I was considering RCMP, but no longer, this is too much man. My VPD poly was cancelled 2 hrs in due to issues that i should have disclosed earlier in the week-id hate to see what would have happened if the poly went through.

Does anybody know of a polie agency that doesnt do a polygraph?

If you were rejected by Buffalo Cabs because of a failed poli, and they actually were dumb enough to tell you that was the reason, then you can easily wipe out poli testing in the True North by filing a federal human rights tribunal complaint.

Oh, yeah, the moment the complaint is filed and you get a file number, issue a press release, with your whole story in writing and the references to how bogus Polis are.  All news days in Canada are, by comparison to anywhere else "slow news days".  Count on a lot of coverage.  Finally, as soon as the media has the bit in their teeth, call your MP, make a complaint, and attach all of the news clippings.  Then, sit back and watch the fun.

You will create many miserable days for ever red coat recruiter.  Revenge will be sweet.

people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason.   [highlight][/highlight]

This admission from a polygrapher wraps up this thread in a nice fancy bow.  Isn't it just ducky?  What a bunch of lying tools.  Ugh.

Because there is no ability to review or scrutinize the examination and its results, the examiner can take a dislike to you or feel personally you are not good enough for the department and make sure you do not get hired.  All that has to be done is for him to report you are deceptive on some question and you are toast.

They do not want you to research the polygraph beforehand or they will scratch you for trying to beat it.  Aldrich Ames passed more than one examination during his time in the CIA.  Real reliable. From the card trick to the last ditch "I guess we both know the truth now" pitch, its no wonder the courts do not recognize it.

For the RCMP to use this junk science on aspiring applicants is beneath them.  To hide the results and refuse scrutiny contradicts their open and transparent claims.  It is a star chamber at its worst,  it is contrary to the Charter, and a poor substitute for good interview skills and in depth investigation for hiring people.

Dear B rabs,

I am a U.S. citizen with different experiences.  So I will use that perspective in commenting on your blurb. 

Quote:


How on this good earth could a polygrapher "conclude your entire history" from a polygraph?  It is an excellent tool for intimidation, we can agree on that.  But does that yield truth?  That depends.  It is important to keep in mind that the device's only value is through it's potential power of intimidation.  As an instrument, it has no validity.  Therefore, it falls upon the polygrapher to "read" the polygraphee to obtain the "results".  If interrogators held Ph.D's in psychology and understood not only how severe stress and other factors affected a the polygraphee's psychology, but also how their own biases came to play in making a "decision", I would be more inclined to accept the polygraph's usefulness as stage prop.  But a Ph.D. requires a high level of training, and a high degree of intelligence, and a high degree of emotional intelligence.  Finally, it would also require that the polygrapher worked in an environment where polygraphers were rewarded equally for false positives as for false negatives.   In other words, where employment incentives were aligned with morality.  In my own experience, I would wager such is generally not now the case. 

No one is asking for perfection.  Furthermore, there is no right to obtaining a security clearance.  But governments do have a solemn obligation to protect their citizens and a duty not to waste taxpayers money.  Can a system that capriciously denies large numbers of highly qualified applicants accomplish this?

Alternatively, if the polygraph was not used for screening, but merely to "encourage" folks to share more information, this would also seem understandable.  Perhaps this is more like what happened in your experience?

I was extremely truthful in my application as well.  Furthermore, I did not need to be intimidated to be totally forthcoming.  The polygrapher was only able to get extra dribs and drabs as a result of what was essentially an interrogation.  I told the truth to the best of my ability.  Yet  I was rejected.   
   
Mr. Bellemont

The use of the polygraph for RCMP recruitment has been structured uniquely in the law enforcement field.  There is the right way, the wrong way and then there is the RCMP way.  Other PD's have been utilizing the polygraph for years with excellent results.  The RCMP have only recently begun using it.  The RCMP interview/examination is a 5+ hour process done by mostly retired polygraphists.  The unfortunate part is that it is really a 5 hour interrogation, replete with all the interview and interrogation techniques applied to heinous criminals.  From bonding to minimizing, nothing is left out.  Zeroing in on anything they might perceive as a "suspicious" the entire weight and experience of the examiner in gaining confessions to crimes is brought to bear on a naive young person or 40 year old seasoned adult in an effort to get the "confession".

Experienced outside examiners given the RCMP training to do the "RCMP way" have walked away from the $500 per exam lure as they do not believe in the method used.  Their extensive experience was not listened to or even respected.

There is a reason that the polygraph is not admissible in court.  At least however, the court would be able to examine the methodology and accuracy of the procedure.  The RCMP hides behind a wall of secrecy and you cannot even examine your own results or have them examined by an expert and neutral third party.  You have to ask yourself why that is.  Interviews and interrogations on criminals are closely examined in court to assure fairness to any person accused of criminal activity.  If the RCMP process is fair and reasonable, why would you not be given the results?

The use of the examination in the recruitment process is also ill timed.  One can only speculate that it is done to save shoe leather in the good old fashioned background checks.  In criminal activity the polygraph is voluntary and only done after exhaustive research and background.  So another question to ask is why in the RCMP way is it used before they have even interviewed employers, mates, teachers, neighbors?  If there was something untoward in the persons past, it would come to light and be addressed further in the interview for veracity and content.

One last observation.  In every large corporation the human resources department is staffed by formally trained and experienced personnel.  Some firms utilize head hunting companies to hire.  Why is the front line RCMP recruiting / staffing not fully trained, or even staffed exclusively by senior experienced personnel?

If you want my two cents worth, here it is.  There is much debate about polygraphs and rightly so.  Has anybody ever heard of "if it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken than most likley its a chicken"?  My overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check.  Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is.  I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason. I know I did.  Its a serious career choice for me and I do not want to give them a reason to reject my application.  As a result I told them about the drugs I have done, the things I have stolen and the lie's that I have told.  If there presumabley was no polygraph examination than I probably wouldnt have been as forth coming as what I have been.  But its good that I did.  It makes me feel like I am more fit going into this profession.  for the polygraph I think you should let it all out, whether you shoot yourself in the foot or not, at least you owned your mistakes.

What do you all think about my little blurb?

Quote:


Hey Wanda, Keeping to the standard of the job your seeking is ALWAYS the best bet. Waiting the proper time frame before applying can only help your process though it won't guarantee a pass.
 

I am in the application process.... I am a good, sound person... why would they set up a machine to fail you?? I am going to be honest when i get mine... and make sure i have a clear head. If he/ she is intimidating.. that is something that they will have to be... i have dealt with alot of people like that.. dont care... i do have a question for you though,,,, i have smoked some wackie very lightly and now I am waiting to take the testing for alteast 6 more months as I want to tell the truth and say that i havent been around drugs and havent done them in a year... is this the righht approach??

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 12:29am:


Sergeant1107 (and all),

I invited Mr. Coffey to register and post in a non-anonymous fashion.

TheNoLieGuyForYou wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:


Weren't you banned?

Why would you come back and post on a board that has already banned you?  Do you feel the rules of polite behavior on the Internet do not apply to you?

Yeah, we've missed you here like we miss a case of hemorrhoids

     T.M., 

   Hi Buddy / I'm Back !,   I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts.  I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!!   

Regards,

PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou

Further posts to this thread should substantively address the original topic (the RCMP polygraph screening program).

CHECK IT OUT DUDE !!!  GROGAN GOT HIS KARMA AS YOU PREDICTED !!!!  HE IS IN A FAR DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN THE OTHER PRO-POLY POSTERS HERE. 

GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE DOCUMENTED TRUTH ABOUT JOHN L. GROGAN & THE TROJAN HORSE ORGANIZATION    PEOA. 

         http://www.truthaboutgrogan.org/index.htm

FIRST EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / POLYGRAPH PARASITE 

        http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1

SECOND EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / PSEUDO-POLYGRAPH EXAMINER

         http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue142.htm#1


GROGAN WAS EXPOSED ON THE (33 Minute & 28 Second Mark) TOM LEYKIS SHOW 


                            http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3


                            http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3


YouTube.com VIDEOS OF GROGAN DOING PSEUDO-TESTS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1otdXn-WGYM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4sPeD5FizTY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lPefCNKGbE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqoJIoPtfwg

Yes, yes!   

Now, let's all return to your normally programmed whining...

Sackett

Quote:


I am sure you are.  And I am sure he is.   

We are very proud of Mr. Coffey.  I don't agree with all his posts but he is a credit to our profession.

Quote:


No Mr. Patrick Coffey, but you certainly seem to be.  Making unsubstantiated accusations under an alias.  What courage.

Well, you've been exposed!   

I hope your industry is proud of you.

TC

         Hi T.M.,

    For all of those you have mentioned that have recently written in whom you said should be addressed directly; let the messege be clear.  The bad Karma is YOU T.M., and others like you.  Each of these folks has done their own soul searching and knows the degree to which they withheld, ommitted, rationalized, or otherwise failed to provide the interviewer / examiner the Whole Truth, and thus their result.  Guys like you have nothing positive to add to the equation and are a real downer.  These young folks still have dreams you ask them to sabotage with your C.M.s.  You insinuate that the Examiners are all people of bad character and that they would simply throw away their own careers for no good reason.  Clearly they have much more going on in life and were chosen as the best and brightest among their peers to attend this advanced school.  It is not that these recent posters need to be put down in any way as you suggest, but rather saved from crawling into the gutter with you.

Speaking of karma, doesn't the results speak for themselves...?

Sackett

P.S.  On a more serious note, stop whining about the polygraph, it is here to stay.  On the flip-side, give us something better, then we'll talk.

Quote:


Wes99, little boy, and a few other NEW posters who've come here with stories (this week alone) would probably disagree, as they all took the test seriously, told the truth yet failed.

Why don't you respond to their posts and tell them it's just bad karma they brought on themselves.


TC

       T.M.,

  You wrote:  Well, as you can see from their pattern of posting, the polygrapher regulars here would just respond by saying you simply don't know what you are talking about.  So just get over it and get on with your life.

Karma will finally catch up with them.  It always does.

  In regard to the Karma thing, it seems only those pretending to be polygraph examiners like John Grogan have faced such Karma as evidenced on the Tom Leykis show otherwise posted on this site.  The other examiners seem to be doing fine, have a solid and challenging job, satisfying career, and working well on behalf of their agency Federal or State, or local law enforcement.   

  Thus far all of the Karma I have seen dolled out has been on those who chose to rationalize their answers and not take the process serioiusly.  We already agree that the Examiners do in fact want to meet their agency's hiring goals, and must defend to their seniors what they are seeing in their charts for a judgement call.  So they where does the responsibility rest ?  I think on the subject much of the time unless you could show a deviation in the examiner's process.  You must by process of elimination, blame either the examiner's direct actions (their treating you differently), or on a recording device which records exactly what it says it does.  Your assertion as a novice that it doen't work is completely insufficient when compared to the amount of dollars spent by researchers more informed than you in these things.   
   
   At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the pragmatic use of the computer polygraph is the gold standard.  When you can show that some other device works better, then they will buy that.  The burden is NOT on them to make you Happy !!!  Their burden is find the best qualified within the pool for the tax payer's dollars.   

  Isn't it true that somebody could apply in one time period and be the MOST competative, and at another time be LESS competative overall.  The unemployment rate dictates that !!!  High unemployment equates to a large number of good and well qualified people out there chasing a few jobs.  Low unemployment equates to much fewer such applicants chasing jobs, so employers have to choose from who is actually available.  Simple Math !!! 

Well, as you can see from their pattern of posting, the polygrapher regulars here would just respond by saying you simply don't know what you are talking about.  So just get over it and get on with your life.

Karma will finally catch up with them.  It always does.

I didn't expect this conversation to go on for so long! It seems like every one agrees that polygraphs can give inconclusive results... the degree to which this happens is what is being debated on these forms. That debate however, is over in the scientific world, it has been finished for quite some time and the polygraph lost. Again I encourage individuals to spend an hour at the library. 

There are a few other things that have come to my attention that may be interesting.

1. My polygraph interviewer was not an RCMP member. He a "guest ID tag" just like me. In retrospect I wish they had the respect to provide me with an RCMP member who (perhaps) would have been better at his job.

2. The RCMP only implemented the polygraph into the selection process two years ago. Since then they have not been able to meet their recruitment goal. They have so many polygraphs to conduct they need to hire outside help. 

3. It is illegeal in my province for police to use polygraph tests on applicants. The RCMP can because they are a federal police.

4. I was incredibly upset and confused when my interviewer told me I was being dishonest when I wsa telling the truth. In the following weeks I became even more angry as I researched the polygraph at the library and discovered that it was a total sham. They had lied to me! It took them two months to contact me after my test. During that time I had written them a letter explaining my concerns. When they called me they told me they never got my letter... I was again upset and basically said I cant work for someone who brands innocent people criminals. In retrospect I should have given them a chance to explain why they were calling. Were they calling to invite me for a re-test? To inform me they were starting the background check? To cut me from the process? I received a letter stating just that two weeks after the phone call, so I doubt it was for that. My point it this: if you are going to brand people criminals (when you know the polygraph gives inconclusive results) you should not wait two months to contact them! Tell them right away that they have a chance for a re-test or that sometimes they make mistakes and a background check will be conducted. 

5. Lastly I do not believe I was "out-competed" for a position. I scored 3.9 on the written test, a minimum of 3.2 is required. I ran the obstacle course in 3:59, under 4:45 is required. I passed the interview (dont know my score) do not have a criminal record, have lived overseas and have a University degree. With a police force that is not meeting its recruitment goal I'm not sure how I would be "out-competed"!!!

In closing I would like to thank the operators for providing this site. The truth does hurt: polygraphs do not work.