04:002011-10-17T09:21:42.889-04:00Fair enough, my mistake. However, given that you s...Fair enough, my mistake. However, given that you seem to have an interest in the sorts of things raised in this blog, I would encourage you to consider membership in ATSA. That would give you access to the list-serve where you could spur discussion of such things as ethics, good practice, and attention to research findings. RJWsajrthttp://sajrt.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post-75902840551781452062011-10-14T16:34:28.459-04:002011-10-14T16:34:28.459-04:00I'm not on the listserv, as it is my understan...I'm not on the listserv, as it is my understanding that it is for members, and I am not a member. This is why I made the point here, rather than there. So everything I know about the debates there are based on the summary given in your blog post.ACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643809450938135601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post-75626060318170386422011-10-13T10:28:14.730-04:002011-10-13T10:28:14.730-04:00As I seem to remember, you are also a member of th...As I seem to remember, you are also a member of the ATSA list-serve. In this blog, we have attempted to provide a balanced commentary on a contentious issue. I don't remember seeing anything from you on the subject during the recent ATSA list-serve debate regarding polygraph evaluations. The list-serve is open to perspective from all participants and, as you've likely noticed, "taboo" is not typically an issue. If you have something to say, I wholeheartedly encourage you to say it. RJWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4037283511791624881.post-65581374407131782162011-10-13T01:35:20.984-04:002011-10-13T01:35:20.984-04:00In the arguments considered, there is a rather gla...In the arguments considered, there is a rather glaring omission. So I shall quote from the APA and NASW's codes of ethics, as it sounds like your entire listserv has either forgotten about it or considers it taboo to even bring up.<br /><i>Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence <br />Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.</i><br /><br /><i>Social workers’ primary responsibility is to promote the wellbeing of clients. In general, clients’ interests are primary. However, social workers’ responsibility to the larger society or specific legal obligations may <b>on limited occasions supersede the loyalty owed clients, and clients should be so advised</b>. (Examples include when a social worker is required by law to report that a client has abused a child or has threatened to harm self or others.)</i>ACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643809450938135601noreply@blogger.com