Hi,

Several years ago, I applied for a position with a Sheriff's department as a Civilian Prison Guard.  I was polygraphed, and the Detective FAILED me.   

The "problem" he cited was that my responses to questions regarding the use of illegal drugs (specifically Cocainne) had registered with a large 'swing'.  He claimed that he ran the test 'three times', and that I had the same 'swing' each time.

Anyway, I know that I have NEVER used any illegal drug of ANY type, especially not Cocainne. I am a very religious and honest person.  I have never committed a crime, and I still want to serve my community.

I contested the result via letters, and ultimately the Department denied my application because my "Credit Report" was not "up to standards".  The Drug "issue" never came up again.

Well, now I want to apply as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff in a different county, and they will require a Polygraph.

I have read the lie-behind-the-lie book, but I am not certain how to handle the next Polygraph Examination (since it will be a second time).   

I HATE the "test" because I know from first-hand experience that the thing is flawed.

What am I supposed to do???

Please help me figure this out.  I don't know of anyone other people I can ask.

Thank you in advance.

--Concerned 
(withholding my name so I dont get denied on the application).

Ok,

thank you.

Also, I'm sorry about posting in this older (non-related) thread.

??? im having to take a lie detector test because i was accused of do somthing i wont to know can the state gov make me take it. the court of arizona is making me take it i would like to know how do i not fail even if im telling the trulth

JB Dawson,

What relevance does the number of polygraph examinations that Dr. Richardson has administered have to do with the subject of this discussion thread, which is his challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed ability to detect countermeasures?

Are you willing to accept his challenge?

JB,

Drew Richardson is most certainly a polygraph expert. His expertise derives not from years spent rolling polygraph charts, but rather through scientific research. His doctoral dissertation applied novel cardiovascular indices to a lie detection task, and he collected his research data at DoDPI, where he also completed the polygraph examiner basic course. Dr. Richardson also worked in the FBI's polygraph research unit and conducted a modest number of polygraph examinations in criminal investigations. The National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph recognized his expertise when it invited him to make a presentation during its series of public meetings:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml

Dr. Richardson has also been recognized as an expert on polygraph matters in a variety of legal settings.

I repeat my question to you: are you willing to accept his challenge?

JB,

Indeed, your question was simple. But I don't know exactly how many polygraph examinations Dr. Richardson has administered. I answered your question to the best of my ability when I mentioned that it was a "modest" number. What bearing does the number of polygraph examinations that Dr. Richardson has administered have on the relevance of his challenge, in your opinion?

I would agree with you that the fact that no one has thus far mustered the courage to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge is not dispositive evidence that polygraph examiners can't detect countermeasures, but I believe that it is strong circumstantial evidence that polygraph examiners have little confidence in their ability to do so.

JB DAWSON,

Please sir... if polygraphers could win the challenge they would certainly trip over themselves lining up to beat Dr. Drew.

The argument that -mom won't let them come out to play- holds no water at all. 

What about all the retired Fed polygraphers double dipping-  Where are they?

suethem wrote on Feb 12^th, 2004 at 9:35pm:


What makes you think just because a person may be a "retired Fed polygrapher" that the person is trained in how to deal with countermeasures?  What you mail fail to realize is that just because a person is a polygraph examiner (local, State, Federal) does not mean they have been trained how to manage people who try and employ countermeasures...  The reasearch that is often cited on this site established that examiners untrained in how to deal with countermeaures aren't able to reliably detect countermeasures - that is it.  It says nothing about examiners who are trained