One of our probationers who is undergoing sex offender therapy confessed to the polygraph exminer yesterday to molesting a second young victim. I have been looking at cases on admissibility of this type of statement, but have not found any juvenile cases. If anyone knows of any that are out there, I would appreciate your passing on that knowledge.

Admissibility aside, it seems like bad form to charge juveniles with new offenses as a result of Court-ordered polygraphs. Our practice has been to resist the urge to pursue new cases that are revealed through our sex-offender (SO) polygraphs. Of course, we seek treatment, protection, and/or CPS involvement for all new victims discovered, but how can we punish kids in SO treatment for simply participating in their treatment? I suppose that it might be different if we learn of new offenses that are much more extreme or violent than the original adjudicated offenses, but that is generally not the case here. In my experience, SO kids typically reveal new offenses that are quite similar to the offenses already known and adjudicated. Then the question must be, "Why pursue additional charges if the offender is already in appropriate SO treatment?" I also worry that the most needy SO kids may refuse to participate in treatment if they risk additional prosecutions for making mandatory disclosures.

I'm interested to know if other counties see it this way! Isn't the idea to provide the best treatment for these kids?

NOTE: My comments are based on the presumption that we are talking about a newly-revealed offense that occurred before SO treatment began. If, on the other hand, we are talking about a NEW offense that occurred AFTER adjudication or AFTER SO treatment began, then my answer is very different. Violation of SO treatment terms means that the gloves come off and I believe the case law supports the admissibility of admissions obtained through treatment-oriented interrogations.

[This message was edited by Brett Peabody on 02-11-11 at .]

[This message was edited by Brett Peabody on 02-11-11 at .]

[This message was edited by Brett Peabody on 02-11-11 at .]

No, this is a new offense that occurred two weeks ago, after treatment and probation began. I agree as far as offenses that might be before treatment. I am very concerned with a second 3- or 4-year-old victim after treatment begins. Sorry my original query was not clear as to the timing.

We are sending an SO kid to residential sex offender treatment because the kid could never pass his history or maintenance polygraphs while in our local SO tratment program. The kid's attorney wants an explicit agreement that the kid will NOT be prosecuted or revoked for any revelations during treatment of new sex offenses committed while on probation. While we normally try to encourage participation in treatment by not prosecuting for new revelations, we have never provided any type of immunity agreement prior to treatment. We suspect that the kid's failures to pass his polygraphs are due to a sex offense while on probation. If we do not provide some kind of agreement, then the kid will assert his 5th am rights and guarantee his failure at the new program. So, do we give away our right to prosecute on behalf of potentially undiscovered victims to help improve the kid's chances at getting better, or do we stick by our guns and watch the kid fail at treatment?

How old is your child and what do his counselors think about his level of danger? If he is a high risk, I would not give him any promises, and just let him go to TYC. I think it is a total waste of time to send him to inpatient sex offender treatment which is very expensive if there is not a shot at actually successfully completing--which seems to be younger offenders with one victim or one incident with two victims.

If his attorney is negotiating this with you, then he is going to tell his kid not to tell the counselors or he will be further prosecuted, but in my experience, they don't ask detailed questions that could lead to further investigation. In the past they just asked the number of times it had happened--no details, just numbers, so you may not get enough to start an investigation anyway.

If he is a lower risk and his counselors think he is trying, and he is younger, then it might be worth giving the promise to allow him to fully address his issues.

In the lower risk category, what is the benefit to the state of another juvenile adjudication? Other than knowing who the victims are to get them some attention for their possible issues, of course.

Another adjudication would just be TYC anyway--which you can already get on this one if he is unsuccessful, and would probably be concurrent so you would still only have one prior for future use.