C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program featured a live call-in program on polygraph screening this morning (Thursday, 24 Oct.). From the C-SPAN.org website:

Quote:

George:
I especially found merit in the caller's statement about he disclaimer that a polygrapher askes the examanee to sign.   
Why SHOULD a polygrapher be absolved from any recourse should he or she inaccurately administer the test, or not be held accountable for false positives AND false negatives?   
I totally understand and accept the legalities and liabilities of insurance that could potentially be the basis for these disclaimers, but when our federal agencies tout their polygraphs as being this magical truth serium that is infallible, shouldn't someone bear the brunt of this liability other than the honest, now tarnished, civillian?  Or, are those just acceptable causalties of war now?Puhlease!   

Indulge my slightly disjointed post...

I suspect you guys won't agree... But even after my own personal hell-fire of rage after a few PD pre-emp polys, I think that it's a GREAT tool for pre-screening, IF -- and it's a big 'if'...

IF, the actual results of the poly weren't considered by the agency in question.

For instance, after taking the poly and having the department completing a diligent b/g invest, the agency took you into a room and said, "Your background's great. You were a real champ sticking w/ it during your XXX # of polys..."

Everybody's a winner. Gotta be in it to win it, et al...

In other words, I think it's a great tool to weed out flakes and nervous-types that would bury their head if confronted w/ a hairy scene on the streets... 

I read somewhere that when LAPD made the poly a mandatory step in the hiring process, out of the 60 plus that were scheduled, something like 25 or 30 canidates simply didn't show up to the poly exam... Dropped out w/o a whimper.

Heartspounding:
I would have been one of those who dropped out.  Not because of the suggestion that I be investigated, but at the continued practice of allowing this type of voodoo in light of all of the research done on this comic book writer's invention.  I cannot play the part of the hypocrite and submit to a polygraph after having knowledge about its fallacy.
Would subjecting oneself to a psychological third-degree tantamount to mental rape make me a whimp.  Perhaps in the eyes of some, but in the end to irresponsibly perpetuate this treacherous fraud is injudicious and negligent.  There simply is no further valid debate on the pre-screening issue.   
How do you put on a badge, swear an oath of truth and justice, then sit back and condone such an art?  I don't want Ms. Cleo charged with the responsiblity of judging the character of my LE.  I don't want her in a position to allow spies to continue their espionage, or to prohibit a desperately needed linguist from joining the ranks of our intelligence sector based upon a S.W.A.G...."slightly better than chance, and less than perfect."