Ray wrote on Jul 18^th, 2003 at 9:46pm:


Ray,

I do agree, there are those who do NOT belong in LE. I'm not totally familiar with wombat's circumstances and why he felt he needed to lie. If continues his career with the same ideas, he will eventually be caught. On the other hand, maybe he won't lie anymore and go on to have a good career. He is the only that can make that decision.

When I began in LE, (nearly 8 years ago) I had to lie about high school marijuana use because of ridiculously strict guidelines in my area. The reasons I didn't have a huge problem with lying are simple. First, the usage was sparse, at most. Second, it was a long way behind me even back when I first applied ('94). Third, there is no true "standard", only bureaucratic ideas of what they "should" be. Which is why the "standards"are different from state to state, agency to agency, etc. I knew that stuff was WAY behind me when I applied and I have gone on to have a pretty darn good career so far. 

As far as integrity goes, I believe it depends on wombat's intentions for becoming an officer. If he is joining for any reason other than to help his community and only to benefit himself, he probably won't last anyway. If he is joining try to make a difference for the better in his community, then I wish him luck.

Best,
PK

I don't know why I did not see this sooner.  Thanks for the enlightenment Ray.

Most polygraphers that you know of, and I can assume to be representative of a great cross-section of polygrapers as a whole, are former investigators/cops.

They bring with them to the polygrapher job the mentatility that comes from dealing with the bottom of society (criminals) during their policing and investigating careers.  I am not laying blame here.  I can only guess that I too would subconsciously or perhaps consciously change my view of poeple and the world if I dealt with societies undesirables day in and day out.  I know a few cops (family and friends) that say it is almost inevitable that your attitude changes towards people when all you get to see is the worst.

The problem we have here as it realtes to pre-employment screening is when people like you get transferred to a position where you are asked to evaluate police candidates truthfulness in his/her application.

As an ex investigator you must have come across thousands of suspects and faces.  I foresee a big problem here with pre-employment screening in that the polygraphers might be transferring (either consciously or subconsciouly) old faces, emotions, cases, victims, crime details, etc onto the candidates they screen.  They subconsciously or consciously stereotype the candidate as bad or good (fail or pass) within the first couple of seconds of the polygraph examination.

To make this shorter...

A bad "vibe" (for potential reasons stated above) on behalf of the examiner, towards a candidate, might relate in a higher frequency of DI's and post test interrogations which, as I have witnessed on this site, seem to always deteriorate with an end diagnosis of "deceptive" from the polygrapher or a potential fabricated confession. 

Have to run but I am wondering if I am on to something here.  Maybe someone with a psycology or phyciatry background might be able to pick up where I left off.

That is just my thought or hypothesis that might make for a good Phd thesis?

Ray,

You write:

Quote:


By convention, you have no idea how many examinees have beat you (or anyone else) with countermeasures, making the above quoted statement exceedingly absurd.

Candadian Crusader,
I believe the theory you're referring to is counter-transference.  This is where a person who experiences a traumatic event projects his feelings onto another individual.  Nice try but it's a reach.  Do I view the world differently now than before?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean I'm so jaded that I can't do my job professionally.  You watch too many movies.  We're not all living on the edge and out of touch with reality.  What do I see when an applicant enters the room?  I see myself.  I remember what it was like when I was trying to get this job.  I sat in that chair.  The polygraph is a tough experience.  To the examinee, an examiner may seem tough and mean (I thought mine was).  But this is not done because of a bias against an examinee.  It is done for the purposes of psyche set.  If an examinee feels a bias, it is often the result of control issues.  It always amuses me when an applicant posts on here that an examiner "immediately didn't like them."  Well, I guess most examiners are just jerks out to disqualify good applicants.  It's a conspiracy!  Gosh, George's examiner didn't like him despite his outstanding resume and the FBI's speedy process of his application.  Enough with the bias argument. 

Anonymous,
What makes you think I lack a sufficient background in psychology and physiology?  Because I'm a dumb cop?  I'm not a PhD but I feel confident in my educational background.  Also, most polygraph schools require an undergraduate degree.  I know my university requires a solid science background for graduation.  I think it's safe to assume most examiners have the necessary sciences prior to entering an accredited polygraph school.  The psych and phys relevant to polygraph is also covered in detail in the school.  No one has ever claimed an examiner needs a PhD to be proficient.  This whole education is a real sore subject with you antipoly folks.    

Quote:


You're assuming we have no way to detect C/M's.  Also, I did not claim it as a fact only a strong opinion.  Sorry it's not scientific.  I guess I must be wrong then....anyway, I feel strongly that through the use of varying techniques, practice and innovations, examiners have become much more proficient at seeing C/M's.  I believe this to be true due to an increase in verified C/M charts.  George doesn't have all of our secrets.  You just keep believing George when he tells you that examiners can't see C/M's.  You want us to prove it you. Why would we give you any help?  We have nothing to prove to you.  (Oh, and I know we're not perfect yet.  Just to head off any arguments there.)

As I asked PK, what's your beef with polygraph.  And don't tell me you're just a concerned citizen worried about polygraph fraud, waste and abuse.  That's catchy!  

By the way, thanks for your advice.  I considered it but, after getting another child molester off of the streets yesterday I think I'll keep at it!  Oh but don't worry guys, I wasn't too mean to him in the interrogation and I tried to keep my "lies" to a minimum.

Ray, you asked / stated...

"As I asked PK, what's your beef with polygraph.  And don't tell me you're just a concerned citizen worried about polygraph fraud, waste and abuse.  That's catchy!"

My "beef" with the poly isn't the same as some others on this site, mine is with the poly as a screening method. It's been proven time and time again that you DO get false positives, and bad apples DO still get in when the poly is relied on too heavily. I've seen guys that I am friends with and I have known virtually their whole lives be falsely accused. I just wish more departments placed a greater emphasis on the background investigation, i.e. employer/school references, personal references, financial matters, psyche testing, etc., you know...REAL police work. 

I think many PD's find it more "cost effective" to do superficial BI's coupled with a poly and maybe a psyche, then label candidates as recommended hires. If you look at the amount of man hours required to do a thorough BI, which is compounded by the fact that the detectives doing them are among the higher paid personnel in the dept, it's no wonder they try and cut costs. What happens then? Hello Mr. Polygraph.

For criminal investigations and specific issue, I do feel it can be a valuable tool when used the in that manner. Problem is, you can't be forced to take a poly...and the results are usually not admissable...I wonder why.  

I don't necessarily fall into the "waste and abuse" crowd, although I agree that it used in a wasteful and abusive manner far too often.

I hope that answers your question.

Saidme,

"Getem Ray"

Perhaps we should get you fitted for a skirt and some pom-poms.   
 
Better break out the "NAIR", saidme! 
 
Sorry...coudn't help myself   
 

Best,
PK

Ray wrote on Jul 19^th, 2003 at 1:36am:


Ray,

Sorry about the late reply...I just went back and read this post.

In retrospect, I wish I wouldn't have had to lie. I will not try and "justify" it, except to say that it has been, by far, for the greater good. The only way to have gone to another dept would have been to move out of state, which wasn't exactly feasible at the time.  When I said "ridiculously strict", I mean when those so-called  "standards" are compared to other agencies across the nation. 

I've done some research and most agencies are only concerned that you were never a serious "pot-head" (pertaining to MJ use). While a scant few others want to say things like "20 times and you're ok, 21 times, now you can't ever be a Police Officer in this state." That, to me, is ridiculous. I and many others believe that there are times when circumstances should be considered on a case by case basis. That probably won't happen because of the liability factor, you'd always have someone who didn't get picked screaming "why'd you pick him and not me?"

As far as "doing whatever it takes..." you're wrong. I've had chances to guarantee air tight cases by doing unethical things that would have been VERY easy for me to do and I NEVER have. Never have I falsified 1 word on any report, lied on the witness stand or anything else that would have brought dishonor to the profession. I understand why you would make the assertion, but like I said, you're wrong. I can't readily come up with a scenario where I would lower myself to do such a thing either. I take pride in my position and I realize it is one of immense responsibility...and I don't take that responsibility lightly.

Take care,
PK

Ray,

I hope your polygraph skills are better than the judgment you've shown here...you're incorrect about a number of things.

First, I can  make claims about false positives without spending every waking moment with these guys...2 of them requested 2nd polys by independent 3rd party examiners and were cleared. Not to mention that you don't have to spend every waking moment with an individual to know the kind of person they are. I know there are exceptions, but generally when you're close friends with someone since grade school...ya kinda know what they're about.

Second, the types of BI that I am speaking about wouldn't need to discover very minor issues, as they are almost always no indication of the true character of a person anyway. Example: 31 yr old male that drove drunk 2 or 3 times when he was 19 yrs old in college. Is it relevant whether a BI uncovers that? On the other hand, if that same person drives intoxicated on a regular basis...now we have a problem. 

Third, you're right about me not taking A poly, I've taken and "PASSED" 3 POLYGRAPHS!. 3 different examiners and 3 different agencies and offered a position with EACH agency (1 of which being the Highway Patrol).  8)

Fourth, "Lie and cheat"?...That's stretching it a bit...I did lie about the NUMBER of times I smoked MJ, and I'm not sure to what extent. All I know is that I was WELL outside the timeframe for use (I think the policy is 5 years), but I believe I exceeded the number of uses permitted (20 or less). Did I keep a log? NO. But it was very infrequent use and I never purchased it. For that matter, I can't say, with 100% certainty that it WAS more than 20, I just think it PROBABLY was. Either way, I had NO problem with "cheating" on that question...it's stupid. Like I said, I feel it's ridiculous to say "20 times, you're good to go...21 times, go home, you can't be a cop." It's irrelevant to me that any of this "concerns" you.  

As far as abolishing the poly, I'm where I want to be so it wouldn't effect me directly. I would like to see the poly go bye-bye, not for myself though, but because I'm tired of potentially good officers get ousted from candidacy because of it. I guess maybe it DOES effect me, doesn't it? More good officers = more seniority and less work. 

You know, Ray, you have certainly taken a high moral stance for someone who LIES FOR A LIVING, don't ya think? It's kinda like a car thief condemning someone for stealing a candy bar as a child.  ???

Fact is, Ray (and other poly-screeners out there), when I retire (or die trying) I'll go KNOWING I served my profession, my community and those close to me with integrity, respect and dedication. What will you have? IF you have any shred of conscience left, I suspect you'll have a head full of bad memories...memories filled with lies, trickery, deceit and mind games. I've chosen a career in which I try to help people and make the community safer because that's what I enjoy. I'm out on the street, doing what poly examiners won't (or can't) do. Why do poly examiners become poly examiners anyway? Are they cops that can't handle the street? Too old for SWAT or SRT, too scared for vice or narc work? Don't like not having total control and being able to intimidate others? I just don't recall ever hearing one single person in either of my academy classes say "I can't wait to be a polygraph examiner!" Some say swat, some UC work, some K9, some want brass...none say poly examiner...I wonder why. Im curious, do you tell others what you do? If so, is it with pride? Probably not, huh? Not unless you're trying to score with the local badge bunnies. 

Best,
PK

Public Servant,

You write in part:

Quote:


For the sake of conversation, lets assume that some good comes from the specific-issue exams conducted by your above suggested multi-application examiner. He should know as you should know that polygraph screening is nothing but fraud and is likely to harm many innocent individuals.  This sort of individual has seriously tainted and is continually undermining any positive contribution he might otherwise be making.  In fact, I would suggest that individual is causing considerably more harm in his/her professional career than the officer who had previously (prior to becoming an officer)  engaged in some limited personal useage drug experimentation never to use illicit or unprescribed drugs again during his subsequent career.