suethem wrote on May 7^th, 2003 at 3:11am:

My last posting alluded to your valid deduction. 

Regards.

Orlan, Fairchance,

My local PD said that I received a "deception indicated" (Polyscore), even though I told the truth.   I was not selected for the position and was barred from retrying, based only on a polygraph test.

The next week  or two, I noticed scrape marks on my apartment complex laundryroom  door lock.  I was going to report the attempt burgalry but thought to myself that  the police probably wouldn't even believe me- I mean, obivously I am a liar, so why even report the incident. 

The next day my neighbor told me that she had two bikes stolen from that room.  I went to look for myself and sure enough the lock was mangled and the wood around the striker plate gone.  SHe was not the only victim.

You could take this example to any other LE job.  Are past FBI, USSS, DEA  applicants, who have been disqualified on the basis of the polygraph, going to come forward with information for those agencies?-doubt it.

Or what about a  case where you are branded a liar, barred from employment and then have to serve on a jury?  Nows the time to get your revenge.  Yeah the state has the proof (of course that would not include polygraph test results), but I want them to suffer like I suffered.  Not guilty your honor! 

Or how about a case where a policeman is being sued for excessive force?  Yeah he probably had just cause but now I can hit the policeman with my stick (my vote), because they hit me with theirs (polygraph).

Polygraphers may live in a pretend world where their actions have no consequences, but the rest of us don't.   When any person is wrongfully accused or bar from employment based only on polygraphy all LE suffers.

Fair Chance,
I guess with numbers like that the FBI has nothing to worry about. Ditto the DEA, IRS, Customs, etc. But what about in the future. What about the millions of teenagers and college students who are now violating Federal laws because they swap MP3's on Kazaa? What about the 30% of all high school students who smoke marijuana on a regular basis? Will they magically stop all of this 3 years before they decide they want to apply to the FBI? I doubt it.
Couple that with the expected increase in law enforcement positions on a Federal level due to the Patriot Act and an increase in positions on the state and local level due to "get tough on crime" legislation and you can see that there could be a problem down the road, particularly if failing a poly with one agency automatically prevents you from being considered for a position at another agency. And it appears now that a person can't even get a job as a dog-catcher

Dear oralan,

Realistically, I do not see the Federal Government running out of qualified applicants.  I read a recent article that there were over 50,000 qualified applicants competing for 900 Special Agent openings during the last fiscal year.  There were probably many more inquiries who never applied after they disqualified themselves after reading the requirements.

The agencies involved might not get the "BEST" qualified applicants available but they will then fill the positions with qualified applicants.  As long as there are qualified applicants, the big cog of government will keep rolling.

A problem that does exist right now is the growing distrust in the competency of government.  Defending the current polygraph screening system as scientific in light of the NAS study is strained at best.  The validity and respect of the FBI Laboratory experts is undercut by trying to defend the pre-screening polygraph use.  Its limited utility is a poor excuse for the amount of money and trust placed in it by agencies that use it.

Regards.

What do you suppose will happen when the Feds run out of qualified applicants?

suethem wrote on May 6^th, 2003 at 12:48am:

Dear suethem,

To add insult to injury and rub salt in the wound,  a permanent record of a polygraph "failure" during Federal pre-employment screening will disqualify you for many future jobs in other Federal agencies based on polygraph results alone.  If my application was only thrown in the trash, that would be ok because I could at least have a 50/50 chance of getting the next job.  As it is currently, your whole federal employment future gets thrown in the trash with the "negative" polygraph "results".  Does not make much sense, does it?

Regards.

So, its not just lying that shows a reaction?  Embarassment does too?  Now its an embarassment detector? 

I believe you have left an emotion out of the array that your detector can detect- that emotion is complete disbelief- as in the disbelief that  U.S. law enforcement could be subverted, not by a foreign power or criminal empire, but by a morally bankrupt industry that  peddles junk science. 

So if a person has a reaction to the, "I sleep with dead people" question,  they may or may not be a pervert?  If you react and the deny your telling the truth?  If you don't react your a liar?  I dont understand.    

Wouldn't a dishonest person react and deny just like an honest, embarassed person would react and deny?  If they both show the same reaction to the  control question  and show no reactions on the relevant questions then both the embarassed, but honest, applicant and the one that sleeps with dead people or animals would pass.  Great system!! I bet the corpse lover will make chief or SSA.

You wrote ,"...if confessed, may warn of severe psychological problems."  So what you are really telling us is that its a confession machine, not a lie detector. 

It doesn't matter what the reaction is- if there is a confession your guilty!  If there is not a confession you may still be guilty!  If there's a reaction, but no confession, you are guilty... or embarassed, or in a complete state of disbelief and or anger.   

I submit that any polygraper who actually believes what they do for a living is valid and moral has severe psychological problems.  I would trust MissCleo, the pet psychic, a car salesman, or even a Congressman before a polygrapher.

For pre-employment purposes, I would suggest that dividing the stack of applications in half and throwing one half in the trash is just as, if not more, accurate than using a polygraph to decide.  Think of all the money the taxpayers could save.  I could start my own school and certification process...Step one, Divide! Step two, Toss.  Step three, go to lunch on the US taxpayer. 

Sex with animals- though a control/embarassment question as with "sex with corpses" are used simply because both, if confessed, may warn of severe psychological problems.

Suethem,
Personally I believe that polygraphers administering sexual offender maintenance polys do have some serious sexual hangups. Not too sure about the rest of them.

I had a polygrapher ask me if I had ever had, "unusual sex?" 

I am not sure what kind of question that was- control, relevant, whatever....

It just seemed ridiculous!

With out diving to far into the topic -what does unusual mean?

On the couch?

With votive candles burning?

In the hot tub?

some kind of yoga position?

I didn't understand what he was looking for.  It seemed like such a stupid fishing experiment that I just said no.

How is any one supposed to take these tests seriously once they have been subjected to such juvenile examiners and stupid questions?

It seems to me like the people asking the questions may have sexual hang ups.  Since there is no accountability with the examiners I guess they can ask, do or say anything.  Must be nice...

Quote:



This topic came up with some of my associates today, and I was told that they too were asked the same questions surrounding sexually deviant behavior, with beastiality being the one question that was attacked by both of their agencies. 

These gentlemen work for USDA (a bug specialist who files a crop duster) and a Sherrif's deputy for Henry Co., VA.  Now, while I understand that they both are working with animals, and I understand George's suggestion that these are "shock controls", but this type of questioning is utterly unethical and insane in my opinion.   

It seems to me that ANY sexually deviant questions presented in a pre-employement polygraph would be absolutely heinous and that is would not be tolerated.  I am not sure I can find any sound reasoning for these type questions in that format.

Disgusted,
Seeker

Although any admission of zoophilia would presumably be ground for disqualification from the hiring process, it appears that the U.S. Secret Service is using the question about sex with animals as a kind of "shock control question" -- one expected to cause a physiological response simply because of the outlandish nature of the question.

Perhaps most USSS polygraph examiners gravitate towards such deviant behavior, thus they want to know if you do also???

Why is sex with animals such an important question with the USSS?  They asked me that question more than a few times during both of my poly exams.  The first time they asked, I kinda chuckled, they didn't appreciate that and said that this polygraph isnt a game.  Couldnt they think of a better question to ask that is more relevant?  I know they have five hours to kill, but still...