Given the certainty that most polygraphers here seem to have about the efficacy of their art and expanding on the idea that corruption within must be prevented by invasive polygraph screening perhaps the poly community might consider this proposal:

Regular polygraphy of sworn officers along the lines of the current counter intelligence screens to include these questions:

1. Have you ever falsely testified in order to gain a conviction?

2. Do you know of other sworn officers that have falsely testified to gain a conviction?

----------------

Now, since false positives may occur, a DI should not be used alone to take action, but could trigger a discreet but complete BI.

-Marty

orolan wrote on Sep 21^st, 2003 at 5:20pm:


LOL! Exactly my point. I posted my "modest proposal" since it occurred to me that were the polygraph so accurate there would be little resistance to this. After all, unions protect their members but even they draw the line at felons. After all, I wasn't proposing they be summarily fired upon a DI. Just that it would be cause for a detailed investigation. One thing the poly does is provide a rationale for an agency to occasionally ask, eyeball to eyeball: "by the way, are you a spy, thief, ...?" This would be nearly impossible to do with fellow workers without some sort of excuse and prop. The poly provides that prop, at least is some areas of federal employment.

One purpose of unions is generally to impede the flow of new workers into the work force to improve bargaining. A high failure rate in poly (and other) new hire screening provides just that.

-Marty

I know this has been on here a few days but just got the opportunity to see it.

Marty your questions are a bit flawed.  Officers may have testified falsely in the past but it would be difficult to determine if their testimony alone gained a conviction.  We would need to query the juries to determine the veracity the officer's testimony played in the conviction.  I've seen cases where the jury did not particularly care for the officers involved, yet a conviction was obtained.  I've also seen it go the other way, where the officer's had substantial credibility and still the jury acquitted.

Also, why would you want to polygraph them on just whether or not they falsely testified to gain a conviction?  Wouldn't it be more prudent to ask them if they've ever falsely testified?

Regarding your statement:  One purpose of unions is generally to impede the flow of new workers into the work force to improve bargaining. A high failure rate in poly (and other) new hire screening provides just that. 

That's an interesting (and telling) perspective.  If I'm interpreting this correctly, you're proposing that polygraph is a tool to increase pay and benefits at the expense of applicants?  You've reached new heights.