Treatment of Sex Offenders

Chapter 6
Polygraph Testing of Sex Offenders
Don Grubin
Introduction
From tentative beginnings in the 1990s, postconviction sex offender testing (PCSOT)
has become increasingly incorporated into sex offender treatment and supervision
in both the United States and United Kingdom. McGrath, Cumming, Burchard,
Zeoli, and Ellerby ( 2010 ), for example, reported that nearly 80 % of community
adult sex offender programs in the United States and over half of residential ones
make use of polygraph testing to inform treatment or supervision, while in the
United Kingdom, mandatory testing of high-risk sex offenders on parole was introduced
in 2014 after a number of trials. Its spread to other countries is likely, with a
number of jurisdictions actively considering its use.
The growing influence of PCSOT, however, is not without controversy. The
speed with which it has been embraced by programs has tended to outpace evidence,
with much of its impetus coming from clinical experience supported by a
research base of limited robustness. Only recently have more well-designed studies
been carried out. Although this is not unusual when new procedures are introduced,
PCSOT carries with it significant baggage associated with polygraph testing more
generally. Thus, while proponents claim that PCSOT makes important contributions
to sex offender treatment and management by bringing to attention changes in risk,
facilitating disclosures, and perhaps encouraging offenders to modify their behavior
(Grubin, 2008 ; Levenson, 2009 ), others are more skeptical. Commentators,
for example, have argued that the type of polygraph test used in PCSOT lacks
D. Grubin , M.D., F.R.C.Psych. (*)
Institute of Neuroscience , Newcastle University , Gosforth ,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3XT , UK
Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust , St Nicholas Hospital ,
Gosforth , Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3XT , UK
e-mail: don.grubin@ncl.ac.uk
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
D.R. Laws, W. O’Donohue (eds.), Treatment of Sex Offenders,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25868-3_6
133