Barbaric Penile Plethysmography Testing

From: False Rape Society
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/barbaric-penile-plethysmograph.html

Barbaric penile plethysmography testing (requiring the subjects to masturbate) motivated by a desire to humiliate male sex offenders

We hear about so many terrible injustices in writing this blog that we've developed a relatively high threshold for being thoroughly disgusted. What disgusts us most are government policies that endanger the liberty of men and boys, or otherwise chip away at their rights. The subject of this post thoroughly disgusts us.

Men accused of rape are often subjected to polygraphs as a condition to having even flimsy charges dropped. (Rape accusers are, of course, legally exempted from taking them.) Moreover, polygraphs are routinely used to insure that sex offenders, predominantly male, are adhering to the terms of their probation, and a refusal to take the polygraph will land the refusing party in jail.

But there is something far more invasive that men and boys convicted of sex offenses are forced to endure as a condition of their probation: penile plethysmograph testing, clinically called "PPG" testing and non-clinically called "Peter Meter" testing. In PPG testing, men and boys are subjected to a sort a junk science polygraph of their penises, which typically requires them to masturbate (and no, I'm not making that up).

PPG testing is a procedure that "involves placing a pressure-sensitive device around a man's penis, presenting him with an array of sexually stimulating images, and determining his level of sexual attraction by measuring minute changes in his erectile responses." Jason R. Odeshoo, Of Penology and Perversity: The Use of Penile Plethysmography on Convicted Child Sex Offenders, 14 Temp.Pol.&Civ.Rts.Rev. 1, 2 (2004). Such testing has become routine in adult sexual offender treatment programs, with perhaps 25 percent of adult sex offender programs employing the procedure to varying degrees. It is often imposed as a condition of supervised release (probation), and is used to determine treatment and even as a basis to decide whether someone should be released from custody or from a treatment program. The device is routinely used at civil commitment facilities where thousands of sex offenders are confined or restricted beyond their prison terms under civil commitment laws on the books in numerous states. And, yes, boys as young as twelve are sometimes subjected to the procedure.

I can assure you that many an innocent man or boy has been forced to endure this humiliating procedure. It is also wrong, by any measure, that men and boys who were properly convicted of sex offenses are forced to tolerate a procedure that a witch doctor would feel comfortable with just to achieve his liberty. It is well to note that results of such testing are not admissible in criminal trials because the testing is considered unreliable due to the absence of standardization, results that are not sufficiently accurate, results that are subject to faking and voluntary control by test subjects, the high incidence of false negatives and false positives, and the fact that results are open to interpretation. Yet, this horrid device is allowed to be used to affect the liberty of significant numbers of men and boys. And hardly anyone gives a damn.

Ask yourself whether women's groups would tolerate a procedure that forces women and girls to masturbate as a condition of their probations. The question scarcely survives its statement.

Let's describe the "testing" by quoting extensively from a law review article written by someone familiar with it. Read this, and remind yourself that you are not reading "Clockwork Orange" or some erotic science fiction:

Sex offenders may be required to undergo PPG examinations during various phases of the criminal justice process. For example, when an individual is convicted of committing a sex crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he may be required by prison authorities (on pain of losing various inmate privileges) to participate in a sex offender treatment program of which PPG is a component. Similarly, when a convicted sex offender becomes eligible for parole, a court may condition his release into the community upon his willingness to undergo periodic PPG examinations. In some cases, probation or pretrial services recommends the test; in others, the test is recommended by clinicians working in court-ordered treatment programs. The procedure can cost up to $ 1000 per session to administer, and subjects are typically required to pay the expense. The number of sessions and the intervals between them varies from one defendant to the next.

PPG examinations are customarily performed in a prison or, particularly in the case of parolees, in privately-operated treatment facilities under contract with government probation services. The degree of privacy afforded to subjects during the procedure varies considerably. In many cases, those undergoing the test are stationed in a private room and cannot be seen by the clinician. Communication is maintained via microphone. In other cases, subject and clinician are separated only by a curtain. Still other researchers suggest that it is optimal for the administrator to be able to monitor the client through a window or one-way mirror during testing. In rare instances, administrators have apparently even attempted to videotape the procedure.

Prior to beginning the test, the subject is typically given instructions about what the procedure entails. He is then asked to place the device on his penis and is instructed to become fully aroused, either via self-stimulation or by the presentation of so-called "warm-up stimuli," in order to derive a baseline against which to compare later erectile measurements. After the individual returns to a state of detumescence, he is presented with various erotic and non-erotic stimuli. He is instructed to let himself become aroused in response to any of the materials that he finds sexually exciting. These stimuli come in one of three modalities - slides, film/video clips, and auditory vignettes - though in some cases different types of stimuli are presented simultaneously. The materials depict individuals of different ages and genders - in some cases even possessing different anatomical features - and portray sexual scenarios involving varying degrees of coercion. The stimuli may be presented for periods of varying length - from mere seconds to four minutes or longer.

Changes in penile dimension are recorded after the presentation of each stimulus, and can be measured in multiple ways: either in terms of milliliters off baseline, percentage of full erection, or in terms of z-scores. The plethysmograph is capable of measuring changes in tumescence long before the subject himself becomes aware of them. It is very rare for a subject to become fully aroused during an examination. Instead, an increase of about forty percent is considered to indicate a high degree of attraction. An increase of less than ten percent, on the other hand, is typically considered statistically insignificant. In this way, the plethysmograph provides a detailed profile of a person's sexual desires: his level of attraction to men and/or women, to boys and/or girls of various ages, as well as to different forms of sexual coercion and violence.

J. Odeshoo, Of Penology and Perversity: The Use of Penile Plethysmography on Convicted Child Sex Offenders, 14 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 1 (2004).

A female judge writing for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Weber, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15111 (9th Cir. 2006) wrote: ". . . this test is not a run-of-the-mill medical procedure. Plethysmograph testing not only encompasses a physical intrusion but a mental one, involving not only a measure of the subject's genitalia but a probing of his innermost thoughts as well." She also wrote: "It is true that cavity searches and strip searches are deeply invasive, but [plethysmograph testing] is substantially more invasive. Cavity searches do not involve the minute monitoring of changes in the size and shape of a person's genitalia. Nor do such searches last anywhere near the two or three hours required for penile plethysmography exams. Nor do cavity or strip searches require a person to become sexually aroused, or to engage in sexual self-stimulation."

Did you get that? Two to three hours for the testing.

Judge John T. Noonan wrote separately in the same case and eloquently said the following: ". . . the Orwellian procedure at issue to be always a violation of the personal dignity of which prisoners are not deprived. The procedure violates a prisoner's bodily integrity by affecting his genitals. The procedure violates a prisoner's mental integrity by intruding images into his brain. The procedure violates a prisoner's moral integrity by requiring him to masturbate. By committing a crime and being convicted of it, a person does not cease to be a person. A prisoner is not a mere tool of the state to be manipulated by it to achieve the purposes the law has determined appropriate in punishment. The prisoner retains his humanity and therefore has purposes transcending those of the state. A prisoner, for example, cannot be forced into prostitution to aid the state in securing evidence. A prisoner, for example, cannot be made to perjure himself in order to assist a prosecution. Similarly, a prisoner should not be compelled to stimulate himself sexually in order for the government to get a sense of his current proclivities. There is a line at which the government must stop. Penile plethysmography testing crosses it."

The men subjected to it describe it as "humiliating." See here: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/388073_sexoffenders17.html. In prison, the humiliation factor is even greater. One prisoner described being taken into a room where he "was made to sit in a chair naked from the waist to the knees. A clamp was put on -- midshank on the penis" and then he was forced to listen to an audio description of vile, disgusting sex scenes. Inmates who refuse to participate are transferred to the maximum-security area, where more violent and dangerous inmates are held, and the parole board discriminates against convicted sex offenders who do not complete the program. See here: http://www.pitch.com/2000-10-05/news/the-penile-system/.

In Canada, boys as young at twelve had been subjected to it for twenty years until the government put the kibosh on it. The tests involved attaching a penile plesthysmograph to adolescent boys' penises to measure sexual responses. The youths, aged 12 to 17, were shown photographs of naked or semi-naked adults, children and infants. The government "nipped the program after learning about the creepy Clockwork Orange nature of penis-measurement science, alongside revelations of a Youth Services medical technician charged with an unrelated sexual offense." http://bulletproofcourier.blogspot.com/2010/07/mary-polak-peter-meter-permanently.html. See also here: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/07/29/British-Columbia-re-examines-sex-test/UPI-77281280439622/#ixzz1BOfeapCl

So what's really behind this nonsense? Obviously, financially interested companies that make the machines and administer the testing want to see it continue. The feminist community that dominates the public discourse about rape and sex offenses seems to have precisely zero concern about this method of controlling male sexuality. Law and order types are just fine with it.

But how on earth does a supposedly civilized society tolerate it? Let us again quote Mr. Odeshoo's article:

Perhaps the decision to require PPG examinations is driven by motives and factors generally unacknowledged by its proponents. Indeed, one might wonder whether some authorities require PPG tests precisely because of the procedure's unpleasant character. Some, for example, might regard the humiliation and embarrassment that the procedure involves as a legitimate form of punishment for the offender's crimes. Some might also tacitly approve of the procedure's intrusive character because it serves to remind the offender of the state's power and signals to him the government's ability to put even the most private aspects of his mental and physical existence under surveillance. But to the extent that such unspoken considerations play a role in policies requiring sex offenders to undergo PPG tests, they ought to be stated openly and their merits debated freely, rather than attempting to cloak the procedure in the mantle of science. And when all of the relevant considerations are taken into account, the procedure's use cannot stand. Whether or not PPG must be discontinued because of the indignity it visits on sex offenders, the procedure should be rejected because of the manner in which it debases the state. Particularly when viewed alongside the many other ways in which the government actively fuels pedophilic desire in the name of preventing the sexual abuse of children, PPG tests indicate that, like the offenders it seeks to treat, the state may at times have its own morbid preoccupation with deviant sexuality. Requiring sex offenders to undergo penile plethysmography casts the government in the role of child pornographer, provocateur, and voyeur. These roles are morally wrong when assumed by ordinary citizens; they do not cease to be so simply because they are assumed by the government and its agents.

The Penile Plethysmograph is Bullshit !

From: The Skeptics Dictionary
http://www.skepdic.com/penilep.html

penile plethysmograph (PPG)

"A prisoner should not be compelled to stimulate himself sexually in order for the government to get a sense of his current proclivities." --U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Noonan

The penile plethysmograph (pluh-THIZ-muh-graf) (PPG) is a machine for measuring changes in the circumference of the penis. A stretchable band with mercury in it is fitted around the subject's penis. The band is connected to a machine with a video screen and data recorder. Any changes in penis size, even those not felt by the subject, are recorded while the subject views sexually suggestive or pornographic pictures, slides, or movies, or listens to audio tapes with descriptions of such things as children being molested. Computer software is used to develop graphs showing "the degree of arousal to each stimulus." The machine cost about $8,000 when first developed in Czechoslovakia to prevent draft dodgers from claiming they were gay just to avoid military duty. Farrall Instruments Inc., of Grand Island, Nebraska, manufactures the device and in 1993 had sold most of the 400 units then in use in sex-offender treatment centers in some 40 states. Medical Monitoring Systems of New Jersey is also one of the leading PPG manufacturers. Another vendor of the PPG is Behavioral Technology Inc. in Salt Lake City. In addition to the United States, the device is being used in China, Hong Kong, Norway, Britain, Brazil and Spain.

The theory behind the device is described by Dr. Eugenia Gullick

The plethysmograph . . . directly measures the outside evidence of sexual arousal. We know-- it's established throughout the literature that when a man becomes sexually aroused--there is engorgement of the penis. It's a one-to-one relationship.
In a polygraph, galvanic skin responses are measured, and we have to make a leap of logic to think that galvanic skin response is related to anxiety, and therefore truthfulness. And it is that jump in logic that leads to a lack of reliability at times with that instrument . . . .
We know when the penis becomes engorged, we are measuring sexual arousal. So it's much more akin to ... blood pressure measurement. (State of North Carolina v. Robert Earl Spencer, 1995)

This much everyone seems to agree on: the device measures penile engorgement. Any male who has awakened with an erection knows, however, that penile engorgement is not always a measure of sexual arousal or sexual desire. On the other hand, most males would probably acknowledge that penile engorgement occurring while watching pornographic movies is due to sexual arousal.

What utility could such a device possibly have? Two uses have already been mentioned: to weed out false gays and to treat sex-offenders. The latter is sometimes done in conjunction with aversion therapy, which involves subjecting patients to electric shocks or foul odors while being shown sexually suggestive pictures. The hope is that the treatment will dull the patient's interest in sexy materials. The device can also be used in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy in which the patient allegedly learns how to control his responses to situations that might trigger sexual arousal or desire. Psychologists use the PPG to measure the success of the therapy.

Submission to a PPG has been made a condition of parole for certain sex offenders. The PPG has been used in child-custody cases to determine that a father is or is not likely to abuse his child, and in sentencing decisions for sex offenders. It has even been given to children as young as 10 who had abused other children. The latter was done in Phoenix, Arizona, with no evidence either that the test was useful or that it would not be harmful when given to children. Not everyone submits quietly to the PPG requirements, however. Officials in Old Town, Maine, had to pay nearly a million dollars to a policeman who was threatened with firing for refusing to submit to a PPG.

Despite the lack of a theoretical basis for interpreting the data gathered using the PPG, Professor Henry E. Adams et al. of the University of Georgia used the PPG to measure arousal of heterosexual men who were divided into homophobes and non-homophobes. They published their results in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1996:

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.*

In their study of 64 exclusively heterosexual men (self-identified), 66 percent of the non-homophobic group showed no significant arousal while watching a male homosexual video, while only 20 percent of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal.

Adams notes that there are at least two competing explanations for the fact that homophobic men would be aroused by "male homosexual erotic stimuli." One is the Freudian explanation in terms of latent homosexuality. Despite their protests, these heterosexual homophobes are secret homosexuals. Another explanation, however, is that

viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in non-homophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se.

There may be other explanations, as well, but we have no way at present to determine which, if any, are valid.

Also,

there is an area where this device makes a valuable contribution: that of sorting out organic from psychogenic impotence. This is done by measuring changes in penile circumference during sleep, with increases expected during REM sleep. Men with psychogenic impotence still show erections, while those with an organic problem don't. It works. (Dave Bunnell, personal correspondence, who says he once set up a lab in the psychiatry department at the University of Pennsylvania to do this.)

Finally, there are some therapists who claim that chemical castration will significantly reduce or eliminate sexual arousal that leads to criminal behavior by sexual predators. However, clinical psychologist Jesus Padilla, who works with sexual predators at Atascadero State Hospital, "measured arousal rates of men who had been chemically castrated against men who had not by using a device that shows the men photographs of children and women in various nonsexual poses. He found no difference in arousal rates between Atascadero patients who had been castrated and those who had not" (Sacramento Bee, Special Report on Sexual Predators, February 14, 2006). While the Bee does not describe the device used in this test, it was likely the plethysmograph. In 1996, California implemented a law that keeps Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs) after they've served their sentences. SVPs are those who are "deemed likely to commit sexually violent acts in the future following completion of their prison sentences." A treatment program for SVPs was instituted and part of the treatment includes "a willingness to complete specific assessment procedures such as a plethysmograph evaluation."* [The state of California has not revealed much about this program, but Mareva Brown and Sam Stanton of the Sacramento Bee did a detailed investigative report on it. Part 1, Feb. 12, 2006; Part 2, Feb. 13; Part 3, Feb. 14.]

where's the science?

Scientifically, what are we to make of such a device? Well, the machine can measure response time to a stimulus and it can measure change in penile girth over time. Apparently, it is assumed that the more quickly aroused and the greater the engorgement the higher the "arousal level." Apparently, it is also assumed by many practitioners that any "arousal level" when viewing or listening to descriptions of naked children or adults having sex with children is "deviant." Yet, according to studies done by the inventor of the PPG, Dr. Kurt Freund, "many so called normal men who have not committed illegal sex acts show considerable arousal to stimuli depicting naked children or children involved in sexual activity."* And, in one court case (State of North Carolina v. Robert Earl Spencer, 1995), Dr. William Michael Tyson, a clinical and forensic psychologist specializing in the field of sexual criminal behavior, testified that "the vast majority of individuals who commit sexual offenses against children are not sexually aroused by stimulus material involving children." His expert adversary in that case, Dr. Gullick, claimed that "the plethysmograph has been extensively studied and recently shown to be ninety-five percent accurate in discriminating between individuals who had committed sexual offenses against children and a control group that was randomly drawn from the population." Yet, other experts have claimed that there are "studies in which the devices have failed to detect nearly one out of three known sex offenders tested."

It seems to be the case that the device has been the subject of many scientific studies and the results have been mixed, to put it kindly. The reliability and utility of the device have been argued in court and penile plethysmographic evidence has been declared inadmissible because of its "questionable reliability." The case in which Dr. Tyson testified was heard by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. That Appeals Court upheld a lower court's exclusion of testimony by Dr. Gullick because her testimony was based on the use of the penile plethysmograph. The defendant in the case was accused of sexually molesting his 5-year old stepdaughter. He called Dr. Gullick to testify that his "arousal pattern" when tested on the plethysmograph indicated that he was not aroused by children. Presumably, the defense believed that this was strong evidence that he didn't molest the child. The trial court ruled that "Dr. Gullick would be permitted to testify as to any opinions which were not based on the plethysmograph." The Appeals Court agreed with the trial court that "the instrument was of questionable reliability; that the testimony was not relevant; and that even if relevant, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect."

We agree with the trial court that the evidence before it by no means established the reliability of the plethysmograph; there is a substantial difference of opinion within the scientific community regarding the plethysmograph's reliability to measure sexual deviancy....
In the present case, plethysmograph testing formed the basis for Dr. Gullick's opinion that defendant was not sexually aroused by children, thereby making it less likely that he committed the acts charged. In view of the lack of general acceptance of the plethysmograph's validity and utility and therefore, its reliability for forensic purposes in the scientific community in which it is employed, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant's plethysmograph testing data insufficiently reliable to provide a basis for the opinion testimony which defendant sought to elicit from Dr. Gullick. (State of North Carolina v. Robert Earl Spencer)

Dr. Tyson testified in the Spencer case that it was "generally accepted in the mental health community by both proponents and opponents of the plethysmograph that the plethysmograph data do not give any evidence that is useful in determining whether an individual did or did not commit a specific act. He also noted that "there is substantial disagreement as to the extent to which the penile response is subject to voluntary control and as to whether the penile response as measured by the plethysmograph can then be generalized to anything else pertaining to sexual behavior." Putting it mildly, Dr. Tyson claims that the plethysmograph has very limited forensic utility. It seems clear that evidence based on the PPG has no business in the courtroom, either to exculpate or incriminate.

Nevertheless, there is a growing industry of therapists who treat sex offenders and think the PPG will assist them "in determining whether someone who has committed a sex crime has a pattern of deviant sexual interests." Therapists use the PPG to help them devise treatment programs and to measure the success of their treatment. All this is done without any concern, apparently, that there is no compelling evidence that sexual arousal or non-arousal from pictures or sounds significantly correlates with criminal deviant behavior. There is no compelling evidence that a person who gets aroused by pictures or sounds is significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than one who does not get aroused. On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence that a person who does not get aroused by pictures or sounds is significantly less likely to commit sex crimes than one who does get aroused.

Still, the PPG can provide some information which might prove useful to a sex-offender therapist. The computer software used with the PPG enables the tester to develop graphs that indicate whether the subject is more aroused by males than by females, by children than by adults, by coerced than by consensual sex, etc. The therapeutic controversy begins, however, as soon as the therapist tries to convert "arousal levels" to anything meaningful, such as claims that a sex-offender is "cured" or is "responding positively to treatment." This is in addition to the controversy already mentioned over using the PPG in conjunction with aversion therapy or cognitive/behavioral therapy.

One glaring problem with the use of the PPG is the lack of standardized materials to use as stimuli for subjects, a factor that clearly biases the data. Therapists vary greatly in the kind of materials they use to arouse subjects. Some materials are rather tame, e.g., nude adults, children in underwear or bathing suits. Others use hardcore pornography, including depictions of rape and pedophilia. Furthermore, there is no standard of "deviancy" for arousal. Worse, if therapists can define certain arousal as deviant, they can then suggest treatments for the deviancy as well as having the power to declare when the "deviant" is "cured." Convicted sex-offenders are in no position to protest either declarations that they have "deviant arousals" or treatments forced on them in the name of curing them of the "disease" of "deviant arousal."

More objectionable than the questionable scientific validity of the device, however, are the moral and legal questions its use raises. Some of the materials would probably be illegal on the open market because they constitute child pornography. Much of the material is morally objectionable. Some of the uses of the device raise constitutional issues. For example, submission to the PPG test as a condition for employment, for enlistment in the armed forces, or for being granted custody of children. Some penal institutions have made submission to the PPG a condition of parole, even though the device's usefulness as a predictor of behavior is unproven. The practice has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (1995). Parole Boards have great latitude in establishing conditions for parole. These conditions do not have to meet the same rigorous standards as are required before something allegedly scientific can be admitted as evidence in a trial. Nor do the normal liberties and constitutional protections of citizenship automatically apply to one being paroled.

From a scientific, moral, and legal point of view, what should matter is whether a person gives in to perverse desires and commits sex crimes. It is neither immoral nor a crime to get aroused. Furthermore, being aroused is not identical to having a desire. A man or woman may be aroused by the sight of animals copulating or be aroused by a film of a woman eating a banana and a man eating a fig in particularly provocative ways. Still, they may have no desire to engage in bestiality or have sex with a bowl of fruit or have sex at all. A heterosexual man or woman may be aroused by the sight of lesbians engaging in oral sex but have no desire to have sex with lesbians or in the presence of lesbians. And, if Dr. Tyson is correct, apparently there are many "normal" men who are aroused by photos of naked children but have no desire to have sex with children. There are many pedophiles who are not aroused by photos of naked children. The PPG measures arousal, not desire, though many sex-offender therapists seem to identify arousal with desire. These therapists, therefore, may be engaging in little more than wishful thinking when they think that because they witness a decrease in arousal they have evidence for a decrease in desire, which they correctly correlate with a decreased likelihood of acting on that desire. Decreased arousal may not be strong evidence for decreased tendency to engage in criminal sex acts. Strong arousal need not imply strong desire for what causes the arousal; and weak arousal need not imply weak desire. Furthermore, no test can determine whether a person will act on his feelings and desires. Nevertheless, many of those who treat sex offenders swear by the PPG even though there is no compelling evidence that PPG readings validly indicate a tendency to commit or not commit sex crimes.

In case you are wondering, there is a similar device for measuring female arousal. G. Sintchak and J. H. Geer created a vaginal plethysmograph in 1975, but vaginal probing for signs of arousal is no more reliable than penile measurements. There is no sound theoretical basis for interpreting what the measurements mean (Meston 2000). "A vaginal photoplethysmograph is more complicated, because it measures the amount of blood in the genitalia by monitoring minor changes in skin color inside the vagina. It is essentially similar to a lie detector that measures blush response."*