 |
A CONVERSATION WITH
BRETT VROMAN He responded in a less adversarial way than his first email, saying that his program used more supportive approaches rather than the harsh ones described on my site. However, he did justify the use of arousal reconditioning methods, saying that the juveniles he treated were very positive about it. Our conversation continued as follows: Hi Brett, I think you've hit on the core problem: > We really try and use a collaborative approach with these interventions > rather than a punitive or correctional attitude. According to UC-Berkeley Law Professor Franklin Zimring, many treatment providers confuse law enforcement with therapy. In his new book "An American Travesty: Legal Responses to Adolescent Sexual Offending", he writes the following about the influential recommendations of the National Adolescent Perpetrator Network: "Another critical assumption of the 1993 Task Force is that an adversarial relationship between a therapist and an adolescent offender is appropriate and effective. The treatment process as described by the Task Force is certainly one designed to ensure that such an adversarial relationship exists. The therapist's real client is said to be the community and the therapist's principle goal is sex crime prevention. Her tools include polygraphy, confrontation, and no obligation of confidentiality to the client...there are powerful indications in the text of the 1993 report that adolescent offenders are regarded as enemies by the therapists. "It is asserted that 'sexually abusive youth require a specialized response from the justice system which is different from other delinquent populations.' But the Task Force never describes what it considers the proper response to other delinquent youth or the reasons for believing that sex offenders are different from other young offenders. "The prosecution and punishment of sex offenders in court is claimed to be itself therapeutic...But no data is provided to indicate that accountability has positive behavioral effects. There is also no awareness in the Task Force report of the inconsistency of this assumption with the predictions of labeling theory...Why is a list of thirteen reasons to prosecute juvenile sex violators given prominent attention in a manual on treatment of offenders that is compiled by a group of clinicians? And when did these therapists become expert in the operation of law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies? "The willingness of treatment staff to participate in punishment, in labeling, and in the denunciation of treatment subjects is a remarkable part of the 1993 Task Force's version of sex-offender therapy...Here, those so enthusiastic for social control are to be found in the ranks of treatment professionals. "The central standards of the Task Force that sex therapy seeks to enforce are not rooted in psychology nor in any behavioral science.This is therapy in the service of legal standards. Sex abuse is whatever the law prohibits. What is being treated is not a deviation from clinical standards but a deviation from legal standards...So it is, instead, a system in which the therapeutic community has appointed itself the sheriff, taking over authority previously residing in judges and police and doing so in the unquestioning service of the legal standards governing what is permitted and what forbidden in adolescent sex." Similarly, Jerome Miller of the National Center on Institutions and Alernatives writes, "the adversarial approach of the criminal justice system towards handling of the paraphilias ultimately does more harm than good. The acceptance by helping professionals of the criminal justice model into their diagnostic consideration and treatment procedures has debilitating ethical and scientific implications. "In the current national mood, psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists and others who have traditionally defined themselves as helpers, now stand in line to lend a gloss of scientific or clinical validity to criminal justice spectacles often inspired by a melange of political winds, ambitious prosecutors and pop psychology which plays to the worst impulses in the citizenry...we see the traditionally most bleeding of "bleeding hearts," the so-called "child protective" social workers, becoming indistinguishable from police investigators." > We here in Utah use these interventions with restraint and only after extensive > review. Believe me when I say that there are some offenders that these > procedures are really the last resort. I guess my question is why this kind of approach is not used on the worst of other kinds of juvenile criminals? Why aren't seriously violent juveniles (assaulters, robbers, or even murderers) required to smell ammonia while thinking about their desires to assault or threaten? Some of them are very dangerous. Why are they not required to admit they are incurably evil and mentally defective, the way juvenile sex offenders are? Why are they not monitored, restricted in their movement, and placed on registries the rest of their lives? Many people seem to see non-sexual violence as normal, but they see sex offenders as abnormal--less than human. I believe this attitude gives treatment providers permission to commit the atrocities described by Chaffin & Bonner, the ACLU, and others. --- Brett Vroman <bvroman@utah.gov> wrote: I really have enjoyed our communication, the point of sexual offenders being subjected to measures not put upon other offenders was especially intriquing. I will ask this question at my next NOJOS meeting and get back to you-brett Hi Brett, Did you get to ask the question at the NOJOS meeting? I'm interested in the answer. Also the question about safeguards to prevent treating kids as sex offenders for consensual non-abusive behavior that's illegal (underage romantic affairs or sex play). --- Brett Vroman <bvroman@utah.gov> wrote: I missed the meeting, will get to you after the next one-brett Hi Brett, I've been out of town for about a month and had little chance to do email. I'm wondering if you got some answers to my questions at the July NOJOS meeing. (Why methods used on JSOs are much more extreme than those used on violent offenders, and what safeguards there are to prevent treating kids as sex offenders for consensual non-abusive behavior that's illegal; that is, underage romantic affairs or sex play.) --- Brett Vroman <bvroman@utah.gov> wrote: The question you have had about conditioning is a good one and these are some of the responses I got. One reason that conditioning seems more effective with JSO's is that they are often much more committed to changing and to conditioning itself because they sincerly are interested in change. The communities "over abhorance" to sexually offending, especially on children, they are at the bottom of the status hierarcy in prison. I have a couple persons looking into this further and will get back to you. As far underage "illegal" acts being consequenceed, I really don't hear much at least in Utah of this happening although the kids I work with are heavyt duty offenders. I think the laws are related to parents obtaining legal backing to enforce their wishes concerning their childrens behaviors. I think it is an impotent effort but I work with youth whose parents were not equipped to cope with the consequences of very young sexual activity and am not really "down with" the attitude that I hear expressed by many including pedophile groups that"why should the adults have all the fun" This is a callow excuse to justify exploitation of child. I often wonder if your interest in these issues comes from personal experience, and hope that I am not wasting my energies communicting with what I refer to as a pediphile -brett Hi Brett, Thanks for answering my questions. Your answers raise more questions. > The question you have had about conditioning is a good one > and these are some of the responses I got. One reason that > conditioning seems more effective with JSO's is that they are often > much more committed to changing and to conditioning itself because > they sincerly are interested in change. Am I correct to understand that you're saying JSO's are more committed to changing than other kinds of juvenile offenders, such as those who commit robbery or (non-sexual) assault? That would mean that juvenile sex offenders are easier to work with and more amenable to change than juvenile non-sexual offenders. I have to wonder if these children and teenagers say they like conditioning because they are under coersion much more than other offenders. At that age (and under legal threats), they are certainly in no position to freely consent to conditioning treatments. > The communities "over > abhorance" to sexually offending, especially on children, they are > at the bottom of the status hierarcy in prison. I'm not sure I understand how that's related to the differences in treatment. Do you mean that because these juvenile offenders are the lowest status in society's eyes, treatment providers feel free to use methods on them that would not be acceptable on other kinds of offenders? > I have a couple > persons looking into this further and will get back to you. I'll be interested in what you find out. > As far > underage "illegal" acts being consequenceed, I really don't hear > much at least in Utah of this happening although the kids I work > with are heavyt duty offenders. It would be helpful to know what Utah has done to prevent this, since it seems to be a problem in most if not all other states. That's really what I was asking: what is Utah doing to separate out the non-abusive cases of illegal sexual behavior so they are not treated as violent crimes? > I think the laws are related to > parents obtaining legal backing to enforce their wishes concerning > their childrens behaviors. I think it is an impotent effort but I > work with youth whose parents were not equipped to cope with the > consequences of very young sexual activity I realize that some laws affecting juveniles are meant to help parents with difficult children (e.g., curfews). The difference is that these children are not normally subjected to anywhere near the extreme punishments and treatments that JSOs are. I've been in touch with a lot of parents who are *not* happy with the laws and treatment methods, because they've severely harmed or even destroyed their childrens' lives, often for consensual sexual behavior. > and am not really "down > with" the attitude that I hear expressed by many including > pedophile groups that"why should the adults have all the fun" This > is a callow excuse to justify exploitation of child. I don't personally believe that children have a "right" to have sex (that's my moral belief, and apparently yours too), but I *do* believe they have a right to be treated humanely when they behave sexually. I don't understand how advocating that these children be treated humanely by law enforcement and treatment providers means advocating that they be sexually exploited, as your statement implies. Maybe you can explain your logic. I also don't believe sexual misbehavior should be treated fundamentally differently from other kinds of misbehavior. Maybe you can explain why you believe otherwise. > I often wonder if your interest in these issues comes from personal > experience, and hope that I am not wasting my energies communicting > with what I refer to as a pediphile-brett Wow! It's difficult to know how to respond to that. I suppose you'll have to take my word that I am not a pedophile. You wrote "what I refer to as a pediphile". Is your definition different from the one accepted by psychiatry? Am I correct to understand you as saying that the only people who are concerned about just and humane treatment of JSO's are pedophiles? Franklin Zimring (Berkely law professor), Paul Okami (UCLA psychology professor), and Mark Chaffin (Psychologist at the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect of the University of Oklahoma) have criticized the treatment of JSOs. I really don't think they're pedophiles, but maybe I'm wrong. My understanding is that the main goal of mental health professionals is the well-being of their patients. That means helping them develop a positive self-concept and protecting them from stigma and emotional trauma. Is this important in your work with JSOs? Your statements suggest antagonism toward the youngsters you treat and toward those who would advocate for their well-being. Vroman did not reply to this email for three months. Then
he continued: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:51:37 -0600 From: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting You might find interesting reading at www.northwestmedia.com/vs/report.html page 3 related to screening potential participants, these criteria are pretty much nationally recognized guidelines and your ancedotal experience doesn't past muster with what we and I think most clinicians are doing. I think my e-mails deserve to be answered especially after having them posted in public without my permission-brett Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:56:04 -0700 (PDT) To: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting Hi Brett, > You might find interesting reading at www.northwestmedia.com/vs/report.html page 3 related to screening > potential participants, these criteria are pretty much nationally > recognized guidelines Did you send me the right link? It doesn't have three pages, and it's not about screening. It's about vicarious sensitization, a form of aversion therapy. > and your ancedotal experience doesn't past > muster with what we and I think most clinicians are doing. Actually the link you sent does agree with my anecdotal experience. Although I wasn't familiar with vicarious sensitization, the article does advocate plethysmography and tries to justify masturbatory satiation and ammonia and electric shock aversion therapy--which people outside your profession would consider barbaric. The article says: "There are political objections to the use of masturbatory satiation with juveniles, and (unfounded) ethical concerns that preclude olfactory and faradic conditioning in most clinical settings." This is pretty sick if you ask me. Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:19:32 -0600 From: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting The screening criteria that most use, ourselves included in on page 3 of this longer artical, I wish you could read the police reports, extensive psycho-sexual report as well as social histories of the few youth that participate in these interventions.-brett Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:36:35 -0700 (PDT) To: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting Hi Brett, I read over the article. Here's why I'm opposed to the use of the plethysmograph and any form of aversive conditioning, including VS. Theoretically, they are only supposed to be used on the most dangerous offenders. But because JSO treatment typically follows legal definitions rather than clinical ones, many "offenders" who are not dangerous recieve this treatment. This in fact has happened throughout history. VS involves having the juvenile relive his illegal sexual behavior/sexual fantasies 300 times followed by vignettes of shame and humiliation. While VS (like covert sensitization) does not involve physical pain, it is psychologically identical to ammonia aversion therapy. There is no psychological theory or empirical evidence to support the idea that its effects would be any different. Plethysmographs and aversive conditioning (including VS) involve coerced sexual arousal, shame, and humiliation. This is sexual abuse. Their effects are just like sexual abuse: nightmares, suicidal tendencies, depression, and many other severe psychiatric symptoms. This is documented in the literature on the old treatment for homosexuality, and there's no reason to assume these effects would not occur with other people, especially juveniles. There is anecdotal evidence that it *does* occur with other people. Of course, no studies are ever conducted to insure that these methods are psychologically safe. These methods are *NEVER* used on the most dangerous violent non-sex criminals, because they are clearly unethical. If you say that the dangerousness of some of these kids justify these methods, then you're saying it's acceptable to sexually abuse kids to prevent them from sexually abusing other kids. Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:23:06 -0600 From: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting Rather than address many of your beliefs again I want to ask if you really think myself as well as many other professionals in the field are out there asking these clients to participate because we are into punitive measures for these people? I know that in my population the majority of my clients have many more sexual crimes committed than they have been adjudicate for (self disclosure). The reason the polygraph is used prior to any interventions is to avoid subjecting innocent persons from these measures. Again I will tell you that the guys we have participate are willing, they are scared and remorsefrull and desparate to change after more commonly used cognitive behavioral trreatment has failed. The idea that there all of these little innocent kids running around being subjected to these admittedly intrusive measures is wrong. I would encourage you to get out there and do some investigative inquiry in person to better educate yourself on the clients. I know that when my guys fully disclose the nature and details of their crimes, I don't have as much reticense to ask for their participation. It is very true that the vast majority of juvenile sex offenders do not need this type of intervention, but the lack of imperical evidence for results is more a factor of being unable to pinpoint the reason for successful treatment in the context of the multiple methods used. Phallametic assessment and conditioning is not allowed to be tested against untreated subjects as a control group-brett Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 To: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting Brett, So your reasoning for advocating polygraphs, aversive conditioning, and plethysmographs is a law enforcement argument, not a mental health argument. I realize that some of these boys are extremely violent and dangerous. There are extremely dangerous boys who commit only *non-sexual* acts: murder, assault, robbery, use of deadly weapons, physical cruelty. Some are gang leaders. They are a menace to society. They need to be restrained, and society needs to be protected from them. Some of these violent non-sex offenders have thoughts and fantasies of aggression and violence, maybe even sadism. Recordings could be made of descriptions of their violent fantasies, which they could listen to then be exposed to aversive stimuli. Polygraphs could be used in their diagnosis and treatment. But these approaches are NEVER used by treatment providers on kids who commit heinous non-sexual crimes. Why not? The only reason I can think of is because since the 1950's, no branch of psychology accepts coerced aversive conditioning on juveniles as ethical. (Let's be honest; there is no informed consent when the juvenile is in the justice system.) It is abusive and dehumanizing. Exceptions are made only for JSOs, because they are considered less than human. Think about Sadam Hussein. He committed mass atrocities, crimes against humanity. In spite of that, he is still considered human. If the U.S. suggested he be forced into some kind of aversive conditioning treatment, the world would think we're just as savage as Hussein is. Sexual aversive conditioning for juveniles is especially abhorent, because it involves: coerced sexual arousal of a juvenile by an adult sexual humiliation and dehumanization No country I know of outside the U.S. uses it on juveniles. Law enforcement may use the argument of dangerousness to justify extreme and even abusive methods, but the mental health community NEVER does. Such justifications are what caused the Abu Ghraib abuses. That's why I say that the justification of plethysmographs and aversive conditioning is purely a law enforcement argument. These boys are NOT identified as having any DSM disorder that is cured by sexual aversive conditioning. Like polygraphs, plethysmographs and aversive conditioning are only law enforcement tools. The only profession that has accepted coerced aversive conditioning on juveniles in the past 50 years is the JSO treatment profession. This is not surprising, since the SOT profession has a long documented history of: - confusing law violation with mental disorders - confusing socially inappropriate sexual behavior with violence - confusing law enforcement with treatment For documentation of these confusions with current JSO treatment, see chapter 4 of "An American Travesty" by juvenile justice expert Franklin Zimring, the article "On Mitigating Professional Arrogance" (in Medicine and Law) by Jerome Miller, and the article "Child Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse" (in Journal of Sex Research) by Paul Okami. Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 To: "Brett Vroman" <bvroman@utah.gov> Subject: Re: NOJOS meeting Brett, My last email didn't address your questions. I don't want to evade them. Here are my answers: > Rather than address many of your beliefs again I want to > ask if you really think myself as well as many other professionals > in the field are out there asking these clients to participate > because we are into punitive measures for these people? It's a combination of two things. First, Americans are repulsed by juvenile sexual behavior in general. Even many professionals are repulsed by it, defining it as disordered or harmful (see the article by Okami). Secondly, Americans are much more repulsed by sexual crimes than other kinds of crimes, even when they are minor (e.g., Romeo-Juliet cases are called "child molestation" and many people want child molesters executed). Our society shows restraint in responding to murderers and aggravated assaulters, but not to sex offenders. JSO treatment providers are part of American culture. Aversive conditioning is never used on other kinds of offenders. You wrote yourself that "when my guys fully disclose the nature and details of their crimes, I don't have as much reticense to ask for their participation." Zimring's book documents the incorrect belief of the influential NAPN that punishment is treatment. How can I not think that the real goal of aversive treatment is punishment? > The reason the polygraph is used prior to any > interventions is to avoid subjecting innocent persons from these > measures. That proves that these measures must be punitive. Innocence vs. guilt is used to determine punishment, not treatment. Treatment is for a diagnosed disorder. Guilt does not equal disorder. What is the DSM disorder that these juveniles have? Professionals who treat conduct disorder (non-sexual violence) do not use polygraphs to determine guilt or innocence before treatment. They use DSM to determine if the juvenile has a disorder. > Again I will tell you that the guys we have participate > are willing, they are scared and remorsefrull and desparate to > change after more commonly used cognitive behavioral trreatment has > failed. Fear of punishment is clear evidence that they are not free to consent. Even if they were, they are underage and they are being sexually aroused and humiliated by treatment. > The idea that there all of these little innocent kids > running around being subjected to these admittedly intrusive > measures is wrong. As I said, I realize they are not innocent. But it is still illegal and unethical to sexually abuse them. You're using a law enforcement argument again. Vroman has not replied to this email. See sample materials used in treatment Back to conversations with treatment providers
|
When experts are wrong Casualties of war Diagnosis Lack of knowledge Confused definitions Criminalization Invalid instruments Treatment Humiliation as therapy Arousal reconditioning Dangerous drugs Sriking comparisons Sample materials Convos with providers Ethical violations Deja vu |
|