Thanks to this site, I have passed my polygraph phase of my investigation.

In the past I have smoked A LOT of marijuana, I stopped over 3 years ago, and I know what I did was a waste of time and money. Even though things like that made me the person I am today, it does not reflect who I am. So in order to give myself a fair chance, I read a lot of the posts on here as well as a few chapters of TLBTLD. 

I used the sphincter pucker as well as counting my breathing and that is all. The breathing was hard to maintain as I was pretty much nervous just being there, the worst part is probably the pressure cuff that was cutting off all the circulation in my hand. Used the pucker and dropped my breating pattern on the control questions and relaxed on the relevant questions and produced the chart they wanted to see. I also used body language techniques. I have always been pretty good at catching people lying, so I knew what not to do.

My examiner was extremely nice, even though there is a lot of information about the examiners in the book and on this board, I would have to say, from the start to the end of my examination, this person was genuinely extremely pleasant and respectful. There were no accusations, there was small talk inbetween phases about various things. I went in there expecting a hard ass and I didn't get it. There were quite a few things that were correct about the head games involved in the whole procedure, namely the small room to wait in, the immobile chair vs the mobile chair, facing a wall with my back towards the door, etc. 

With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there... (ironic isn't it?   ) In the same respect, the people that fail falsely due to just being nervous, more than likely will get their second chance at the poly. The people that fail knowing they have done things wrong, will probably not put up much of an arguement anyway.  

I know some people will come in here and say a bunch a crap from the other side of their monitors, but do yourself a favor and save it. I am not a hardened criminal, I am not trying to avoid a serious crime that I have comitted, I am simply trying for a job I highly desire and will commit myself to 100%. I have grown up a lot from who I was then.  

Thank you George for this information.

This post is wrong. The 3 month period mentioned s/b 3 years. The sentiment expressed represents my reaction under that mistaken impression. [Marty]

Quote:


You want to give 100% to a career yet 3 months ago you were doing weed? And you want to use polygraphs on others?  I won't attack you personally but your attitude makes me nauseous. Please, do not go into LE.

-Marty

Quote:


"With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there... (ironic isn't it?    )"

The entire quote.  Thank you.

What is wrong with you polygraph people? Don't you believe anyone but yourselves can turn their life around? Although I deplore drug use, I believe some people can change and become model citizens.

I know a guy who fell in love with and married a prostitute, who had been in the business for 6 years, 30 years ago. They are a wonderful family today. They have very good kids and grandkids. The gal is completely devoted to her family. Not once has she cheated on her husband. Therefore, I submit to you that some weed users can turn their life around and become model LE officers. They should make good narcs. 

Why don't you condem prospective hires and on board LE officers that has been dog drunk a dozen times or more? Maybe that reaches too close to home, huh? Alcohol has killed more people and loosened more tongues than weed ever will. It's, also, more addictive.

Marty wrote on Jan 6^th, 2003 at 3:41am:


If I had failed the poly, I would have been disapointed in myself, not the machine, but I also would have made it clear that I wanted a retest. After that, I would have dropped it. I wouldn't have come on here bitching that it was unjust, in reality, based on "their" (the departments) standards what was "unjust" was me passing. Is what I did right? For my benefit, yes, for the department's, I can honestly say yes also. Again, what I have done in my past, does not reflect on who I am now.

If I hadn't smoked marijuana ever, and I was accused, I would do exactly the same as I would've done in this situation. Though, I wouldn't have dropped it. I probably would have absolutely no faith in LE jobs and find a different path in life. It sucks, though I do understand that it happens.

I really think that the information here on this site is incredibly valuable to people that will be taking a polygraph for employment purposes, whether for people like me that need a little assitance, or people that genuinely have nothing to hide just to know what to expect. Aside from the counter measures, just knowing what to expect helps A LOT. 

All in all, am I proud I had to lie? No. But I cannot change my past, I can only work at my future, which is what I did.

Anonymous and Marty, 

I am not a believer in countermeasures.  They allow unqualified applicans to get through the application process to important positions.  Agencies set up their qualifications for a reason.  It's harsh to say, but it is the truth.   

I don't believe the polygraph is an effective way to screen applicants.  The tool does not give accurate results.  And it can be beaten through countermeausres.   

So the sytem is flawed in both directions -- people who shouldn't get the job like Anonymous (sorry, but it's the truth) can get in, while someone like me gets bounced.  It's not a fair system.

If the agencies relied on investigation only, the results would be a little more fair.  If Anonymous had been smoking pot in the last 3 months, investigators would probably uncover it.  3 years, maybe not.   

And investigators would never once think to check if I was really a spy.  That's how off base the polygraph is.

So, Agencies have to decide how they want their dose of human error in screening applicants - investigators or polygraphers.   Agencies choose polygraphers, because the machine screens scientifically -- no human error there.

See above story and all of the personal statements on this site for examples of human error.


Chris

Quote:


Please don't take my comments personally.  What I am merely trying to show is that agencies have set standards for their jobs.  Whatever their reasoning is for having those standards and whatedver the public feels about those standards is irrelevant.  The Agencies have standards -- countermeasures allow the standards to be circumvented, whether for noble or malicious intent.   

If I personally say that what you did three years ago is OK, then what about 2 years?  What about 1?  The moment we bend the rules or allow standards to be overlooked, the sytem is corrupt.

I'm sorry, Anonymous.  You may be a great person, but I believe in standards.  Please don't take it personally.

Quote:


Like I said all along, the polygraph is a game.  You won, but you had to cheat to do it.  Normally, I would look down on someone who had to cheat to win, but with a broken system like the polygraph that executes applicants at will, you have to take every precaution to survive.  For that, you earn my praise.   

Again, this is all an example of a flawed system.  The polygraph, in order to maintain the integrity of the applicant pool, should be eliminated.

Chris 

Guest,

I think you miss the point of what that aspect of "the system" you refer to is about and set up to accomplish.  It is NOT about having polygraph exams unaffected, but with having truthful and deceptive examinees correctly identified.  IMHO, the utilization of polygraph countermeasures which leads to a correct NDI result for an innocent examinee is far better and in keeping with the goals of "the system" than is an unaltered polygraph exam leading to an erroneous result.