Chris Ingalls reports for KING5.com. Excerpt:
SEATTLE – The polygraph promises to find the answer and that’s why it is widely used in Washington state to screen potential employees for high-security jobs.
But there are new doubts about whether lie detectors really work. In today’s security-conscious environment, much of the tax money is used to pay for lie detector tests.
Now, scientists who put polygraphs to the test came up with surprising results.
Since its invention decades ago, the polygraph has earned a place in the American imagination and psyche.
The computer-based descendant of the so-called lie-detector is widely used in Washington state – and not just for criminal investigations.
Many government agencies – like Tacoma Police – use lie detectors to screen potential employees. They say the instrument does weed out some applicants.
“I think it’s very reliable and I have complete confidence in it,” said Det. Steve Shake, Tacoma polygraph examiner.
But hard science is raising new questions about the polygraph’s reliability.
The prestigious Academy of Sciences has released its long-awaited study on the “truth” about lie detectors.
Congress ordered a thorough review after a spy scandal rocked the Department of Energy, which uses polygraphs to screen employees.
The study’s conclusion was that the lie detector is a “blunt” instrument and its “serious limitations” in employment screening underscore the need to look for more effective methods.
“I pretty much at that point went in there knowing I was gonna get this job. There was nothing that was gonna stop me from getting this job,” said Karen who has no criminal record. But she was wrong.
Earlier this year, she was accepted for a job by King County Juvenile Detention, subject to a polygraph.
After the test, she was told she failed a standard question about inappropriate contact with minors.
“I went white. I couldn’t breathe and I felt like I was gonna throw up,” she said.
Karen says she became too distrustful of the polygraph to agree to a follow-up exam, and she lost the job.
Bob, on the other hand, a former casual drug user, admits he lied during a polygraph, but still was offered a job as a King County jailer.
“They told me that I had passed, right there on the spot,” said Bob.
“From my perspective, I would describe is as quackery,” said Dr. Drew Richardson, former FBI agent.
Dr. Richardson, who studied polygraphs for the bureau, says the instrument cannot help answer the types of broad questions that are asked when screening employees.
“It’s nothing but a fishing expedition. When used to screen people about large numbers of issues, about national security, of personal life style, I think it has absolutely no diagnostic value,” he added.
The KING 5 Investigators found that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars are spent on lie detector screenings.
The American Polygraph Association says the recent scientific findings are flawed, but that pro-polygraph organization did not respond to repeated interview requests from KING 5, nor did the Northwest Polygraph Examiners Association. The Association of Police Polygraphists and the King County Sheriff’s Department declined interviews.