True Libertarian,
Your last post included the following:
Quote:...Mr. Webb responded to my complaint as follows:
"First you should determine if the interview was recorded. If so request the agency review the taped interview for the reported admissions. Second, I would need to know if the examiner is a member of the APA. If so you could file a grievance, but you would need evidence that the reported admissions made by you did not occur as alleged in the polygraph report."...
With regard to the (at this point) hypothetical scenario you raise involving your polygraph examination and interrogation NOT having been recorded, Mr. Webb will have to answer for himself as to how he would view your then uncorroborated testimony and whether he believes this to be sufficient and compelling reason for requiring all such future encounters to be recorded. I personally and very strongly believe that EVERY examination should be recorded and that this should be taken as seriously and viewed as much a protected right as the administration and recording of an advice of rights and accompanying form(s) in a criminal matter.
I further believe, that if support for this position is not quickly forthcoming from general law enforcement, polygraph organizations such as the APA and teaching institutions such as DoDPI (which as far as I am aware and to their credit record all in-house examinations), the public should demand such through the following actions: (1) Consideration should be given in contemplated civil suits (such as the one you have alluded to in your case) to suing not only for wrongful determinations and actions stemming from inaccurate polygraph results and “made-up” confessions/admissions but for not providing the basic protection (from such abuse) afforded through routine audio/video recordings, and (2) grass-root signature petitions should be started all over the country getting referendums on the ballot mandating the use of, protection of, and reasonable availability (for protected parties) of such recordings.
I also believe that considerably more time, effort, and personnel resources should be expended by the polygraph community towards utilizing concealed information testing. This effort will yield at least two major benefits over presently and widely used lie detection formats: (1) This type of examination has a scientific basis for practice, has components of meaningful scientific control, and potentially offers a valid procedure/results suitable for introduction in trial matters through expert testimony in Daubert or Frye hearings, and equally importantly, and in the context of this thread, (2) will provide for testing whose public dissemination polygraph examiners would not need dread or fear as personally embarrassing should said dissemination become the norm through courtroom replay and any accompanying media coverage. This latter relative benefit is made possible because concealed information testing does not require or involve any of the deceit and misrepresentation inherent (even in the absence of contrived confessions/admissions) in many commonly utilized lie detection formats.
Regards,
Drew Richardson