Ray,

My inference that thousands of law enforcement applicants are being falsely accused of deception each year is based on:

1) the high percentage of federal, state, and local agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening; I understand this percentage to be over 50%;

2) the high failure rates associated with such polygraph screening; 30%-50% seems to be typical;

3) the assumption that many thousands of law enforcement applicants are polygraphed each year;

4) the known fact that polygraph screening has no scientific basis and is without validity.

You attach significance to your experience of obtaining admissions with regard to obtaining admissions regarding to the very same questions regarding which applicants appeared to show deception on the polygraph. But this is hardly surprising: if an examinee appears deceptive with regard to illegal drug use, for example, then you would presumably focus your post-test interrogation on illegal drug use. Thus, it would be expected that any admissions obtained would tend to confirm the polygraph results. But this tells us nothing about the validity of polygraphy. Indeed, if CQT polygraphy were a valid diagnostic test for deception, there would be no need for any post-test interrogation, would there?

You suggested to Anonymous that 100 disqualifying admissions would justify one false positive. In your opinion, what minimum number of disqualifying admissions would justify one false positive?

Ray,

In fact the number of false positive results is quite likely substantially greater than the number of true admissions and confessions.  My suggested ratio was merely offered to indicate how offensive I consider such a trade, but if you do not, then go ahead and offer your resignation.  Then at least you will have some credibility with the many here who have been falsely accused by your industry.

George,

Quote:
   

Can you back this statement up?  Thousands a year?  I'd say the number is significantly less than thousands.

Within my organization when an applicant exam is deemed S/R, the admission rate is approximately 80% relative to the specific issue.  In other words, when an applicant fails a crime question the admission that follows has to do with crime...when an applicant fails a drug question the admission that follows has to do with drugs...and so on.  This is my real world experience.  How would you explain these admissions to specific issues on a test?   

Anonymous,

Quote:


I would say those numbers are about right, and I would suggest 100 disqualifying admissions would justify one false positive.  That is where we differ...

Ray,

Until you demonstrate it (I'm not aware of a single field study which has even addressed the issue), with appropriate research, you have not a whit of proof that a single admission obtained would not have been obtained with competent interrogation (following the gathering of useful information stemming from a background investigation) in the absence of a polygraph exam.  Even if you had, I would suggest that a 100 such admissions would not justify wrongfully accusing a single innocent examinee.  If you disagree with that then I suggest you give up your job and career right now--I know it's not fair, but you should be willing to do that which you impose on others...  With regard to drug identification, the last time I checked that was a matter for toxicology and most assuredly not to be handled through unfounded guessing with polygraph screening exams.

Ray wrote on Dec 30^th, 2003 at 12:56am:


Ray,

I'm playing no game of semantics with you. There is an important distinction to be made between actually detecting deception regarding relevant issues such as illegal drug use and obtaining admissions regarding the same. The polygraph's usefulness for obtaining admissions depends on polygraph subjects not understanding that the "test" is a fraud. As more and more law enforcement applicants become aware of "the lie behind the lie detector," the utility of the polygraph for encouraging disqualifying admissions can only wane.

We don't have to wait for a working lie detector to be invented before abolishing a fraudulent one that results in thousands of truthful applicants being wrongly branded as liars on an annual basis.

Anonymous,

Give what up??  Last time I checked I was on the "winning" side in this "fight."   

Perhaps you'd like to answer my question posed earlier in this thread.  What mechanism can be put in place to detect undisclosed drug involvement and criminal activity in an applicant's background?  Even George has admitted that disqualifying admissions occur in the course of applicant polygraphs.  If there was no polygraph, there would be no disqualifying admissions.

Ray,

Give it up...this web site would not continue to exist for years (now three plus as I recall) if polygraphy was not constantly creating more problems than it solved.  The initial polygraph errors that led the webmasters to create it would have done merely that...the continuing litany of problems has led to this site being more entrenched and more read than all other pro-polygraph sites put together...ok, the lack of any information on those sites does contribute somewhat to that outcome...

George,

Quote:


These "disqualifying admissions" would not have occurred without the polygraph.  An admission of undisclosed drug involvment is not a form of "detection?"  You're playing a game of semantics.

Do you have an alternative for polygraph?  The use of polygraph in applicant screening has absolutely uncovered past drug use and criminal activity.   

Lotus,
To answer your question, I do not believe this is an isolated incident.  There are bad cops everywhere...and there would be more without the polygraph.   Perhaps you have an alternative to the polygraph?   Even George admits that the polygraph does lead to disqualifying admissions (detection) regarding drug involvement and criminal activity.  Without polygraph it would be nearly impossible to uncover the disqualifying activities of applicants.

The message thread to which Lotus refers is Las Vegas Metro's poly.

Ray, if you think this is an isolated incident, you are wrong.  Check out the thread on LVMPD and read about the cops who were charged with crimes.  Do you think they all became bad only after becoming cops?

Ray,

Although it may lead to some disqualifying admissions, the polygraph cannot detect prior illegal drug use by applicants. Recent drug use by applicants can be tested for, however, using genuine scientific tests. And drug use by serving law enforcement officers can be detected and deterred by mandatory drug testing at random intervals.

George,
This brings up an interesting point.  Let's say your theory is correct; Zeigler used cocaine and marijuana above and beyond what the St. Louis County PD allows and then passed a polygraph regarding that specific issue.  Seems a bit of stretch but I'll go with it.   

What mechanism would you put in place to better detect undisclosed drug involvement and criminal activity?  Even the most intensive background investigations often will not reveal these particular "hidden" issues.

My department has, through the use of polygraph, discovered serious issues in the backgrounds of otherwise highly qualified applicants.  These issues would not have been detected by any background investigation and the applicant would have been hired. 

My feeling is that without polygraph we would have an increased number of "Zeiglers" running around and stories like this one would become much more common.

Bruce Rushton of the St. Louis, MO Riverfront Times reports in an article titled "Shot in the Act" that former St. Louis County police officer Thomas S. Zeigler has been charged with "second-degree assault, armed criminal action, felony possession of cocaine and misdemeanor possession of marijuana." The drugs were allegedly in his possession at the time of a 3 March 2003 off-duty shooting of a fellow officer in which he was involved. Zeigler left the department in August 2003.

The St. Louis Co. Police Department requires applicants to submit to a pre-employment polygraph examination, as indicated in the department's application form (723 kb PDF).

Perhaps the 30-year-old Zeigler didn't use illegal drugs before passing a pre-employment polygraph screening test and only began using cocaine and marijuana afterwards, but it seems unlikely.