I am currently a student pursuing a degree in Criminal Justice Administration. My concentrations are Forensic Science and Investigative Techniques. 

Recently in one of my classes on advanced investigative techniques (where we cover the polygraph as an interrogation tool), the recommendation was made by a professor (former police detective) that those of us who wish to be competitive during our application process get as much relevent training under our belts as possible. He suggested basic medical courses, firearms training, co-op/internship programs, and volunteer work with police agencies that allow it. He also suggested attending an accredited polygraph school in order to get certification, since it's an extreme rarity for an applicant to have experience of this nature. Although he mentioned this is probably the most expensive choice of all, and that many PDs prefer to sponsor your training themselves, he did seem convinced he could get on of our CJ organizations to sponsor a number of students in attending (although I don't see how). 

Anyway, what kind of role would such certification play in an application process? (I am not convinced that the polygraph has any place in the pre-screening of applicants or the interrogation of suspects, so if I were to attend one of these schools, it would be purely to get an inside look at polygraphy). If you sat down during the polygraph portion of the application process with any agency, and told the person testing you that you had, in fact, completed the required training and were certified to administer polygraphs, could they feasibly test you? 

Assuming for a moment that countermeasures are playing no role in this scenario, wouldn't the advanced knowledge of how the test is administered be reasonable cause to deem the applicant untestable? It would appear that control questions would become completely useless, and such "inside knowledge" would prevent the examiner from even coming close to obtaining a scorable chart from the examinee. To me, it seems as if it's almost the same as one magician attempting to dazzle another with the same tricks. 

I believe many polygraphers would probably scoff if you told them up front, "I know how polygraphy works," and would test you anyway (probably failing you at some point out of suspicion that you were using countermeasures). However, could one reasonable scoff and test you knowing that you carry certification in the field?

I just thought I'd throw this out there. Unfortunetely, I have to nod my head and go along with this topic in class as if I believe in it fully, so I can't pose questions like this. Any input would be appreciated.

Anonymous...

This raises a question, anyone working for a police department has to go through a polygraph, don't they?  If so, if someone is applying to be a polygrapher are they still asked to take the test even knowing what a farce it is?

Anonymous,

Very well stated. If I may say so myself, it would be hilarious to imagine a seasoned polygrapher, administering a polygraph exam “stim-test” to another seasoned polygrapher.

Any seasoned polygrapher would be hard pressed to maintain his/her professional composure, while another seasoned polygrapher administered a “stim-test” to one within his/her very own profession.

As if the polygrapher being administered the stim-test, had no true sense or idea of the intent and meaning behind the stim-test, as demonstrated by the administering polygrapher.

That would be comparable to a magician administering the simplest basic “elementary” card trick known throughout the magician trade, to another equally experienced magician. 

Naturally, if one polygrapher administers a polygraph exam to another polygrapher, he/she will be found NDI, or truthful… 

However, I would really love to hear the challenge and/or argument a seasoned polygrapher would pose, if found deceptive “DI” by another equally seasoned polygrapher. You would then have two differing professional polygraph examiners opinion as to the interpretation of the same set of polygraph charts.

Interesting thought indeed…


Triple x

Michelle wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2003 at 8:47pm:


You hit on something I have also been unable to find. It would seem intrinsically impossible to give a CQT to another polygrapher.  Perhaps they just pass each other as a form of "professional courtesy." Another possibility is that they use a DLT (directed lie test) although it would seem there is little difference between following directions closely (Imagining the feelings of being deceptive) and mental countermeasures.

Let me know if you find out anything, I've asked several times in the past with zero responses.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Feb 24^th, 2003 at 7:08am:

Dear Marty,

I would like to see the "quality control videotapes" on this subject!  Do you think we could count them on one or two hands?

Regards.