Fair Chance:

You're exactly right. The FBI's only formal so-called recourse is a second test that puts the applicant through some additional hell, but never clears their name(except in your case.) The FBI polygraph unit has the ultimate say over who is hired by the agency and even what professions some applicants will ever be allowed to practice. No wonder the agency's polygraphers are so arrogant--they know what they say goes, regardless of how badly the hiring official may want the applicant placed in a particluar position. What a screwed up way to hire people, not to mention the abusive manner in which some applicants are treated by their examiners. So unprofessional. The FBI's hiring process turned out to be the least professional I could have ever imagined in my life..and that is by a long shot.

Dear Polyfool,

You have a grasp of what I find so upsetting in the use of polygraph pre-screening in the FBI.    There is no formal recourse for anyone who KNOWS they were falsely accused.   

The FBI has a list of ten core values which they are suppose to hold close to their existence.  Number five is the protection of Civil Rights according to the Constitution.  I take great exception with any "law enforcement agency" which would pronounce an applicant's dreams "dead on arrival" strictly due to polygraph results.   

As you stated, "Polygraph results can end careers and that is wrong."  Simple and straight to the point.


There are thousands upon thousands of trustworthy employees in our government who have served well without an polygraph.  It is time we "went back to the future" of hiring procedures.   

Regards.

nonombre wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 6:05am:


Nonombre:
True, polys have helped solve some criminal cases which would never have been solved otherwise because people falsely believe they can detect lies.  However, the true danger exists when polygraphers and investigators forget about the polygraph's limitations. It has the ability to implicate the innocent and exonerate the guilty. Unfortunately, not all polygraphers are ethical, which can present other problems, such as false confessions. 

The problem with polygraph screening is that innocent applicants are being failed and traumatized by a subjective testing procedure and NOTHING is being done about it. Failed polygraph results can end careers and that is simply wrong.

nonombre wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 5:30am:


I'd argue that in our American system of justice a procedure which labels truthful people as guilty while at the same time labeling some guilty people as guilty (and indeed, some guilty people as innocent) is a flawed system and not worth the trade off.  What is the saying? "Better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted wrongly."  Do you believe that?

As far as a study into polygraphics and the validity thereof: such a study would not be necessary.  You can't bound blood from a stone.  No million dollar study is needed to prove or disprove that.  Likewise with polygraphics: once one fully understands the methods behind it, no scientist would bother with a study one way or the other.

Nonombre,

What specifically have you done to address the plight of those applicants (and others) whose victimization you claim HAS to be addressed?  Anything less than what I have suggested, leaves the people fully victimized and countless more waiting in line for future similar treatment.  This is not an academic issue for these people.  Although I am not upset with you personally, apparently a relative novice with more than the average intellectual curiosity and concern displayed in your industry, I am terribly concerned for the hundreds (perhaps in excess of a thousand) of people who have come to me claiming (polygraph screening) victimization over the last decade and the many tens of thousands of others who have not and likely have been victimized.  Mere words of concern on your part, whether genuine or of the crocodile-tear variety, are not sufficient.  Nothing less than action on your part and others will suffice.  Although I understand the difficulties in doing such, I am not very sympathetic with those who know better and do not.  I testified before Congress some years ago, condemning a program (applicant screening) put in place by the then current Director of the FBI several years before I was eligible to retire from the FBI.  As I said before I am not the least bit sympathetic with those who continue a practice that might (let alone obviously does) victimize individuals, our national security, and our ability to hire desirable employees.  You indicate that you sense I might be a bit emotional when considering the issue.  My question to you is why aren't you? I will be away for a couple of days but would be happy to continue this exchange as you like when I return.  Regards…

ThePeaceMaker12 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 6:28pm:


ThePeaceMaker12,

Thank you for writing.  One of the benefits to our criminal justice system is that it takes a pretty good amount of evidence to convict the guilty.  I do not believe the FBI would have gotten a conviction or even an indictment based on a polygraph exam (heck, in most jurisdictions, the result of a polygraph is not even admissible)  I believe the majority of the people on this site are mostly concerned about the use of polygraph in screening, because in that enviornment there is little to no "due process" and a deceptive polygraph result could prevent someone from getting a job they might have otherwise been qualified for.

Respectfully,

nonombre

Nonombre, I don't doubt the polygraph has unearthed suspects and obtained confessions from guilty people.  What I am talking about is the way the polygraph prejudices investigators against innocent individuals.  That's the real danger.  It is better to let a few guilty people go than to falsely accuse somebody who is truly innocent.  The guilty will for the most part do something stupid again and be caught, or you would need to get rid of an investigator who is not good at their job.  I mean, if I was an investigator, I would do my absolute best not to rely on the polygraph machine in gathering evidence.

Dr. Richardson,

No problem.  I do believe that based on the little I have read so far you do seem to be more emotionally than objectively involved in this issue (no insult intended).  In any case, I would like to provide my point of view on the issues you have raised this morning. 

Quote:


Dr. R., I am of course concerned about anyone falsley accused.  Yet, based on what I have so far in my new career, I have also seen the polygraph unearth signficant information that would have never been identified any other way.  Maybe that is why I am no where near decrying these tests.  Is there some sort of "middle of the road" answer perhaps?

Quote:


Although I have no intention of stopping something that I  believe has benifitted my department, I am also sensitive to the down side (namely falsely accusing the innocent).  I guess we could simply ignore the exams that do not produce information, but somehow I don't think that's the answer.

Quote:


I am afraid I would have to ask permission to go through all those files.  However, I do know that based on what I have seen so far, most of the deceptive exams do result in the acquisition of information not known prior to the test.  Therefore, maybe the numbers you suggest might be small enough for us to  pull out and take a look at?

Quote:


"...demagoguery and hypocrisy?"  Dr. Richardson, I am NOT a hypocrite.  My position here is one of some conflict.  On one side I see all the help polygraph has provided to my department in criminal cases AND screening.  Yet, I also see the real possibility of the damage that errors could cause.  I am on this site for the very purpose of trying to learn the most I can about both sides of this argument.

Respectfully,

nonombre
     

nonombre wrote on Jun 18^th, 2005 at 10:14pm:


Here is another question I have for you.   Have you ever had obtained a deceptive result against somebody and then it later turns out that the suspect/applicant was in fact telling the truth.  I know that here recently, the FBI identified an individual in a case as deceptive and he was a prime suspect in a murder case.  Later on, they found the real murderers and discovered that their original suspect had absolutely nothing to do with the murders.  Imagine, if they did not find those murderers, I wonder if the FBI would have eventually and charged and arrested this guy for murder.  I also wonder if they would have been able to successfully prosecute this guy for murder.  Imagine it, you are innocent of murder and then being arrested and charged for murder.  You could face the death penalty or life in imprison with a bunch of animals always watching your back, all for a crime you did not commit and because some machine told investigators that you were liar when in fact you were telling the truth. 

nonombre wrote on Jun 18^th, 2005 at 10:14pm:



The problem with the polygraph is somebody who is innnocent in like a criminal investigation and gets identified as deceptive during a polygraph interrogation.  This deceptive result will prejudice investigators against the innocent individual and in my view, the innocent individual has a higher risk of being falsely arrested for a crime the individual did not commit.  Not only that, but an overzealous prosecutor might be able to obtain a false conviction against the innnocent individual.  As a law enforcement officer yourself you have a duty to protect the innocent and not lock them up.  This polygraph machine increases the likelyhood of innocent individuals being considered guilty or worse, being charged with a crime they did not commit.

Nonombre,

My comments from before:

Quote:


I am not the least bit upset with your comments or your exchanges, and am not at all interested in your leaving this site.  I will however with no apology place any expressed concerns about the victimization caused by polygraph screening in what I believe to be a proper perspective for you and any who might have an interest in the subject.  Regards...

Quote:



Good morning Dr. Richardson,  Geez, I didn't mean to upset you so with my questions and comments.  I am truly sorry.  I was under the impression I was having an open and frank exchange of ideas with two other visitors to this site.  If you would rather I leave, I will.  I was just asking questions here.

Again, I am sorry.

Respectfully,

nonombre

Nonombre,

If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you  (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams,  (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such.  These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic “test.”  I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."

polyfool wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 5:49am:


Polyfool,

I absolutely intend on keeping an open mind.  I never buy into what one side of an argument says to the exclusion of an opposing position.  In the case of polygraph, I believe there are people out there who have been the victim of false polygraph outcomes, and something HAS to be done for them.  Yet I also have seen polygraph solve some completely hopeless cases (that's what got me interested in doing polygraph testing).  Bottom line, I believe there is always a better way and a place down the middle from where people can reach an agreement.

Respectfully

nonombre

Nonombre:

When the people on this site instruct others to deny using Cm's, the intent is not to help examinees beat the box. It's to assist the innocent who use Cm's to protect themselves from a false positive outcome. With that said, does that mean the guilty will use the information to their benefit? Yes, of course they will and that is unfortunate. However, what are the other options? Just take a look at the number of false positive victims who have posted on this site. 

I hope you continue to keep an open mind regarding the poly's limitations. My examiner could have cared less that he'd failed an innocent applicant. He wasn't in search of the truth. All he wanted was an admission, even using tricks and coercion in an effort to get one. There was none since I had been honest, but that wasn't enough to keep me from becoming another FBI polygraph failure statistic. 

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 5:22am:


You make a good point and I am not arguing that we have probably had false truthful outcomes...     I just don't know if that makes the whole thing bad.

You also are pretty critical of how the government has done its polygraph research.  I was wondering (and I am truly not being a wise guy by what I am about to say)  how would you do it?  I mean if the govenment gave you a million dollars tomorrow and asked you to do the perfect polygraph validy study, what would be your research design?

Respectfully

nonombre

nonombre wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 4:56am:


Wonderful.  Congratulations.  But there are many who are falsely accused or otherwise turned away because of bogus polygraph results.

You caught some bad guys?  That's nice.  I just hope your agency doesn't rely on the fact that others "passed" their polygraphs, and so must be nice people.

polyfool wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 2:37am:


Polyfool, than you for writing.  I have read your post and still do not understand why the people on this site are telling folks who have done various things to try and "beat" the polygraph test, and have yet failed, to deny their attempts to change what was obviously an accurate outcome.  I mean, I guess I know why.  All I am saying is it is impossible to justify those actions and STILL say there is no intent to assist the guilty in evading detection.

Respectfully.

Nonombre

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 3:25am:


Jeffrey,

To answer yor question, we do pre-employment screening at my department and I have done probably three times as many of those as criminal tests (although all in all, I have not done that many exams yet).   I do know that in my criminal exams, I have solved a few cases that the detectives had otherwise given up on (I am going to court next week on one of them).  As far as the pre-employments go, polygraph tests I have run have turned up information that stopped my department hiring some people that most  folks would truly not want in any position of trust.

Yet, I am always concerned about wrongfully keeping a good person from getting a job with us.  I don't know what I would have done if the polygrapher who tested me had been wrong and kept me from getting on the department.  As far as picking the right questions, etc, I have to rely on what I have been taught.  It seems to have worked out pretty well so far.   

Like I said, I'm not blind, I know we have an error rate, but at least in the few exams I have run, whether they be criminal exams or screenings, I have found the exams to be confirmed by the information I have received (One guy even led me to a stolen T.V. in his living room).

Hell, I don't know scientific the whole thing is.  I just believe in my case it has worked out pretty well so far.  However, like I said, I will keep an open mind.  I have always tried to do the right thing.



    

nonombre wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 2:35am:


It is the error rate that is so frustrating and has many concerned with the polygraph.  Your school probably taught that the error rate is low (duh!).  Many people's experience proves otherwise.  Even still, the test methodology for scientifically testing polygraph accuracy is a joke.  "Pretend to commit a crime, then lie about it on a test polygraph -- with no consequences to the test subject."  That is my synopsis on the various DoD polygraph accuracy studies I've seen.  What a joke.

To base polygraph reliability on criminals who take the polygraph, lie, are accused of lieing and then later confess is likewise a joke since the test subjects aren't from a good cross section of society and were indeed guilty in the first place.

The danger of falsly accusing an honest person of deception is what angers me about polygraphics.  Do you do pre-employment polygraph screening in your job?

What happens if A: the test subject knows the "lie behind the lie detector" or B: the examiner picks extremely poor control questions, based upon their limited knowledge of the subject (and perhaps incorrect prejudices) and the control question doesn't register a significant enough response.  How do you score the chart then?

nonombre:

If polygraph examiners could correctly identify  countermeasure use, then they would not accuse innocent examinees of such who have absolutely no knowledge of them. 

Guilty people fear the polygraph due to the MYTH of its accuracy, not because it works. The polygraph does not detect lies, it simply measures physiological responses. Not everyone reacts the same when they lie. There are cool liars and nervous truth tellers. The flawed test doesn't take into account the complexity of the human mind. It's really quite ridiculous when one finds out the truth (or the lie) behind it.

Jeffrey,

Thank you for responding.  Please allow me to address your thoughts...

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


The polygraph school I attended enforced that we were never to "bluff" when it came to an opinion of deception (or lack there-of)  We were taught that only if our analysis identified "deception", are we to confront the examinee.

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


I believe I have already addressed this point of view.  If I tell someone I have found their test results indicate deception, it is ONLY because my analysis of the results support that opinion.

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


Jeffrey, I believe you make a good point here.  I believe that polygraph does have an error rate (few things are perfect)  and I am concerned that I may one day call a guilty person innocent (or an innocent person guilty for that matter).  However, I believe that based on the little I have experienced so far, the polygraph procedure seems to get it "right" a whole lot more than not.

Thank you again for answering.

nonombre wrote on Jun 18^th, 2005 at 10:14pm:


You are assuming the lie was correctly identified by the polygraph; many cases the polygrapher is simply bluffing and since polygraphics can not properly detect lies anyway (only changes in physilogical condition) the proper course for anybody -- guilty or innocent -- is to stick to their guns and deny deny deny.

Quote:


The position does not indicate that polygraphics works reliably at all.  The point people in the countermeasure community are trying to assert is that polygraphics does not work reliably and that if somebody is accused of "lieing" by a polygrapher, it is simply a bluff and one should call that bluff.  As for people helping criminals on this site, that is complete nonsense.  Posters that post and say "I've commited a crime and I'm guilty and I need help to beat the box" don't get much sympathy here.  There are thousands of others victimised by the polygraph that you as a police polygrapher probably never see (unless you polygraph innocent job applicants).  Those people, like the founders of this site, are either victims or would be victims of polygraph screening.

The other problem with polygraphics in criminal use is that since criminals CAN beat the box, they are sometimes "exonerated" incorrectly, and the police don't do a thorough investigation.
   
Quote:
Examiners can't detect them; but that won't stop them from bluffing and saying that they can.  Naive subjects (since one would have to be naive to take a polygraph in the first place) need to know this.
Quote:
If you equate the "whistle blowing" on the fraud that is polygraphics that occurs on this site with helping the guilty, then you must also see shadows behind every corner.  That seems like an unhealthy sense of paranoia.

Hi.,

I am a brand new police polygraph examiner and I thought I would take my few short months of experience and weigh in to this anti-polygraph argument with two small questions.  Please don’t boil me in oil for asking this, but…

If the polygraph is so utterly useless and as a result criminals and spies have little to fear of getting caught, then why are there so many postings stressing that if confronted with a lie correctly identified by the polygraph, the person correctly caught should “deny, deny, deny?”

This position would seem to indicate two things.  The first is an apparent acceptance that polygraph can in fact correctly identify liars, or the many postings pushing the guilty to continue to deny would simply not exist.  The second thing it would suggest to me as a law enforcement officer is that the people on this site are in fact openly attempting to assist the guilty to evade capture.  I am not being a “smart ass” here, I am just relating what seems obvious to me.   

This also seems to be true for the whole countermeasure controversy.  For example, in one recent post by Dr. Drew Richardson (the apparent countermeasure guru) repeats the phrase, “UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES deny countermeasure use.”  He states this FIVE times in as many lines of text.  Yet, in the same post, he insists “…examiners can not reliably detect them.”

Well, if Dr Richardson, speaking from purely an objective, scientific position, truly believes that countermeasures cannot be reliably detected, then why is he so fervently telling people who have attempted countermeasures and as a result have been caught in this endeavor, to “deny, deny, deny?”

It would appear to me that Dr. Richardson’s position on this topic is perhaps more personal and emotional than scientific.  Otherwise he would not be so determined on instructing people who have been correctly identified as attempting countermeasures, to deny their use at any and all costs.  Deliberately skew data?  Not a very “scientific” position, I’m afraid.

Yet, former FBI agent Dr. Richardson, like others on this site insists he is making no attempt to assist the guilty.

I’m confused.  What am I missing here?

Once again, please don’t drag me behind a truck for asking about these things.  I am still learning about all this and I am trying to keep an open mind. ...

i happen to agree with the original post on this thread. however, any test that purports to serve a vital national security interest should not be so corruptable as to be less accurate just because someone knows that the polygrapher is lying to you about the nature of the test.

What other "scientific" test do you know of where knowledge of the procedure may hurt the accuracy of the diagnosis. lol. 
imagine your doctor saying "whatever, you do sir, dont go to those EKG bashing sites or you may get a false positive on your heart rythm."