yatittle wrote on Mar 26^th, 2005 at 6:52pm:


Randy,
The problem is that when people are being truthful and even when they don't confess and remain adamant (since they don't have anything to hide) , they are still branded a liar. 
I feel that what goes around comes around, and someday, you will go through a humiliating experience where you will find yourself weeping along with the *gasp* liberals.  

At one point, (just last week) I naiively believed in the polygraph.  I even avoided sites like this one because I felt that it might provide me with an  unfair advantage.   Well guess what?  I just found out this week (through the polygraph)  that I am a habitual drug user.

But hey, listen, if it makes you sleep better at night, why not utilize the tool on the criminals alone instead of on job applicants?

Quote:


My wife was hired a few months ago as an Intel Analyst and she was brought into the acency in 10 mos. and received  the conditional letter within 90 days of applying. 

Randy,

Just when I think you might be making a little sense, you go and disappoint me. You stated in your earlier post that you were referring to use of the polygraph in criminal investigations. Now, we're back to debating its use for screening purposes. You're welcome for the second example of the poly being used to elicit confessions--I would have thought a smart guy like you would have thought of it himself. Look, I'm not saying the poly doesn't serve a purpose in criminal investigations WHEN its used ethically and its limitations are not overlooked. A good investigator will always look at the big picture as well as how all the pieces of the puzzle come together. However, a poly for screening purposes is very different from one used in criminal investigations. The scope of a criminal poly is more clearly defined--the questions are more specific. Investigators know what they're looking for. However, we see they have shortcomings as well or grandma wouldn't have raised those red flags. If investigators keep leaking stuff like that to the media, they're going to undermine the use of polygraphs themselves. Sooner or later, everyone will get in on the big secret. Screening polys are not specific and many of the questions are open to interpretation. For example, one relevant question in a pre-employment poly could cover several things--not one specific detail as in a criminal investigation. Also, examiners don't know what they're looking for in a screening poly--they're fishing. I disagree with your statement that raising red flags are part of any investigation. What kind of BS is that? I bet if you were grandma, you wouldn't feel that way. Randy, I know that the FBI poly is part of an investigation. I'm curious to know what your experience is with the poly? Indeed nothing is guaranteed 100%, but if your butt were on the line, would you gamble with 50/50 odds? That's the accuracy rate of the polygraph and the FBI's pre-employment poly failure rate. If I'd known known that, I never would have agreed to submit to one.      

I apprecaiate the second example of polygraphs being used in investigations to ellicit confessions. Keep in mind that, by its nature, your employment escapade through the FBI was an investigation in itself. 

Her raising red flags is just part of any investigative process. Sometimes the polygraph ellicits confessions, and sometimes it does not. The lack of confession can be the choice of a guilty person not to talk, or the choice of a innocent person to not have anything to say. 

Nothing is 100% guarenteed. But for the x number of people who confess to, in this case, murder, because of the polygraph, I commend use of it as an investigative tool.

So the continued use of polygraphs in any investigation, criminal, employment, background, or otherwise seems to serve at lease one of the the same purposes, however the way the polygrapher may conduct his or her self throughout the process.

Randy

Randy,

It's great that you've been doing some soul searching on the use of polygraphs in pre-employment screening. Hopefully, it hasn't kept you lying awake at night. I do believe the gist of this site is to stop its use for screening purposes or at the very least, push for laws to establish regulations, so there is a more level playing field regarding them. In my post, I was specifically referring to pre-employment screening. In regards to criminal investigations, it is true that some crimes would go unsolved without the poly. It is the belief that it works which prompts the guilty to confess. Indeed, if a person is not willing to give it up, the tool is useless--any honest investigator would tell you that. However, there are criminal cases in which it is misused. I know you cited the Dave Letterman kidnap plot attempt to back up your support of the poly. Allow me to counter. I'm sure you are aware of the convicted sex offender who confessed last week to abducting and killing the nine year-old girl in Florida. He did so after taking a poly, saying you don't have to tell me the results- I already know them. He then spilled everything. This was two days after the child's poor grandmother "raised red flags" to investigators on a couple of questions during her poly. It was reported in the media that the father and grandfather passed their polys, but grandma was dragged through the mud because she'd raised those "red flags." She was interviewed by all the networks and asked repeatedly about the questions investigators had asked her. She said she had no idea what they were talking about--those red flags. Lucky for her, inestigative leg work caught up in time to zero in on suspect John Couey or she would have spent more time under a cloud of suspicion. Can you possibly imagine what that must have been like for her? That should never have happened.  Do you see the danger of the poly even when it's used in criminal investigations? Its limitations should never be forgotten by anyone. Sure it can bring the guilty to confess, but it can also implicate the innocent. In addition, there have been cases in which suspects confess to crimes they didn't commit without ever taking the poly. It's a complicated issue. I never truly believed that someone would confess to a crime they didn't commit. That is, until I found myself caught up in the wrath of a paranoid nut job FBI polygraph examiner. Now, I can understand it more easily.      

I just wanted to backup my statement about my feelings of being glad the FBI uses polygraphs. What I am offering speaks to the use of polygraphs outside the scope of employment, but I feel goes to supporting my feelings that it isn't what the polygraph proves which is important, but rather what it, or threat of using it, produces.

Granted the guy who was plotting to kidnap David Letterman's child isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, court records indicate:

"The man accused of plotting to kidnap David Letterman’s (search) 16-month-old son confessed after FBI agents said they wanted to give him a polygraph test."

Does this validate the use of polygraphs? Possibly. Would he have confessed even if they did not threaten to ask for a polygraph? Possibly.

Did he confess because he did not want to take the exam? Apparently so.

Polygraphs probably can't determine truthfulness (or lack thereof), but they (or the interregators) certainly do something to scare people into confessing to crimes, the crux of my argument in favor of the FBI using them.

wtg FBI!

Randy

polyfool wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 6:19pm:


Again, with respect to my post I never specifically said that I sleep better at night because the FBI catches murderers through their polygraph.

I sleep better at night because the FBI has chosen to use the polygraph to catch those one or two people who confess to activity, through the interrogations contained within the polygraph process, which make them unsuitable for FBI employment.

Murdering people was just an example. It could be anything else really. Drug use, prostitution, or the like. Really any activity which the FBI did not know about pre-polygraph, which had they known, would either cause them to deny the person's employment or cause them to deny the employment based on the person's lack of candor during the paperwork phase.

I apologize for causing so much confusion through my post. Again, murder was just an example. Any knowledge of disqualifying activity gained through the polygrapher's interrogations is a more general thought which I was trying to convey through the use of a the murderer example

And don't worry, I won't be losing any sleep as long as the FBI keeps using polygraphs, and those pesky interrogations 

Randy

Randy,

If that's what's helping you sleep at night, I think you've got a real false sense of security. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but from my experience, the FBI's pre-employment polygraph testing procedures are not designed to catch murderers. The subject was never broached once during both my polys--I was never even asked had I ever committed crimes for which I had not been caught. I had nothing to hide, but if I had been a murderer, the FBI would not have caught me in their poly screening process. The arguement you make is not sound and quite ridiculous. You would do yourself a favor to  further educate yourself on a process you seem to know very little about. Randy, try not to lose too much sleep.

I never said it is better to catch a murderer than have 500 honest applicants or citizens blackmarked. 

At no time did I ever say it was better to blackmark 500 honest people. I have never mentioned, prior to this post, the word 'honesty'.

I simply asked whether it was worth the expense of 500 applicants being black-marked that one murderer was not hired by the FBI. 

The FBI seems to think so, and it is something that I also agree with. You obviously do not, and that is absolutely fine. But the FBI has made a judgement call, of which helps me sleep at night.


Randy

Dear yatittle,

Your statement that it is better to have five hundred honest applicants and citizens blackmarked for life to "have one candidate confessing to killing somebody" is about as chilling a post as I have ever read in my life.

That statement is "ends justify the means".   

My God, I hope you are not in charge or my children's future, for if you are, I fear the world in which they will live in.

I have sacrificed my life for what I believe a better tomorrow is.  I think that all men are innocent until proven guilty.   You think that it is acceptable that innocent men be pronounced guilty in order to find the guilty.  Alot of government officials in Europe during World War II thought the same way.

Such logical thought processes justified genocide.

Any argument that eventually has to resort to "the ends justify the means" does not trace its roots to Democracy but rather fear and ignorance.

Randy,

I am simply stating my opinion in reference to the FBI's use of   polygraph testing as it  pertains to pre-employment screening. I do believe I am better off, but I also respectfully disagree with your statement that the agency is better off. It's using an unscientific, subjective test that is biased against the most truthful. One could surmise it's eliminating the very type of person least vulnerable to all types pressures. Its one thing to use it to make sure a person is being truthful and I have no doubt the agency is getting confessions (some even false, perhaps.) However, it's failing people WITHOUT confessions, without developing additional pertinent information because none exists and then blackmarking people who have done nothing wrong.  That's what I have a problem with. It's easy to make a flip statement like yours when you are not one of the numerous "black-marked candidates." By the way Randy, just how many murderers do you think they FBI has caught with its pre-employment polygraph? I've never heard of ONE. Have you?       

polyfool wrote on Mar 14^th, 2005 at 5:25pm:


The statement I said was in response to your remark of:

Quote:


I apologize for quoting your entire post, instead of narrowing it down to the target of my response. While you are better off not working for an agency which uses such processes in its employment practices, the agency itself is probably better off in using such tactics. If the interrogations result in one candidate confessing to killing somebody, then are the 500 other black-marked candidates worth it? 

Tough call, but I stand my original statement.

Randy

Dear Yatittle/Randy,

With all due respect, I need not be reminded that polys serve the purpose of eliciting confessions--remember I "failed " two of them.  I know full well what it's like to be interrogated at length, exposed to trickery, mind games and falsely accused of being a drug dealer and habitual drug user after having been completely open and honest. I'm now left to explain a serious blemish on an otherwise spotless record. The problem is that the FBI is using a method that has no scientific validity whatsoever to not only screen applicants, but to falsely stigmatize the innocent by leaving a black mark on permanent records, thereby ruining lives and careers while undoubtedly allowing the less than honest sail to through the process. I stand by my original statement.      

polyfool wrote on Mar 12^th, 2005 at 7:00pm:
Please keep in mind that the polygraph serves a purpose. Granted part of that purpose is deem people truthful or a liar, but it also serves are more easily measurable purpose: to ellicit confessions.

Randy

Fair Chance,

Your kind words are appreciated. I can't help but feel that perhaps I am better off not working for an agency that believes in such an inaccurate screening method--using it for pre-employment purposes really makes the FBI look foolish, in my opinion. Someone I know who left the Bureau after an extensive career there said the whole agency is totally screwed up and suggested that I to try clear my name and then run like hell. If I'd only known more about the poly before I applied there......

Sorry about your polygraph experience.  The FBI has lost many good people due to the polygraph.  The NAS says it is useless in pre-screening yet the experts at the FBI still insist on giving it much weight in the application process.

Regards.

Fair Chance,

Your timeline is correct, give or take a few days. Believe it or not, the written conditional offer was issued in under 90 days from the posting date. Although it would be nice to think of myself as a "special applicant," I think its much more likely that I would have met an immediate need. Surely, you would not be surprised to learn that the govt. can get things done quickly when it wants to. Apparently, I wasn't "special" enough to pass their polygraphs.

Fair Chance,

I attempted to send you a private message, but wasn't able to do so. I don't want to post specific details on the board.

Dear polyfool,

Am I correct in understanding that you received an interview within 30 days of application,  a phone offer of employment within 21 days of such interview, and a written offer of conditional employment within 21 days?

This has to be a world record for the FBI processing system.  From putting an application on line and being offered a conditional job within 72 days!

It must be a completely different FBI than I was exposed to and the change is welcomed.

This was completely different from the two years of obstructionalism that I encountered during my application.  The system completely failed at every aspect of my application and I am used to government failure after over twenty years of federal service.

I hope to hear more success stories in times to come.

By the way, yours is the only story of someone completing this process under ninety days in all of my searching throughout many internet sites regarding the FBI application process.  You must be a very special applicant.

Regards.

Fair Chance, 

I received a conditional offer of employment from the FBI in less than 90 days from the closing date of the job posting. I interviewed within a month, received a phone offer about three weeks later and got the letter in the mail 2-3 weeks later.

Dear RV8Pilot,

The NAPA report you cited was very interesting.  I am reporting on the actual amount of applications left on the FBI.JOBS site.  Your estimates that even twenty to one applicants would mean that only twenty thousand applciants would apply for 1000 positions.

I would like to hear from any readers who have direct knowledge of anyone who has received even a conditional letter of empolyment from the FBI within 90 days of posting an application (or closing date of a posted application).

I have rarely talked to anyone who went from application to a hiring date within a year.

It would be a refreshing change if the FBI could go from start to finish in 90 days.

Thanks for the great report reference, I intend to read it thoroughly.

Regards.

In a report entitled "Transforming the FBI - Progress and Challenges" released in January 2005 by the  National Academy of Public Administration (www.napawash.org), it states that

"The Counterterrorism Division estimated that it considers 10 to 15 applicants for every applicant hired. It cited polygraph problems and competition from other agencies as the primary reasons for this. The Administrative Services Division reported that  counterterrorism applicants receive priority attention, and that it is completing its work on applications for most counterterrorism positions in fewer than 90 days."

In a statement to Congress today, the FBI director presented the application to hiring ratio for the Intelligence Analyst Position and it was not encouraging.

In Fiscal Year 2004 (October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004) the FBI processed over 50,000 applications and hired 786 new analyst.

Anyone who would wishfully think that they are "too desirable" for the polygraph results "not being within acceptable parameters" to not affect their application better face reality.

It is a numbers game of supply and demand.  It is too easy for the hiring agency just to throw any questionable application into the "discarded" file.

I have advised anyone applying to not hold their breath for a quick hire and certainly do not make any public statements about a "conditional appointment" until they get the final "arrive for duty date."

Worse yet is the that any false rejections taint federal employment elsewhere.

Regards