Dear Fair Chance,

I agree with you entirely. There needs to be a better system in place to avoid tarnishing the reputations of innocent individuals and steamrolling their LE/Intel careers. According to the FBI’s own polygraph guidelines (viewable on this website), a polygraph is not to be used as a substitute for a background investigation. Presumably, this means that an unfavorable exam is not an automatic DQ and that some, albeit minor, background investigation takes place to verify the veracity of the applicant’s innocence. The reality, however, is that conditional offers of employment are immediately rescinded with little opportunity for recourse and no investigation or measure of good faith is made by the accuser to verify their claim.

Obviously, the costs of administering a full background investigation into every ‘failure’ would be prohibitively expensive (precisely why the poly still exists); the Bureau’s total disregard for due process is frightening and disheartening for such a respected organization that prides itself on “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.” I don’t think too many people would be so concerned if the poly were used by the bureau for what it is – a bluff dependant on examinee ignorance.

If LE/Intel organizations feel that there is great utility in continuing the polygraph because people admit to things they normally wouldn’t, then fine – so long as the truly innocent are found to be ‘polygraph innocent’ as well. Unfortunately, with the polygraph’s vast shortcomings what they are and with the Bureau’s resistance to scrapping (or at least reforming) the program, there is little room for the polygraph if due process it to be served.

In regards to your 3rd exam, was this with the Bureau or another agency?

Fletch.