Perhaps most USSS polygraph examiners gravitate towards such deviant behavior, thus they want to know if you do also???

Quote:



This topic came up with some of my associates today, and I was told that they too were asked the same questions surrounding sexually deviant behavior, with beastiality being the one question that was attacked by both of their agencies. 

These gentlemen work for USDA (a bug specialist who files a crop duster) and a Sherrif's deputy for Henry Co., VA.  Now, while I understand that they both are working with animals, and I understand George's suggestion that these are "shock controls", but this type of questioning is utterly unethical and insane in my opinion.   

It seems to me that ANY sexually deviant questions presented in a pre-employement polygraph would be absolutely heinous and that is would not be tolerated.  I am not sure I can find any sound reasoning for these type questions in that format.

Disgusted,
Seeker

Suethem,
Personally I believe that polygraphers administering sexual offender maintenance polys do have some serious sexual hangups. Not too sure about the rest of them.

So, its not just lying that shows a reaction?  Embarassment does too?  Now its an embarassment detector? 

I believe you have left an emotion out of the array that your detector can detect- that emotion is complete disbelief- as in the disbelief that  U.S. law enforcement could be subverted, not by a foreign power or criminal empire, but by a morally bankrupt industry that  peddles junk science. 

So if a person has a reaction to the, "I sleep with dead people" question,  they may or may not be a pervert?  If you react and the deny your telling the truth?  If you don't react your a liar?  I dont understand.    

Wouldn't a dishonest person react and deny just like an honest, embarassed person would react and deny?  If they both show the same reaction to the  control question  and show no reactions on the relevant questions then both the embarassed, but honest, applicant and the one that sleeps with dead people or animals would pass.  Great system!! I bet the corpse lover will make chief or SSA.

You wrote ,"...if confessed, may warn of severe psychological problems."  So what you are really telling us is that its a confession machine, not a lie detector. 

It doesn't matter what the reaction is- if there is a confession your guilty!  If there is not a confession you may still be guilty!  If there's a reaction, but no confession, you are guilty... or embarassed, or in a complete state of disbelief and or anger.   

I submit that any polygraper who actually believes what they do for a living is valid and moral has severe psychological problems.  I would trust MissCleo, the pet psychic, a car salesman, or even a Congressman before a polygrapher.

For pre-employment purposes, I would suggest that dividing the stack of applications in half and throwing one half in the trash is just as, if not more, accurate than using a polygraph to decide.  Think of all the money the taxpayers could save.  I could start my own school and certification process...Step one, Divide! Step two, Toss.  Step three, go to lunch on the US taxpayer. 

What do you suppose will happen when the Feds run out of qualified applicants?

Fair Chance,
I guess with numbers like that the FBI has nothing to worry about. Ditto the DEA, IRS, Customs, etc. But what about in the future. What about the millions of teenagers and college students who are now violating Federal laws because they swap MP3's on Kazaa? What about the 30% of all high school students who smoke marijuana on a regular basis? Will they magically stop all of this 3 years before they decide they want to apply to the FBI? I doubt it.
Couple that with the expected increase in law enforcement positions on a Federal level due to the Patriot Act and an increase in positions on the state and local level due to "get tough on crime" legislation and you can see that there could be a problem down the road, particularly if failing a poly with one agency automatically prevents you from being considered for a position at another agency. And it appears now that a person can't even get a job as a dog-catcher

suethem wrote on May 7^th, 2003 at 3:11am:

My last posting alluded to your valid deduction. 

Regards.