Психовегетативные методы диагностики в практике судебной психиатрии
Рекомендуемое оформление библиографической ссылки:
Каменсков М.Ю., Мэрфи Л., Купцова Д.М. Психовегетативные методы диагностики в практике судебной психиатрии // Российский психиатрический журнал. 2018. №3. С. 61-73.
Представлен информационно-аналитический обзор, цель которого – ознакомление с психофизиологическими подходами к диагностике расстройств сексуального предпочтения
с использованием пенильной плетизмографии и полиграфа. Кратко освещаются исторические аспекты применения психофизиологических методов в криминалистической и сексологической практике. Обосновывается необходимость их использования при проведении судебно-психиатрических экспертиз. Подробно описывается методическое обеспечение, которое в настоящее время применяется при обследовании лиц, совершивших сексуальные преступления. В статье уделено внимание тем проблемам, которые в целом влияют на валидность и надёжность пенильной плетизмографии и полиграфа.
Ключевые слова фаллометрия, пениальная тумесценция, оценка, полиграф, парафилии.
1. Barker JG, Howell RJ. The plethysmograph: A review of recent literature. B. Am. Acad. Psych. Law. 1992;20(1):13–25. 2. Fedoroff JP, Kuban M, Bradford JM. Laboratory measurement of penile response in the assessment of sexual interests. In: (Eds) F Saleh, A Grudzinskas, J Bradford, D Brodsky. Sex offenders: Identification, risk assessment, treatment and legal issues. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:89–100. 3. Fernandez Y. The standardization of phallometry. In: Beech AR, Craig LA, Browne KD. Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2009:129–43. 4. Fernandez YM, Marshall WL. Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists. Sex Abuse J R Tr. 2003;15(1):11–26. 5. Johnson SA, Listiak A. The measurement of sexual preference – A preliminary comparison of phallometry and the Abel assessment. In: Schwartz B. The sex offender: Theoretical advances, treating special populations and legal developments. Kingston: Civic Research Institute; 1999; III:26.1–26.20. 6. Marshall WL. Phallometric assessments of sexual interests: An update. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014;16(1):428–34. 7. Murphy L, Ranger R, Stewart H, Dwyer G, Fedoroff JP. Assessment of problematic sexual interests with the penile plethysmograph: An overview of assessment laboratories. Current Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17(5). 8. Pithers WD, Laws DR. Phallometric Assessment. In: Schwartz BK, Cellini HR. The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice. Kingston: Civic Research Institute; 1995:12.1–12.18. 9. Gazan F. Penile plethysmography before the European Court of Human Rights. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 2002;14(1):89–93. 10. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Stewart H, Dwyer G, Burke W. Standardization in the use of penile plethysmography testing in assessment of problematic sexual interests. J Sex Med. 2015;12(9):1853–61. 11. Fedoroff JP, Marshall W. Apparent problems in CBT treatment of paraphilia sexual disorders. In: Abramowitz J, Taylor S, McKay D. Treatment refractory cases in CBT. New York: American Psychological Association; 2009:369–84. 12. Mueller K, Curry S, Ranger R, Briken P, Bradford J, Fedoroff P. Changes in sexual arousal as measured by penile plethysmography in men with pedophilic sexual interest. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1221–9. 13. Kalmus E, Beech AR. Forensic assessment of sexual interest: A review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2005;10:193–217. 14. Marshall WL. Clinical and research limitations in the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sex. Offender. Treat. 2006;1:1–18. 15. McConaghy N. Unresolved issues in scientific sexology. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:285–318. 16. Kuban M, Barbaree HE, Blanchard R. A comparison of volume and circumference phallometry: Response magnitude and method agreement. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:345–59. 17. Langevin R. Sexual preference testing. Toronto: Juniper Press. 1989. 18. McAnaulty RD, Adams HE. Validity and ethics of penile circumference measurements of sexual arousal: A reply to McConaghy. Arch Sex Behav. 1992;21:177–86. 19. Merdian HL, Jones DT. Phallometric assessment of sexual arousal. In: Boer DP, Eher R, Craig LA, Miner MH, Pfäfflin F. International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders. West Sussex: John Wiley&Sons; 2011:142–67. 20. Wheeler D, Rubin HB. A comparison of volumetric and circumferential measures of penile erectio. Arch Sex Behav. 1987;16:289–99. 21. Fisher C, Gross J, Zuch J. Cycle of penile erection synchronous with dreaming (REM) sleep: Preliminary report. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:29–45. 22. Fernandez Y. The standardization of phallometry. In: Beech AR, Craig LA, Browne KD. Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. West Sussex: JohnWiley and Sons; 2009:129–43. 23. American Psychiatric Association (APA) Gold Award: Improving Community Safety by Providing Treatment to a Highly Marginalized Clinical Population. Psychiatric Services. 2015;66(10):1–4. 24. Marshall WL, Fernandez YM. Phallometric testing with sexual offenders: Limits to its value. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20:807–22. 25. Gaither GA, Plaud JJ. The effects of secondary stimulus characteristics on men’s sexual arousal. J Sex Res. 1997;34(3):231–6. 26. Murrin MR, Laws DR. Linearity characteristics of three penile transducers. In: Tampa FL. Florida Mental Health Institute; 1986. 27. Earls CM, Marshall WL. The simultaneous and independent measurement of penile circumference and length. Behav Res Meth Instr. 1982;14:447–50. 28. Lykins AD, Robinson JJ, LeBlanc S, Cantor JM. The effects of common medications on volumetric phallometry. J Sex Aggress. 2015; 21(3):385–93. 29. Criminal Code (RSC); Ottawa. 1985:C-46. 30. Card RD, Olsen SE. Visual plethysmograph stimuli involving children: Rethinking some quasi-legal issues. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 1996;8(4):267–71. 31. Criminal Code. 18 USC §2256(2); U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2012:491–2. 32. Lalumière ML, Harris GT. Common questions regarding the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 1998;10(3):227–37. 33. Looman J, Marshall W. Phallometric assessments designed to detect arousal to children: The responses of rapists and child molesters. Sex Abuse J Res Tr. 2001;13(1):3–13. 34. Chaplin TC, Rice ME, Harris GT. Salient victim suffering and sexual responses of child molesters. J Consult Clin Psych. 1995;63(2):149–55. 35. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Dwyer RD, Burke W. Real Child Voices: Preliminary results on the use of age and gender congruent voices on sexual arousal to child sexual scenarios. International Association of Sex Research annual meeting. Poster session. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2015. 36. Murphy L, Ranger R, Fedoroff JP, Burke W, Dwyer RD. Real Child Voices: The impact of age and gender congruent voices on sexual arousal to child sexual scenarios. International Association of Sex Research annual meeting. Poster session. Malmo, Sweden; 2016. 37. Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL, Chaplin TC, Earls C. Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric assessment data. Psychol Assessment. 1992;4(4):502–11. 38. Purcell MS, Chandler JA, Fedoroff JP. The use of phallometric evidence in Canadian criminal law. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43:141–53. 39. Lombrozo Ch. Criminal man. Moscow; 2018. 352 p. Russian. 40. Grubin D. The polygraph and forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010;38(4):446–51. 41. Ogloblin SI, Molchanov AJu. Instrumental'naja «detekcija lzhi» (proverki na poligrafe): akademicheskij kurs. Jaroslavl'; 2004. 464 p. Russian. 42. Dwyer RG, Letourneau EJ. Juveniles who sexually offend: recommending a treatment program and level of care. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2011;30(3):413–29. 43. Grubin D, Madsen L. Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. Br J Psychiatry. 2006; 188(5):479–83. 44. Soothill K, Francis В, Sanderson B, et al. Sex Offenders: Specialists, Centralists – or Both? Br J Criminology. 2000;40:56–67. 45. Thornton D, Mann R, Webster S, et al. Distinguishing and Combining Risks for Sexual and Violent Recidivism. Ann New York Acad Sciences. 2003;989:225–35. 46. Mysterious A. [Pedophilia and children pornography in context of contemporary society]. Nezavisimyy psikhiatricheskiy zhurnal [Independent psychiatric journal]. 2016;1:18–39. Russian. 47. Saleh FM, Grudzinskas AJ, Malin HM, Dwyer RG. The management of sex offenders: perspectives for psychiatry. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry. 2010;18(6):359–68. 48. Tkachenko AA, Vvedenskiy GE, Dvoryanchikov NV. Sudebnaya seksologiya. Moscow; 2014. 648 p. Russian. 49. Ahlmeyer S. The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sex Abuse. 2000;12(2):123–38. 50. Kamenskov MY. Validity of the psychophysiological diagnosis of paraphylia. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2013;113(3–1):39–44. Russian. 51. Reid JE. A revised questioning technique in lie-detection test. J Crim Law Criminology. Mar-Apr1947;37(6):542-7. 52. American Polygraph Association Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph. 2011:40(4):196–305. 53. Department of Defense Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook. Polygraph. 2006;40(1):2–66. 54. Kircher JC, Raskin DC. Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. J Appl Psychology. 1988;73:291–302. 55. Handler M. The Utah Probable Lie Comparison Test. Polygraph. 2006;35(3):139–46. 56. Nelson R, Handler M. Statistical reference distributions for comparison question polygraphs. Polygraph. 2015;44(1):91–114. 57. Raskin D, Honts C, Nelson R, Handler M. Monte Carlo estimates of the validity of four relevant question polygraph examinations. Polygraph. 2015:44(1):1–27. 58. National Research Council: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2003. 398 p. 59. Ben-Shakhar G. The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders. Legal Criminolog Psychology. 2008; 13(2):191–207. 60. Grubin D. The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2008;13(2):177–89. 61. Kupcova DM, Kamenskov MJu. [The Influence of psychological and psychosexual factors on psychophysiological reactivity]. Psihologija i pravo [Psychology and law]. 2018; 8(1):13–25. Russian. 62. Losev AV, Fon Miller AA, Rjabov KI. Metod kontrol'nyh voprosov Metody proverki na poligrafe. Moscow; 2016. 534 p. Russian.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24411/1560-957X-2018-1%25x
Метрики статей
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM