Anonymous and Marty,

You make some valid points in your posts.  I'll try to address each of them to the best of my ability.  


Quote:

However, we seem to also agree that a number of child molestors may actually move past the polygraph and perhaps even the background investigation phase.

I think a very minimal number of applicants with relevant issues "move past" the polygraph, with or without the use of George's CM's.  The point here is that there is no effective alternative to the polygraph when it comes to uncovering undisclosed activities such as criminal activity.  The majority of admissions that occur in pre-employment polys would NOT be discovered in an intense background investigation.


Quote:

One other point neglected - what about those 1 or 2 qualified candidates that might be unfairly labeled as child molestors because of this flawed process?

First of all, no applicant is labeled a "child molestor" at least by my department.  Child molestation falls within a larger category of "crime."  Let's just say this - an applicant who fails this question is usually going to take you to the problem.  

I believe false positives occur but, they occur far less than most anti-poly people think.  I think it is unfortunate when it happens and I genuinly feel bad for those that have gone through it.  However, failing one department's or agency's polygraph DOES NOT bar you from employment with another agency or department.  This is a fact.  


Quote:

persons that are aware of the various polygraph techniques, but for personal reasons decide not to use CMs, are more apt to produce a false positive or inconclusive result.

Here's my take on this.  First of all, if an examinee fails to tell me what he or she knows about polygraph then that's on them.  I can't read minds :)  However, I understand why they may be reluctant to speak with me openly because this site puts an examinee between a rock and a hard place. George and other posters on this site present examiners as being evil and the enemy (not an exact quote but you get my drift) Make no admissions!!!  The reality is that if an applicant tells me what he or she knows I'll have a better opportunity to present a fair test.  It makes my job more difficult but then it's on me.

If an applicant fails to tell me what they know then the test essentially becomes a known-lie test.  IMO, this test is still valid however I think the odds of inconclusive results are somewhat increased.  

I agree that this is an issue that needs further exploring.

Anonymous Too,

How ironic is it that you're asking me to identify myself, my employer and an applicant while you call yourself ANONYMOUS TOO.  Anyway, let me answer your questions.

1) What happened to this applicant next? He was disqualified from the process.

2) Was he arrested? If not, why not? Unfortunately he was not.  The two primary reasons are 1) length of time that had elapsed since the crime  2)  Applicant could/would not identify the victim.   No victim no crime.  

3) If he was in fact arrested, then you should have no objection to posting the confessed rapist's name. After all, arrests are public records.  Even if he had been charged I would not identify him because he was an applicant when these disclosures were made.  We have a non-disclosure policy.  If he is reading these boards (you know who you are) perhaps he'd like to post his name :)  

4) Were criminal charges filed based on the confession you say you obtained? If not, why not, and what is the disposition of this case now?  Again, statute of limitations and no victim identified.  Being in law enforcement, you should understand how difficult rape cases are even with a victim identified.  Very unfortunate and often frustrating cases to work.

In my experience, most applicants are not charged for the crimes they disclose.  It all depends on the time frame surrounding the criminal activity, nature of the crime and supporting evidence.