I think that the theory of the people who pushed for the polygraph requirement for law enforcement applicants is that if it occasionally draws a confession out of someone who shouldn't be a cop it is worth it.  It's still worth it (to them) if, in drawing that one confession or admission, it also falsely labels five (or ten, or a hundred, or whatever you believe) applicants as liars when they are actually telling the truth.

As far as efficacy goes, you could probably achieve the same result by simply lining up all your applicants on any given day, having them count off, and dismissing the odd numbers.  Chances are you will be dismissing someone with an undisclosed crime in their past, so this method has the same utility as the polygraph.  Of course, you'd also be dismissing a number of honest applicants for no reason whatsoever, so it seems an unwise course of action for a profession that should strive for impartiality and fairness at all times.

nopolycop, 

I have serious doubts that the police force produced by a polygraphed applicant pool is any better than one produced from a pool of applicants who went through a normal screening and investigative background check.  I doubt the benefits of the polygraph in such situations comes anywhere near justifying its cost in resources and personnel.

However, regardless of whether or not that is so, do polies even pretent to have any evidence that dumping money into their laps actually benefits society in any way whatsoever?

And, anyway, why is it so quiet around here lately?  Is it always slow in the summer, or did I scare off all the polies?  Maybe the Guild told them not to come around anymore on account of how stupid I was making them all look?  In any event, hopefully they return soon!

Lethe:

I don't believe it leads to a better officer.  I sincerely believe that what the  polygraph has done, is to result in hiring people who can "beat" the polygraph, (liars who can lie without feeling any guilt) or cops who have never done anything wrong and have little life experience.  If the polygraph was the variable, then Minnesota would be beset with bag cops.  I don't think that is the case.

nopolycop wrote on Jul 12^th, 2008 at 2:00am:


Is there any actual evidence that the polygraph leads to a superior cadre of police officers?  Certainly, it'd be very difficult to establish sufficient controls for such a study (one would need to control for size of the force, officer pay, training, type of community, etc), but I can imagine several useful metrics that could be used: number of citizen complains, number of internal investigations launched, how often officers use violence, length of tenure with department, rate of unsolved crimes, and others.   

Is there any evidence that universal polygraph screening of police applicants actually leads to a better police force?  If so, good or bad, I'd be interested in knowing.  If not, then how can polies be sure that the considerable expense--in both money and men--is justified?  I don't suppose it could be, without any evidence.  But, then again, polies don't seem too concerned about believing in things--or asking others to believe in things--for which there is no evidence.

Lethe wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:


Just like all the agencies in Minnesota, which has outlawed the polygraph for LE positions.  I expect to see the expose' on 60 minutes any week now.

Don't believe their lies.

A recent source I saw indicated that the LAPD only ends up hiring 10% of initial applicants.  (I presume many are disqualified for physical reasons, criminal history, lack of intelligence, etc).  They're trying to increase the size of their force and have to pay a lot to attract candidates.  They can probably help themselves out a lot if they drop the polygraph requirement; if 40% of applicants are booted for "failing" the polygraph, they can at least double the number of officers they hire.

Oh, yeah.  If they did that, the department would become a bastion of child molesters and terrorists.  I forgot about that.  Yeah.

Something doesn't sound right.

If you were "breathing too slowly", the examiner would have mentioned that early on, in an attempt to get you to breath more normally.  Not AFTER the test.   

Just be careful if they call you back for a retest.  And don't trust them.  Don't be confrontative, but don't believe everything they tell you.  Use your CRITICAL JUDGEMENT.

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 10:04pm:


The polygraphist was really cool about every thing, he was very calm and assured me that I didn't fail, because it's not "pass/fail", he just has no authority on what happens next, but he said he has seen people come back and take it again, it's just all up to my BI.  I'm just wondering if it's that heavily weighted, or if they would shrug it off as inconclusive and continue with my background investigation.  I have no problem taking it again, I just don't want my 1st time on the poly to blow my chances simply because I was breathing too slow.

Awhile back, a guy posted the same thing here.  The examiner went ape shit because he was breathing too slow.  He was accused of employing "countermeasures" and did not get the job.

TC

I recently took the LAPD poly and came back inconclusive, as the examiner said my breathing was irregularly slow.  He said I was taking 2-4 breaths per minute when I should be taking 12-16.  I was completely forthcoming and truthful, but was concentrating so much on being completely still and trying to relax that I guess I was holding my breath too much.  The polygraphist said my test wasn't pass/fail but it was up to my BI, which hasn't been assigned to me yet, what to do.  Am I screwed here?  Or is there still a chance that they'll continue my background check and move on.  I have a squeeky clean background, minus some bad credit junk in the last couple months after paying for my wedding.  I really want this job and would really hate to be disqualified for being honest, but a bit nervous as this was my first poly.  If I do happen to not get through this portion because of the results, am I forever DQ'd from becoming an LAPD officer, or can I reapply?  Any advice?  Thanks!

Hoorah:

Are you saying a police officer can't voice the truth about an unfair  situation, namely reverse discrimination.

If you already feel that race plays any part in this then you dont have the right mind set to be a peace officer...just my opinion...im a black female that got disqualified from lapds poly...yeah ive been an explorer for 5 years and ive never commited a crime...just gotta be lucky,thats all there is to it,lol

coppertime wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 9:38pm:

I don't know the answer to your first question, but with regard to the LAPD polygraph, about half of applicants who make it as far along in the hiring process as the polygraph reportedly fail to pass it. According to Chief of Police Bill Bratton, the polygraph accounts for 40% of total LAPD disqualifications.

You'll find the questions asked on the LAPD polygraph here:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc;action=display;num=11...

You can download the Los Angeles Police Department's Pre-Employment Polygraph Guidelines here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/lapd-polygraph-guidelines.pdf

And yes, people have passed the LAPD polygraph using countermeasures.

1st question is what are the odds of a white guy getting hired with LAPD now days?

Also what should I expect with the LAPD poly? Has anyone had any experiences? Has any used countermeasures with them? I dont have anything to lie about but I hear this polygraph could screw you over