中華心理衛生協會

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.