Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 3 post(s).
Posted by: Stealth
Posted on: Sep 1st, 2002 at 10:31pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
My opinion is that, ultimately, the polygraph is there to ensure that the applicant is truthful though intimidation.  This theory suggests that if an applicant knows he'll face a "lie-detector", he'll either be truthful on the application, or (if he's had a little more criminality in his background) he'll not apply at all.  In either case, the intimidation works to the favor of the hiring department.

Hence, to some departments, the polygraph may be little more than a formality, with the understanding that the applicant has been sufficiently intimidated into telling the truth throughout the process.  Other departments may rely on it for actual "fact finding" (i.e. F.B.I. et al).

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2002 at 9:30am
  Mark & Quote
I suspect that overall, most people (>50%) who receive pre-employment polygraph interrogations ulitmately "pass." However, the failure rate varies widely depending on the agency involved. For example, in both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department, the failure rate is on the order of 50%. But in the Department of Defense (DoD) counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening program, everyone who does not make "substantive admissions" seems to pass (according to DoD's last two annual reports to Congress on the polygraph program).

I think that your suggestion, "If you go in and admit to something small (like smoking MJ) and then take the poly and stick to your story, almost always you pass" is ill-founded. While this may hold true for certain polygraph programs (like the DoD one), in other agencies, many truthful persons who make no "post-test" admissions nonetheless fail. See the narratives on the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements page for examples.
Posted by: CuriousGeorgie
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2002 at 9:04am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Is it just me or do the majority of people who take a pre-employment poly for law enforcement or gov't jobs pass? I've noticed that almost all those who are applying for LE and gov't pass except those who admit to something shady or bad such as using hard drugs or criminal acts. Those people always get a hard time and usually fail the poly and get booted from the process. If you go in and admit to something small(like smoking MJ) and then take the poly and stick to your story, almost always you pass. Any opinions?
 
  Top