No_sugar_coating,

Our eyes are wide open! 

You have failed to respond to the most direct questions that I have asked of you- 

Do you think that, as a 'Certified police officer', you know more than The National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew Richardson of the FBI crime lab,  Doug Williams, and the rest of the police community who discount the polygraph?  

The 'past behavior' of the polygraph is poor!  It is a confession machine and nothing else.  You probably had a probable-lie control question test- which means you had to lie to pass- So don't fit your halo just yet.

I had a background investigation that took 1 year.  It consisted of more than just a typical PD letter sending campaign.  Each person that I listed in my personal history was contacted.  Each individual then had to name three other people that knew me.  These three new people then had to do the same.

Each of these individuals then had to answer questions about my behavior, spending habits, drinking, relationships....my past.  They also had to trace my location and occupation on a time line.

My step brother, whom I have never met, who lives abroad, got asked just like eveyone else -his wife too.

My friends and co-workers from prior LE jobs were also asked the same questions, each of them had to name three other people who knew me.... it goes on and on a mushrooms into a large number of people.

Each of these people had to give official statements regarding me.  They could not just fill in a box that says recommend/not recommed.

Then when I finally met my BI, I was questioned for about six hours about dates, contacts, finances, relationships, friends, co-workers, etc...  My BI went over and over everything from ten different angles and attitudes.

I won't go on any further about the BI other than to say a real one takes more than just three hours. After all this happened, it was written up and had to then pass two more investigators for completion.  I passed with flying colors.

So your saying that a polygraph exam (that has been discredited by the Supreme Court, National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew of the FBI crime lab...) is more trustworthy than the sworn testimony of around one hundred individuals, including officers and agents from several different agencies, a federal prosecutor, a judge, college professors, and regular citizens?  

That just doesn't make sense!

A real background investigation is composed of multiple sources to form an opinion.  The polygraph takes one source to come to a conclusion.  That source (the polygraph) has been scientifically shot down as completely invalid and innaccurate.

As a police officer you should know that a source that has little reliability should not be used.  How often do you hear polygraph testimony when you are in court?  I thought so.

You can try to scare other people on this site, but I won't be one of them.

Its not accurate, so its financial cost is just waste!  The LE profession cannot afford to waste money or the trust of the citizens it has sworn to protect.  There can be no peace without justice!!

no_sugar,
You just keep right on towing the department line like a good little sheep. Meanwhile, we'll continue our efforts to end polygraph usage. I do trust that you can remember how to say "Would you like fries with that?", so you can find another job you are qualified for once we succeed.

LOL!!!

I got my badge...

Where's yours???

LOL!!!

What does LOL!!! mean?

Wow!  Did this thread ever sink to some name calling lows.

Given all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career?  Keep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer.  Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant?  There has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires.  Granted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business.  Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.

Many may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...

However, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water.  The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.

But, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it.  Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.

Batman

Batman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.

And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.

So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.

I will give you that. They should allow you to see what your charts and scores look like. 

See... I am not above admitting that.

George,

Regardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.

The city of Philadelphia may have eliminated the use of polygraph as a screening tool for it's law enforcement applicants, however there are many other departments that continue to utilize it, and it is probably a rather safe bet that Philly will use it again in the future.   

You asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be?  Do I really need to answer that?  Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.

How do you suggest law enforcement agencies weed through the hundreds and thousands of applicants?  You mention things such as,

"…a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations."

I would venture to say that a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests is in fact administered, however later in the hiring process.  As with any job, there must be some way of eliminating the applicants who do not obviously qualify.   

As for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity.  Just how difficult would it be for any agency to now say they are “raising the bar”?  What would be their justification for doing so?  What parts of the standards get raised?  Are you talking about the ethical standards, the mental standards, the educational standards, or the physical standards?   

George, I’m afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society.  Very commendable, but not realistic?  As I have said many times on this site, polygraph is a far from perfect tool, but when it is utilized properly, and given only the weight or consideration that is appropriate, it can be a very useful tool.  You want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because the water is a bit dirty.  No one, in a decision making position, will go along with this.  Which brings us back to Philly, a great city, as long as one does not have to live there.  I predict that within five years they will re-institute the policy of using polygraph when screening law enforcement applicants.  This will come about once they realize how many “bad apples” have gotten through the process.  No doubt the utilization of polygraph would not have, and will not, eliminate the fact that some of those same bad apples would get through the system, but it certainly would have identified many of them.

I wish you luck with your crusade, however until you can develop something a bit more concrete to offer as an alternative, I’m afraid you will not succeed.   

Batman