Evaluation Report
Date:
Client:

12/20/88
Michael Cody

Relevant Background Information:
The client is a 57 year-old, cauoasian, catholic priest referrred
to the Center for Prevention of Child Molestation by his minister
for evaluation of his sexual. interests. The client reports a 20
year history of fondling and masturbation of female children ages
8 - 12.

The client is the older of two children. He was reared in a home
with no religious upbringing. He reports that his family had an
average income and never experienced any severe financial
hardships.
Both parents were described as alcoholics and he
reports that his mother may have been mentally ill. No incidences
of physical or sexual abuse within the home were reported.
The
client was an above average student and complet~d eight years of
college.
The client reports a history of abuse of alcohol and prescription
drugs, although denies current problems with either.
He also
reports a prior diagnosis and treatment of manic-depression
although he is currently not taking medication for this problem.

The client reports approximately 20 - 40 female victims between
the ages of 8 and 12, and one male child victim. He engaged in
kissing, fondling, and mutual masturbation with the victims.
Typically, the client engaged in long-term relationships with
children he knew well. This behavior began when the client was 28
and he reports that it has been several yBars since his last sexual
contact with a child. He reports that he currently fantisizes and
masturbates to sexual fantasies of fondling young girls on a daily
basis.
Laboratory Evaluation
The client was evaluated in our sexual behavior laboratory. This
evaluation is not desi~ned to separate pedophiles from nonpedophiles. It is designed to measure the curre,nt sexual arousal
patterns of admitted pedophiles to determine whether or not they
might benefit from our treatment program.
The client's sexual arousal response was assessed by means of a
device called a penile transducer.
The penile transducer is a
small, mercury-filled, rubber loop which is worn around the penis.
This device can detect changes in penile circumference which a~e
expressed as changes in electrical resistance.
These minute
resistance changes are amplified, converted, and shown as a pen
tracing of the response. These values are expressed in 'terms of
percentage of full erection (0-100%}.

JB-ARCH000488
"Sensitive Information"
Per Protective Order

 The client participated in the procedure for evaluating arousal
patterns on the parameters of sexual development and se~ of the
subject. In this procedure he viewed thirty-six (36) slides for
two minutes each while his erection response was being monitored
electronically. These slides are divided into twelve categories
according to sexual development and sex of the subject: male and
female children and adults. There are five categories of sexual
development in children (Category o, approximately ages 0-4;
Category 1, a.pproximately ages 5-7; category 2 1 approximately ages
a-11; Category 3, approximately ages 12-14; and Category 4,
approximately ag~s 15-17) and one for adults (Category 5, ages 18
and older). Before each presentation he was instructed that if he
felt himself becoming aroused, to let that happen.
He was also
·told that he will occasionally be asked to describe, in detail, the
slide he had just seen.
The results of this assessment procedure are as follows:
SLIDE ASSES-SMENT

category o
category 1
category 2
category·3
Category 4
Category 5
Responses less
*insignificant.

MALE CHILD

FEMALE CHILD

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

than 20% Of a

full

erection are considered

The client responded with insignificant arousal to all slides.
The client also participated in the procedure f·or evaluating
arousal patterns on the parameters of sex of the victim and the
amount of force used to complete the act. In this procedure, he
listened to three-minute audio tapes describing an increasing use
of physical force by the offender to effect a sexual relation$hip
with a child. The tapes are divided into the following categories:
i. Fondling a consenting child; 2. Mutually consenting intercourse
with a
child;
3.
Psychologically coercive non-consenting
intercourse with a child; 4. Rape of a child;
5, Sadistic sexual assault of a child; 6. Aggressive non-consenting
and non-sexual assault of a child; 7. Mutually consenting·
intercourse with an adult. There are two separate sets of these
tapes: one describing ~exual activities with males and one
·describing sexual activities with females.
Before each
presentation he was instructed that if he felt himself becoming
aroused, to let that happen.
He was also told that he will
occasionally be asked to describe, in detail, the audiotape he had
just heard.
"Sensitive Information"
Per Protective Order

JH-ARCH000489

 The results o.f this assessment procedure are as follows:

PEDOPHILE VIOLENCE AUDIO ASSESSMENT
HETEROSEXUAL

HOMOSEXUAL
Fondling
Mutually Consenting
Non-consenting
Rape
Sadistic
Aggressive Non-Sexual
Consenting Adult

21%

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

* Responses less than 20% of a
insignificant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
full

erection are considered

The client responded with minimal arousal
to audiotaped
descriptions of fondling a female child.
He responded with
insignificant arousal to all other audiotaped descriptions of
sexual activity.

summary and Recommendations:
This client was cooperative and open throughout this evaluation.
He showed no significant arousal to any of the stimuli presented.
This happens with about 20% of the clients who undergo this
procedure.
Lack of responsivity
the sexual stimuli pres·ented
may he due to any of a number of factors including age; medication,
fatigue, discomfort with the procedures, active suppression of
arousal, or an absence of sexual attraction to the stimulus
materials. Unfortunately, when a client is non-responsive, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to know which of the above reasons
is responsible. Therefore, under these conditions, the avaluatiol'l
is deemed invalid.

to

Based on this client's extensive history and disclosure of current
deviant masturbatory behavior, we recommend that he not be allowed
unsupervised contact with children. The client claims that he uses
masturbation to fantasies of sexual activity with children as a
coping technique ·to avoid acting out sexually with children.
However, in our experience, deviant masturbation only serves to
reinforce sexual attraction to children not to decrease it.
Therefore, we recommend that this cliententer and actively
participate in a specialized sex offender treatment program to
learn more adaptive coping responses for this problem.

"Sensitive lntormation"
Per Protective Order

JH-ARCH000490

 We would recommend that you exert extreme caution in the
interpretation of the results reported above.
These data are
psychophysiological measures of sexual arousal and should not
necessarily be construed as indicators of motivation, or lack of
motivation, to act upon that arousal. The results are, therefore,
at best an approximation of the person's sexual arousal and
propensities.
We strongly urge that you not use these measures
alone as clinical indices or predictors.

~~-Wd-P
Katurah Je~Ph.D.

Cl.inical -Director

Center for Prevention of Child·Molestation

"Sensitive Information"
Per Protective Order

JH-ARCH000491