Quote:


As more and more people discover that polygraph "testing" is a fraud, support for it will inevitably wane.

Quote:


I'm curious as to what you mean by an obvious non-hire. I don't think the definition is self-evident. I would suppose the obvious non-hires would be those who don't pass the written, verbal, or physical tests that applicants must pass.

Or are obvious non-hires those whose skin is the wrong color, or who are of the wrong sex, or who in some other way "don't fit the mold?"

Who are these "obvious non-hires," and why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" them?

Quote:


The standards for hiring will necessarily depend on the available applicant pool and the staffing requirements of the agency involved. As an example, LAPD is currently eliminating about half of otherwise qualified applicants based on the polygraph. Rather than arbitrarily reducing the applicant pool through the use of an invalid procedure like polygraph chart readings, LAPD could instead require higher scores in its written, verbal, and physical tests. The end result would be the hiring of more qualified applicants.

Quote:


To seek the elimination of an unfair labor practice such as polygraph screening is hardly an "Utopian" goal. The 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act did much toward that end. There is no good reason why the same law should not also apply to government, and the Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act we've proposed would effectively accomplish that goal. Law enforcement agencies in other industrialized nations seem to get along just fine without resorting to the quackery of polygraph screening; there is no a priori reason why we in the U.S. must be subjected to such nonsense.

George,

You asked,

"...why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?" 

Because people lie George.  Because people do stupid things then decide to compound that supidity by lieing.  I guess that's the long and short of it.

As for "arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading", well, a very clever choice of words.

You'll have to excuse me, I believe I have a customer ringing the bell, asking for another palm reading.  Maybe this time I'll break out the tea leaves, what do you think?  I'd use my 8-Ball, but it hasn't been too reliable lately.

Batman

no_sugar_coating,

Becuase polygraph screening has no diagnostic validity, it has no bearing on the four points you raise in your last post and is most certainly not a solution for the problem you indicate that is of concern to you.   

End of story.

no_sugar_coating wrote on May 20^th, 2003 at 2:58am:



No_Sugar,

Do you REALLY think it is as "black and white" as that?

Let me ask you this, after reading about my experiences with the poly and knowing where I stand now in terms of my LE service, would you want me to back you up, save your life etc? 

I do understand, and agree with, your views on those who have engaged in a pattern of felonious activity. They DONT belong in LE and never will. However, putting such a large amount of blind faith into a machine that is in itself based on deception, doesn't seem to make sense.

Let's say a thorough background investigation turned up nothing suspicious on an applicant. Let's say that applicant did well in all phases of testing, including psych, physical agility, etc. Does it make sense that after an agency spent a vast amount of resources on a background check, an applicant fails and is rejected because he/she produced a physiological reaction to a particular question? Which could have been brought on by embarrassment, rage, humiliation, etc.? Keep in mind, ALL these reactions look identical to responses deemed as "deceptive" by polygraph examiners.

I am curious to hear your response.

Best,

PK