no_sugar,
You forgot a couple. I added them in for you.
That's right. Here are the facts: 
 
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity. 
2. Some of them never get caught. 
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police. 
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
5. And they manage to become cops anyway.
6. They then continue their serious felony activity.

no_sugar_coating wrote on May 20^th, 2003 at 2:58am:



No_Sugar,

Do you REALLY think it is as "black and white" as that?

Let me ask you this, after reading about my experiences with the poly and knowing where I stand now in terms of my LE service, would you want me to back you up, save your life etc? 

I do understand, and agree with, your views on those who have engaged in a pattern of felonious activity. They DONT belong in LE and never will. However, putting such a large amount of blind faith into a machine that is in itself based on deception, doesn't seem to make sense.

Let's say a thorough background investigation turned up nothing suspicious on an applicant. Let's say that applicant did well in all phases of testing, including psych, physical agility, etc. Does it make sense that after an agency spent a vast amount of resources on a background check, an applicant fails and is rejected because he/she produced a physiological reaction to a particular question? Which could have been brought on by embarrassment, rage, humiliation, etc.? Keep in mind, ALL these reactions look identical to responses deemed as "deceptive" by polygraph examiners.

I am curious to hear your response.

Best,

PK

no_sugar_coating

You remind me of "Farva" from the movie,"Super Troopers."   

Oh, and by the way, the ice cream scooper girl at the mall is not impressed by your oversized fannypack, high speed!!!

Atleast the other pro-poly guys admit that its just a confession machine.  I get the feeling that you think it really works and that scares me.

no_sugar_coating,

Becuase polygraph screening has no diagnostic validity, it has no bearing on the four points you raise in your last post and is most certainly not a solution for the problem you indicate that is of concern to you.   

End of story.

That's right. Here are the facts:

1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.

I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.

End of story.

George,

You asked,

"...why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?" 

Because people lie George.  Because people do stupid things then decide to compound that supidity by lieing.  I guess that's the long and short of it.

As for "arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading", well, a very clever choice of words.

You'll have to excuse me, I believe I have a customer ringing the bell, asking for another palm reading.  Maybe this time I'll break out the tea leaves, what do you think?  I'd use my 8-Ball, but it hasn't been too reliable lately.

Batman

Batman,

In the message thread Audio/Video Taping of Polygraph Examinations you wrote:

Quote:


Thank you for this clarification. But the question remains, why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"

Quote:


As more and more people discover that polygraph "testing" is a fraud, support for it will inevitably wane.

Quote:


I'm curious as to what you mean by an obvious non-hire. I don't think the definition is self-evident. I would suppose the obvious non-hires would be those who don't pass the written, verbal, or physical tests that applicants must pass.

Or are obvious non-hires those whose skin is the wrong color, or who are of the wrong sex, or who in some other way "don't fit the mold?"

Who are these "obvious non-hires," and why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" them?

Quote:


The standards for hiring will necessarily depend on the available applicant pool and the staffing requirements of the agency involved. As an example, LAPD is currently eliminating about half of otherwise qualified applicants based on the polygraph. Rather than arbitrarily reducing the applicant pool through the use of an invalid procedure like polygraph chart readings, LAPD could instead require higher scores in its written, verbal, and physical tests. The end result would be the hiring of more qualified applicants.

Quote:


To seek the elimination of an unfair labor practice such as polygraph screening is hardly an "Utopian" goal. The 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act did much toward that end. There is no good reason why the same law should not also apply to government, and the Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act we've proposed would effectively accomplish that goal. Law enforcement agencies in other industrialized nations seem to get along just fine without resorting to the quackery of polygraph screening; there is no a priori reason why we in the U.S. must be subjected to such nonsense.

George,

Regardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.

The city of Philadelphia may have eliminated the use of polygraph as a screening tool for it's law enforcement applicants, however there are many other departments that continue to utilize it, and it is probably a rather safe bet that Philly will use it again in the future.   

You asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be?  Do I really need to answer that?  Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.

How do you suggest law enforcement agencies weed through the hundreds and thousands of applicants?  You mention things such as,

"…a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations."

I would venture to say that a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests is in fact administered, however later in the hiring process.  As with any job, there must be some way of eliminating the applicants who do not obviously qualify.   

As for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity.  Just how difficult would it be for any agency to now say they are “raising the bar”?  What would be their justification for doing so?  What parts of the standards get raised?  Are you talking about the ethical standards, the mental standards, the educational standards, or the physical standards?   

George, I’m afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society.  Very commendable, but not realistic?  As I have said many times on this site, polygraph is a far from perfect tool, but when it is utilized properly, and given only the weight or consideration that is appropriate, it can be a very useful tool.  You want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because the water is a bit dirty.  No one, in a decision making position, will go along with this.  Which brings us back to Philly, a great city, as long as one does not have to live there.  I predict that within five years they will re-institute the policy of using polygraph when screening law enforcement applicants.  This will come about once they realize how many “bad apples” have gotten through the process.  No doubt the utilization of polygraph would not have, and will not, eliminate the fact that some of those same bad apples would get through the system, but it certainly would have identified many of them.

I wish you luck with your crusade, however until you can develop something a bit more concrete to offer as an alternative, I’m afraid you will not succeed.   

Batman

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2003 at 11:25pm:


As an invalid diagnostic technique, polygraph screening should simply be removed from the hiring process. It doesn't need to be replaced with anything.

Quote:


You present a false dilemma. The choice to law enforcement agencies is not one of either doing a complete background investigation on each and every applicant or relying on pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings.

The law enforcement hiring process involves a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations.

Quote:


What makes someone an "obvious non-hire?"

Quote:


The injustice to individuals associated with reliance on the invalid diagnostic technique that is polygraph screening is completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable. The Philadelphia Police Department came to this realization last year when it abolished polygraph screening.

Quote:


Unfair labor practices such as polygraph screening may be ended either through legislation (e.g., the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, from which the government regrettably exempted itself) or by administrative action, such as that taken by the Philadelphia Police Department last year. An invalid technique such as polygraph screening doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Its elimination is "something better."

Quote:


I agree with you that the dollar expense to taxpayers is not a strong argument against polygraph screening.

Quote:


Again, junk science like polygraphy doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Just as law enforcement applicants are not assessed on the basis such nonsense as palm readings, tea leaf readings, or cranial inspection by a "trained and experienced" phrenologist, they should not be subjected to the quackery of polygraph chart readings.

I will give you that. They should allow you to see what your charts and scores look like. 

See... I am not above admitting that.

no_sugar_coating,

You wrote:
Quote:


Many readers of this board believe that polygraph testing is simply flawed and unreliable. 

Instead of directing unwarranted and unprovoked personal insults to anyone and everyone that dares to question or challenge polygraph testing in general, why don't you instead try to explain or debate your position as a polygraph supporter.

I have a simple and easy question for you: if polygraph testing is fair, reliable, trustworthy, and has nothing to hide, then why not provide all pre-employment polygraph test subjects with a copy of audio/video tapes, to include all questions, notes and charts following their polygraph exam? 

Why the big shroud of secrecy if there is nothing to fear or hide... ??


triple x

Batman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.

And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.

So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.

Suethem,

You ask:
Quote:


LOL or, lol is internet chat "slang" {abbreviated} for laughing out loud.


triple x

Wow!  Did this thread ever sink to some name calling lows.

Given all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career?  Keep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer.  Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant?  There has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires.  Granted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business.  Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.

Many may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...

However, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water.  The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.

But, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it.  Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.

Batman

no_sugar,
You are starting to remind me of those cops I see all the time that I went to school with. You know, the sniveling little geeks that got picked on all the time? Now they have a badge, and a gun, and a really neat car with lights and everything! And they get to act big and bad now. I say this because no cop who was truly interested in justice would rationalize that the polygraph is a valid scientific machine for any purpose.
And suethem, I think what he means by LOL is "Lame Officer's League"

What does LOL!!! mean?

no_sugar_coating wrote on May 16^th, 2003 at 2:14am:


Are there any polite pro-polygraph people that post on this board?

LOL!!!

I got my badge...

Where's yours???

LOL!!!

No_sugar_coating

Who gave you your certification?  Was is the Pet Psychic?  Miss Cleo?  Was it the creepy guy from Crossing Over?

You still have not answered my questions.  I wonder why not?

no_sugar,
You just keep right on towing the department line like a good little sheep. Meanwhile, we'll continue our efforts to end polygraph usage. I do trust that you can remember how to say "Would you like fries with that?", so you can find another job you are qualified for once we succeed.

I'm sorry... I forgot to mention...

You can post on this message board until you are all blue in the face but it won't change the fact that most police and law enforcement agencies use and will continue to use the polygraph as a condition of employment.

Simple as THAT.

No_sugar_coating,

Our eyes are wide open! 

You have failed to respond to the most direct questions that I have asked of you- 

Do you think that, as a 'Certified police officer', you know more than The National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew Richardson of the FBI crime lab,  Doug Williams, and the rest of the police community who discount the polygraph?  

The 'past behavior' of the polygraph is poor!  It is a confession machine and nothing else.  You probably had a probable-lie control question test- which means you had to lie to pass- So don't fit your halo just yet.

I had a background investigation that took 1 year.  It consisted of more than just a typical PD letter sending campaign.  Each person that I listed in my personal history was contacted.  Each individual then had to name three other people that knew me.  These three new people then had to do the same.

Each of these individuals then had to answer questions about my behavior, spending habits, drinking, relationships....my past.  They also had to trace my location and occupation on a time line.

My step brother, whom I have never met, who lives abroad, got asked just like eveyone else -his wife too.

My friends and co-workers from prior LE jobs were also asked the same questions, each of them had to name three other people who knew me.... it goes on and on a mushrooms into a large number of people.

Each of these people had to give official statements regarding me.  They could not just fill in a box that says recommend/not recommed.

Then when I finally met my BI, I was questioned for about six hours about dates, contacts, finances, relationships, friends, co-workers, etc...  My BI went over and over everything from ten different angles and attitudes.

I won't go on any further about the BI other than to say a real one takes more than just three hours. After all this happened, it was written up and had to then pass two more investigators for completion.  I passed with flying colors.

So your saying that a polygraph exam (that has been discredited by the Supreme Court, National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew of the FBI crime lab...) is more trustworthy than the sworn testimony of around one hundred individuals, including officers and agents from several different agencies, a federal prosecutor, a judge, college professors, and regular citizens?  

That just doesn't make sense!

A real background investigation is composed of multiple sources to form an opinion.  The polygraph takes one source to come to a conclusion.  That source (the polygraph) has been scientifically shot down as completely invalid and innaccurate.

As a police officer you should know that a source that has little reliability should not be used.  How often do you hear polygraph testimony when you are in court?  I thought so.

You can try to scare other people on this site, but I won't be one of them.

Its not accurate, so its financial cost is just waste!  The LE profession cannot afford to waste money or the trust of the citizens it has sworn to protect.  There can be no peace without justice!!

no sugar coating,

You write:

Quote:


You provide a false dilemma here. The choice that law enforcement agencies face in setting hiring policies is not one of either relying on polygraphs (or CVSA) or matching McDonalds' hiring practices. The choice for such agencies is whether to rely on methodologies that are known to be completely invalid, cause injustice to individuals, and are readily susceptible to countermeasures, or to abandon them.

Quote:


Whether one passes or fails a polygraph "test" has no clear relationship with whether one has anything to hide or has told the truth. As explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever. That you passed your pre-employment polygraph examination is more attributable to good luck than to your honesty.

Quote:


That polygraphy is voodoo science is, in fact, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

Quote:


You also have the right to believe in other popular delusions such as astrology,  tarot cards, and psychic detectives. But your belief, however sincere, does not make such things "good tools."

Quote:


That no part of police officer background investigations is foolproof does not in any way confer any validity to polygraphy, or justify reliance on such nonsense. The argument against polygraph screening is not merely that it is "not foolproof," but that it has no validity whatsoever.

First of all, for all you paranoid polygraph haters out there, I AM NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER!!!

I AM A CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAD TO ENDURE A THREE HOUR POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IN ORDER TO BE EVEN CONSIDERED FOR A POSITION AND I HATED EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!!!!!!!!

But since I had nothing to hide and told the truth, my results were favorable and showed no deception. I must have been asked several hundered questions, not once, but TWICE!!!!!!!

Looking back, I understand the neccessity of asking all those questions in order to get an understanding of what my character consisted of. It is my "personal" opinion that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

So for all you who don't like the polygraph, too bad. You have your right to think it is a "voodoo science". The rest of us have a right to think it is a good tool. I don't think it is foolproof, but neither is any other part of the background investigation for police officer.

So open your eyes and look at the whole picture.