Thanks for posting this George.
What a pathetic article. Let me try and analyze this one line at a time:
Quote:Most Sheriffs and Police Departments use polygraph testing on an ongoing basis, as well as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOE and many other federal and state agencies. They use it to determine whether a suspect is likely to be guilty or innocent.
So the polygraph is valid because everybody else is using it? They don't use the polygraph to determine whether someone is
likely (gee, I thought it was highly accurate, and an innocent person wouldn't need to worry; I'd hope the results would be better than
likely) guilty or innocent. Those groups use the polygraph to hunt for confessions from naive or scared subjects.
Quote:Unfortunately, there are some people who want to make a profit by making law enforcement’s job harder.
I'd say the people doing this are the polygraph operators. When a cop is in the poly chair, his job is hard. When polygraph operators point cops to the wrong suspect based on their chart gazing, a cop's job is also harder.
Quote:When Williams states that you can learn to sting the polygraph, he means that you can learn to fool it, to make the polygraph think that you’re not lying when you actually are.
Or to make the polygraph think you are truthful when you actually are. I won't comment on your statement about whether or not the polygprah is a crude instrument. It measures body signs; big deal. And it is from the creator of Wonder Woman...
Quote:You’re probably already thinking that innocent people aren’t interested in stinging the polygraph. They don’t want to fool the instrument. They want it to confirm their innocence. ...
He is, in essence, saying to those who are guilty of crimes, [or to those who are truly innocent] “Let me help you get away with it. Let me help you conceal your crime and fool the authorities.” This is not exactly what most of us would characterize as a noble calling.
(bolded, bracketed words mine)
I don't know abou the Mr. Williams he refers to, but I'd definitely consider the work George does on this site to be noble.
Quote:Mr. Williams tells us three things about the polygraph that he
“knows to be true”:
(1) The polygraph test has a built-in bias against a truthful person,
(2) It is certainly not capable of determining truth or deception, and
(3) It can be beaten rather easily.
Now, I don’t know how good an examiner Mr. Williams was when he was a police officer, nor do I know what other examiners thought about the quality of his work. However, I do know that no competent polygraph examiner in the world would agree with any of his three statements.
Ha ha. That is why DoDPI teaches courses on how to defeat the polygraph, right? Seems like they'd agree with statement number 3.
Quote:No examiner wants to call a truthful person a liar, any more than he would want to send an innocent person to prison.
Thank God we have juries for that. And thank God these silly poly charts aren't admissible in court.
Quote:We all know that the polygraph instrument does not determine truth or deception. The polygraph examiner comes to a conclusion of truthfulness or deception by careful analysis of the polygraph charts.
Wow. Seems like a near perfect system is open to some objectivity from the examiner. The article states that the pre-test interview (often up to an hour in length) is important to establishing the subject's "psychological set". Seems like lots of room for 'objectivity' before the machines are even turned on.
Quote:Your department should not make policy decisions about any aspect of polygraph use based on Williams’ claims.
Agreed. Departments should male policy decisions based on proven science.
Quote:One last thing. On his web site, Mr. Williams presents numerous testimonials from people who claim to have “stung” the polygraph after having read his pamphlet. Curiously, none of these peoples’ names appear with the testimonials. I wonder why not. Don’t you?
No need to wonder; here's why: those people don't want to be witch hunt victims from their PD's or the polygraph operators who'd look like idiots if the truth of their voodoo science came to light. Same reason many people don't use their real names here.
I don't know Dr. Rovner personally. But that article was perhaps written at the level for Deputy Sherriffs to read and understand, but it certainly wasn't written at the level I'd expect from a PhD. Show me some science, Doc.