Public Servant,
You wrote:
Quote:Your case seems to fall along the lines of supporting proper oversight and appropiate utilization...
Those of us within polygraph know that poor exams, poor examiners, and poor utilization bring disredit on polygraph as a whole. We also know that some agencies do a good job at ensuring polygraph is used properly, others do not.
I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable. I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.
The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure. If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.
If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough. I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.
As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading. For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction. I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool. The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.
My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously. However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.
I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners. The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing. So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth. My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.
With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth. After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.
So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.
I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that. I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so. But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way. If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired. I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.
Regards...
Mark