I will try this one time.  Will the anti-polygraph people do a little research into just how many police departments use the polygraph in their hiring procedure.

Now look at all of the police departments in the United States(for a start) How many of these departments have unblemished records, no bad cops, no bad shootings just perfect records serving the citizens performing perfect police work?   

Seperate those perfect departments that do not use polygraph from those that do. What is the answer, how many use Polygraph, how many use only BI? 

Now go a little further and determine how many of those departments that rely solely on BI, are perfect?

  NONE? How do you explain this?

Should not all background investigations be abolished?  Anybody who wants to become a police officer should simply report to the nearest police station , pick up a gun and a badge and go fight crime.

If this happened, then who would you blame?

Ray L.

I think that any department that uses the polygraph should understand how extremely flawed it is.  I agree that there is, nor will there ever be a perfect way to screen police applicants.  However, relying on the polygraph to decide who gets selected and who does not is a very poor approach.   Obviously there are going to be crooked cops in any department regardless of how thorough the background checks may be.   When a recruit is selected because he or she passes a polygraph exam, which is how many of these departments are doing it,  this is a grave mistake.  Many departments don't want to take the time to do a proper background investigation, so they do the bare essentials, assuming that the real issues of concern were dealt with during the polygraph.  Did you not read the post about LVMPD being criticized for hiring 147 police recruits WITHOUT EVER BEING GIVEN BACKGROUND CHECKS.    This statistic is a fact.  To compare polygraphs to background investigations is totally and completely ridulous.   B.I.s  serve a purpose, they are legitimate, and verifiable information is obtained.    Polygraphs on the other hand, are neither valid nor reiliable.  They often destroy innocent well qualified applicants' chances at their dream careers, not to mention the mental scarring and damage to their homelives  they can cause by falsely branding them liars.

Jack,

The utility you believe exists (quite apart from the serious flaws you correctly acknowledge are present) with polygraph screening totally depends on examinees believing that there is some diagnostic value to these exams.   There is none (no such validity) and as more and more people realize this, the utility ship you cling to is slowly sinking.  Additionally the widespread knowledge of the successful use of countermeasures has all but made polygraph screening a complete (bad) joke and hopefully will lead to a Titanic rate of sinking.  And one further point...by definition a screening polygraph (as opposed to a criminal specific test) is not a useful investigative tool ...it is a fishing expedition...these exams are largely not based on any prior (investigative) information...and with many agencies they are not followed up by any collection of (investigative) information through a background investigation.  It (polygraph screening) is nothing but a fool's exercise and one becoming more foolish with the passage of time...

You make very good points.  However, I never said I "cling" to the polygraph.  I simply stated that it can be useful in polygraph screening.  If the polygraph were to be banished tomorrow, believe me, I will not loose any sleep over it.  The polygraph is flawed no doubt, but it does keep a lot of unqualified people from applying for LE jobs.  I know many of them.  My son being one of them.

The I encourage you to continue to fight to have the polygraph abolished.  I will in no way attemp to stop it.  I am still of the opinion that the poslygraph is useful to an extent and I have no problem with it.  That is just my opinion.  Best of luck to you all.

Suethem,

The canidates that were falsely accused of lieing on the polygraph and were disqualified are if fact, lost candiates to the agency they applied to.  The fact remains that they are disqualified.  Fairly or unfairly, no matter what title or catagory you put them into, they are disqualified and out of that particular job.

If the background investigator asked me about my son, I would tell they that I think his is a great kid and I would recommend him for the job.  A background investigator simply asking me questions is not going to get my son disqualified.

As far as people being false positives, if refuse to call the police because they do not trust them, well, that is a decision they will have to make.  If you failed the polygraph and then refuse to call the police when you would otherwise have, then I think you are a bit immature and are holding a grudge.  The police have a hiring "process" and if you want the job, you have to pass the "process".  If you can not pass, then you do not get the job.  It is that simple.  No one is intitled to and no one has a right to work in law enforcement.  The agency has the right to set the hiring standards they feel are nessessary.  If you can not meet that standard, then you should not get the job.   

So, what happens when the polygraph is abolished?  Then what?  Do you think the poice will stop hiring unqualified people?  Do you think the background investigations will prevent that?  They won't.  Any clever person could pass a background if they knew what to conceal.  Tell me, Seuthem, what do you propose is the absence of the polygraph?  What do you think the procedures for hiring police should be?  You say the polygraph should be abolished.   Tell us what you think should happen after that so that the police can hire only qualified people.  I do not have the answer to that question.  I do know this:  If it were up to me, I would leave the polygraph right were it is.

Jack,

You help me make my point.  There is no "standard" when you use the polygraph! 

It failed to meet scientific standards and has obviously not caught many serious criminals, some who became police officers.  Thats failure in the field.

To say that the polygraph is a valid  part of the testing process like the 1.5 mile run, the O course, or the dummy drag is to compare apples to oranges.

The physical testing, the educational testing are all valid measures of ability-  the polygraph doesn't meaure anything!  Honest people fail.  Liars pass.  Where's the standard there.

Jack you should know that anything you do in LE has an effect on the public.  Candidates sit on juries, go to city council meetings, vote... 

Its my view that PDs that soley rely on the polygraph to make hiring determinations are pissing in the well. 

I also don't understand why you would recommend your son as a good candidate if he is not?  Thats not being very honest to the background investigator.   

Drop the poly and do a thorough background investigation,  one that requires more than some graph paper and ink...  You don't just use one source of information when conducting an investigation. Why do it with the hiring process?

That's a lot of bad cops for one department.  Here's another one for the list;  LVMPD officer Jason Woodard charged with 8 counts of sexual assault with a minor under 16,  2 counts of open and gross lewdness, and 2 counts of lewdness with a child under 14.   To think that this guy was arresting other scumbags for crimes like these, while he himself  was one of the them.  I find it hard to believe that a police department can hire so many dirty officers.  Who the hell is charge of the hiring selection of these damn degenerates.