Of child molestation and crystal balls

How much can a forensic psychologist really tell?

Defense attorneys regularly telephone me seeking an expert to testify that their client does not "fit the profile" of a child molester.

"What profile?" I want to ask. Men who molest children have no special profile. They come in all shapes and sizes.

After explaining this, I always pass on such cases.

Some forensic psychologists disagree. They think there is a profile, or that we can reliably determine the veracity of children who say they were abused.

Forensic psychologist excluded

In Louisiana, after the courthouse reopened following Hurricane Gustav, one such expert was slated to testify in the high-profile trial of church pastor Louis D. Lamonica.

The defense planned to call the forensic psychologist to tell jurors how to judge the veracity of abuse allegations made by children. No can do, ruled Judge Zoey Waguespack; the children's veracity is up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors had cited Supreme Court precedents to support that position.

The jury began deliberating yesterday. They must decide whether Lamonica molested his two young sons or falsely confessed, as the defense maintains, because he was being controlled by a self-proclaimed prophet who had tortured him, deprived him of sleep, and forced him to wear a dress and two rubber snakes.

The jurors' job won't be easy. Lamonica's sons - both now adults - testified that they were never abused. They, too, allege their confessions were the result of control by self-proclaimed prophet Lois Mowbray, who was arrested but never charged in the case. The boys testified that Mowbray controlled their mother and had her coerce the boys into accusing their father.

The bizarre case harkens back to the largely discredited satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s. In his tape-recorded confession, which was played for jurors, Lamonica talked about a child-sex ring at his Hosanna Church that practiced satanic cult rituals. Former church members also testified that the church had devolved from an established church into a Christian cult where worshippers publicly confessed and vomited to cast out the demons of sin. The allegations rocked the small town of Ponchatoula, about 40 miles northwest of New Orleans.

Ironically, the case broke when Lamonica himself walked into the local sheriff's station back in 2005 and began babbling about having molested children, taught them to have sex with each other and with a dog, and poured cat blood over the bodies of his young victims. At his trial, Lamonica testified that was all lies.

Unfortunately, the jurors won't have much in the way of science to guide them in choosing which of Lamonica's two diametrically opposed stories to believe.

But wait! High-tech mind reading in the works

While not in time to help Lamonica's jurors, scientists are feverishly working on new technologies to enable us to differentiate truth from lies. The science holds promise, they say, for identifying pedophiles based on their mental attitudes toward children.

Researchers tout the Implicit Association Test (IAT), developed by Harvard scholars to measure unconscious racism, as having the potential to sniff out pedophiles and even psychopathic murderers. (See Gray et al, 2003 and 2005.) A modified IAT called the Timed Antagonistic Response Alethiometer (TARA) can classify responders as liars or truth tellers based on the speed at which they classify sentences and "manipulate response incongruities," they claim. (See Gregg, 2007.) Other researchers have been working to adapt functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) into a lie-detection tool, with mixed results. (See Ganis et al, 2003, and Iacono & Lykken, 1999.)

The current issue of Psychological Science presents an article summarizing this research and offering a new tweak, the autobiographical IAT (aIAT), which researchers boast "outperforms currently available lie-detection techniques."

The authors concede that this and other emergent technologies do "leave important neuroethical issues unresolved." (See Wolpe et al 2005.)

You don't say.

In the forensic realm, it seems particularly problematic to equate attitudes with behavior. After all, many more men lust after children and teens than go on to commit illegal sex acts against them.

The Psychological Science article is: "How to Accurately Detect Autobiographical Events," by Giuseppe Sartori, Sara Agosta, Cristina Zogmaister, Santo Davide Ferrara, & Umberto Castiello. The abstract is available online, and the full article can be requested from the first author.

The Lamonica story, from the Advocate in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is here. You can search the newspaper's database using the keyword Lamonica for additional case coverage. A New York Times article on the original arrests is here. The Rick A. Ross Institute, which bills itself as a repository for information on cults, has much more on the Hosanna Church here.

A few of my prior related blog posts are:

• Why the next civil rights battle will be over the mind

• Forensic brain scanning: Online resources

• Using lie detectors to monitor sex offenders

• The evidence does not lie – or does it?
  

Scholarly articles referenced in this post are:

Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S.M., Stose, S., Thompson, W.L., & Yurgelun-Todd, D.A. (2003). Neural correlates of different types of deception. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 830–836.

Gray, N.S., Brown, A.S., MacCulloch, M.J., Smith, J., & Snowden, R.J. (2005). An implicit test of the associations between children and sex in pedophiles. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 304–308.

Gray, N.S., MacCulloch, M.J., Smith, J., Morris, M., & Snowden, R.J. (2003). Violence viewed by psychopathic murderers. Nature, 423, 497–498.

Gregg, A.I. (2007). When vying reveals lying: The Timed Antagonistic Response Alethiometer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 621–647.

Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T. (1999). Update: The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. In D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 174–184). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Wolpe, P.R., Foster, K.R., & Langleben, D.D. (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5 (2), 39–49.

Photo credits: ora mia and Josh Bancroft (Creative Commons license)

NPR series on confidential informants

Confidential informants are the lifeblood of law enforcement's effort to fight crime. But the best informants are generally very bad people - ruthless criminals - and while their information helps the FBI crack cases, the practice of using these informants is fraught with risk.

So begins an interesting 3-part NPR series by Dina Temple-Raston on the pitfalls of law enforcement reliance on informants.

Part One, "Bulger Case Changed FBI's Role With Informants," features the infamous case of Whitey Bulger, the Irish godfather who corrupted two FBI agents back in the 1970s.

Part Two is entitled, "Some FBI Agents Pay High Price For Using Snitches."

And in Part Three, "Legislator Aims To Regulate FBI Behavior," we hear about the controversial proposal by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) to subject FBI agents to criminal prosecution if they don't alert local law enforcement when one of their informants commits a crime.

Illustration: Popular Science August 1958; credit to Radio River (Creative Commons license).

Underground ruling on underground rules

SVP practice alert

This post is mainly to alert those of you practicing in the SVP area. The decision is from California, but may have relevance in other jurisdictions.

First, the background:

We all know about statutes and case law. But what about all those little government agency regulations that guide the enforcement of the laws? How are they issued and enforced?

Well, it turns out that in California, there is an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that very specifically defines these rules and regulations and how they are to be issued and enforced. Rules include any "regulation, order, or standard of general application" that a state agency adopts in order to "implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it." And before issuing or enforcing any such rule, a state agency must file it with the Secretary of State and have it formally adopted as a regulation.

Who regulates the regulator? In California, that's the job of the little-known Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

OK, so now you understand the process. And here's why I am writing about it:

State's SVP protocol in violation

This month, the Office of Administrative Law handed down a decision against California's Department of Mental Health (DMH), saying its internal manual for SVP evaluators is an illegal "underground regulation." That's the OAL's term for a rule that is issued or enforced without the required approval of the Secretary of State.

The OAL held that the 68-page "Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol" violates the law because it requires psychologists and psychiatrists on the state's panel of experts "to evaluate persons in accordance with the [manual’s] protocol."

The 2007 manual "mandate[s] how the evaluation is conducted and how the results of the evaluation are presented," despite the fact that the DMH "does not have the authority to dictate or control the standards or clinical profession of psychology or psychology," the OAL ruled.

The DMH had argued that the protocol was not a regulation, but just a general guide to assist clinical evaluators in making "case-specific determination[s] using their education, experience, and expertise ... in the exercise of their independent professional clinical judgment." The OAL found this argument unconvincing, quoting the manual as saying it "specifies the questions that must be answered and formats to be used." The handbook specifies how to conduct the clinical interview, collect historical information, and perform an assessment of a person's risk for sex offense recidivism.

The case was brought by Michael St. Martin, a leading activist among the sex offenders being civilly detained at Coalinga State Hospital.

What does the ruling mean in practice?

Once the OAL identifies a governmental rule as an "underground regulation," the agency is prohibited from enforcing it.

There is no muscle behind the proclamation, however, in that the OAL does not impose sanctions.

The OAL does mention that attorneys may bring up the regulation's status as an issue in any subsequent litigation. That means defense attorneys will have a heyday with state SVP panelists, some of whom are earning a cool half-million dollars per year cranking out these evaluations. Prepare for cross-examination questions on whether the evaluation methodology has any scientific basis and whether it has been peer reviewed.

The full decision is here. Photo credit: Eole (Creative Commons license).

Psychologist may not testify, judge rules

A Vermont judge has ruled against allowing a psychologist to testify in a child pornography case aginst a prominent local man.

The defense had sought to call Thomas Powell to testify about two issues:

• Whether pamphlets found in the home of Stewart Read were pornographic, and

• Whether the boys pictured in the pamphlets were under the age of 16.

District Judge Karen Carroll said Powell did not have the expertise to testify about either topic. First, he is not a medical doctor so he cannot be an expert on the anatomy of boys, she ruled. Second, it is up to the jury to determine what constitutes pornography, following community standards.

"Why should the jury care what Tom Powell thinks is lewd?" Judge Carroll asked. She said the defense attorney was trying to have Powell "come in and give his opinion" rather than just state facts helpful to the jury.

Although laws vary somewhat by jurisdiction, in general professionals are only allowed to testify as "experts" if they possess specialized knowledge that is beyond the realm of laypeople and will assist the trier of fact (such as a jury or judge) to understand the evidence and/or decide an issue.

On the face of it, the judge’s opinion certainly appears sound.

The full article, in today’s Rutland Herald, is online here.

Study: Easier to implant negative false memories in children

This new study has potential relevance to forensic psychology, and specifically the automatic faith that some accord to statements made by children in criminal and child custody cases:

Children develop false memories for a negative event more readily than they do for a neutral one. Henry Otgaar and colleagues, who made the new finding, said their work has real-world implications for anyone working with child witnesses: "The argument that is sometimes heard in court - i.e. this memory report must be true because it describes such a horrible event - is, as our data show, on shaky grounds."

Seventy-six children aged between seven and nine years were asked to recall details about a true event that had happened to them the previous year (e.g. that their class had to perform a musical), and either a neutral fictitious event (moving classrooms) or a negative fictitious event (being wrongly accused of copying a classmate's work).

The children were asked about the events, true and fictitious, during two interviews held a week apart. If at first the children were unable to recall any further details, they were asked to concentrate and try again. They were also asked to reflect on the events during the week between interviews, to see if they could flesh out any further details.

Altogether, 74 percent of the children developed false memories for the fictitious event - that is, they said they remembered the event and added extra details about what happened. Crucially, those asked to recall the time they were accused of copying a classmate were significantly more likely to develop a false memory than were those asked to recall the time they had to switch classrooms.

The researchers speculated that children might be more prone to developing false memories of negative rather than neutral events because the two kinds of information are stored differently in the brain. "Negative information is more interrelated than neutral material," they explained. "As a result, the presentation of negative information - either true or false - might increase the possibility that other negative materials become activated in memory. This, in turn, could affect the development of a false memory for a negative event."

- From the British Psychological Society's Research Digest

The study, "Children's false memories: Easier to elicit for a negative than for a neutral event," appears in Acta Psychologica, the International Journal of Psychonomics, 128(2), 350-354. The authors are Henry Otgaar, Ingrid Candel, and Harald Merckelbach of Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

Calif. ruling: Release rehabilitated prisoners

California has a long reputation of denying parole to all "lifers," no matter how old, sick, or demonstrably rehabilitated. Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger has been slightly more lenient than his Democrat predecessor, releasing 192 lifers as compared with Gov. Davis' 9 - but that's still only about one percent of the 16,000 who were eligible.

This week, however, for the first time in recent history, the state's high court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case, upholding the July 2007 release of a woman who had fatally shot and stabbed her lover's wife with a potato peeler. The state's parole board had approved the release of Sandra Davis Lawrence four times since 1993, but three governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, overturned the board's decisions. Lawrence spent almost 24 years in prison.


In its 4-3 ruling, the court cited "overwhelming" evidence of Lawrence's rehabilitation while in prison and her suitability for parole, and said parole decisions must be based on evidence of present danger to the public and not merely the brutality of a crime.

The standard, ruled the Court, is as follows:

The Board or the Governor may base a denial-of-parole decision upon the circumstances of the offense, or upon other immutable facts such as an inmate’s criminal history, but some evidence will support such reliance only if those facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is not merely whether an inmate’s crime was especially callous, or shockingly vicious or lethal, but whether the identified facts are probative to the central issue of current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the [Parole] Board or the Governor.

UC Irvine Law Professor Carrie L. Hempel, who represented Lawrence as part of a legal clinic at USC, said the court's decision "sends a clear message to prisoners that . . . if they work really hard to rehabilitate themselves they are going to get some justice."

The Los Angeles Times has in-depth coverage. The full ruling is HERE. Photo credit: L.A. Times.

- Hat tip: Sentencing Law & Policy