觀護人運作預防性測謊所覺知的關係困境及其因應策略

Perceived Relationship Difficulties in Using the Polygraph in Sex Offender Supervision and the Coping Strategies: Findings from Taiwanese Probation and Parole Officers

研究目的：本研究從微觀層面探究觀護人在運作預防性測謊時，其與加害人互動所覺知的困境及其因應策略。研究方法：研究者以立意及滾雪球取樣，選取七名觀護人進行個別的深度訪談，質性訪談資料則以主題分析法進行分析。研究結果：受訪觀護人在運作預防性測謊時，經驗到加害人的不安及抗拒行為，影響觀護關係中的信任感。然而，大多數觀護人認為可以藉由採取協助的角度，向加害人清楚說明其在觀護期間的義務及各項觀護措施的目的，以處理這樣的困境。此外，由於觀護人肩負再犯監督與輔導的雙重衝突角色、測謊的角色定位，及測謊準確度和證據力仍有限制下，本研究的觀護人在面對測謊結果時，採取不同的策略以為因應，包含：「再犯監督重於輔導的處置」、「輔導重於再犯監督的處置」及「再犯監督與輔導折衷下的處置」。研究結論：觀護人對於自身工作角色取向的認定和對觀護措施的觀點，影響其後續運用該觀護措施和對加害人進行觀護的方式。本研究藉由呈現觀護人在運作預防性測謊的決策過程，以提供其未來在加害人觀護中運作測謊，甚或其他觀護措施的反身性思考機會。

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.