Gentlemen:
I do applaud the taping of the Westerfield polygraph by the SDPD. This is behavior that I would prefer to see with
ALL polygraph exams across the board - criminal investigative as well as pre-employment screeening. This is absolutely the best insurance for not only the examiners, but the examinees.
As for the Westerfield case polygraph, I still cannot make the stretch that because he failed the polygraph exam and was convicted of the crime, then the polygraph is a conclusive and valid measure of deception. There continues to be a huge diferential between polygraph results and either charges or convictions.
Case in point: Brian Kelly, of the CIA passed the polygraph, yet the investigation went ahead full force.
*see thread on this site*
Case in point: Former mayor is charged with three counts of murder after passing two polygraph examinations. This case can be read at
http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story144110.html If every time someone failed a polygraph the end result was a conviction in a court (in criminal matters, obviously), then the pro-polygraph community could wave their statistics and gain more support for their belief in the practice. However, this is
NOT the case. In the
real world, the polygraph has shown to be the thing that is paraded in front of the media when it is consistent with the findings of a court, and shamefully hidden when they do not.
Also, the Westerfield case addresses the utility of the polygraph - the miniscule debate left remaining after the validity of the polygraph was shown to be a total flop by the NAS report. As for utility, it does in fact have some scintilla amount for which the polygraph community can claim ground. I have no issue with the use of any prop to wade through criminal investigations, but I do have issue if the results of an exam are the basis of an investigation or any other life changing event - as is often the case with prescreening issues.
Best,
Seeker