I apologize for the apparent ambiguity of my post. It was very late at night/early in the morning when I wrote it and having re-read it I realized that I made a statement that was not clear and seemed to contradict itself.
Let me elaborate further on the polygraph and why It is that I have reservations about it. It basically boils down to a few things. First, the machine while probably more reliable than a the flip of a coin ( I was merely using a phrase to describe its wishy-washy accuracy and not implying that it was a 50/50 chane and also you could flip a coin 100 times and have it come out 70/30, so the statement allowed me some leeway). Anyway, those of us that are educated about the machine know that even if a candidate passes, a field-background investigation must be done and we even require them to take a urinalysis. However, there are masses of idiots out there (mostly at the administrative level of law enforcement) that know nothing about the polygraph, have never even taken a polygraph and this is where the problem begins. They cut back on the time the investigator can gather information for the background, they now start requiring that the investigator mail out a stupid questionairre instead of going out and doing face to face or even phone interviews and ultimately they begin to disqualify candidates on the recommendation of the polygrapher (granted I have no problem with this if deception is discovered and admitted to by the candidate) who tell them he found the applicant to be deceptive. This is of course his opinion that is only backed up by a spike on the screen. Many years ago I was denied employment with an agency that didn't polygraph based on an inconclusive result with an agency that did. I had to keep correcting the members on the oral board that an inconclusive result does not mean failure. They got irritated when I could not tell them what part of the test (subject matter) I failed and felt I was deceiving them. This is of course not entirely the fault of the polygraph, but ignorance based on part from the administrative element found in most agencies. However, the polygrapher for our agency does his part in keeping the administrative element blind as to the reality of the polygraph as well, so technically it is slightly the polygraph communities fault as well.
My point is that the polygraph should only be used as an adjunct to a background investigation and never as the background investigation or the sole disqualifier. As far as your statement regarding the use of the polygraph in South American countries. The level of corruption there needs something to ensure that at least at the street level the LE community is kept clean. This is only a bandaid on a laceration, because unfortunately, the politicians are not polygraphed and they are ultimately the most corrupt of them all. Heck, even when the threat of being polygraphed was made on some members of the United States congress they all quickly banded together to denounce the machine as inaccurated and unreliable. (between us I think it is just because these guys had so much to hide). How can you blame the street level cop for being corrupt when the Mayor, Governor and President are all stealing millions and accepting millions in bribes.
Either way, I hope I cleared it up, but I must admit that often I will write something and realize that "I" know what I am talking about, but no one else does. Especially when I write something at the wee hours of the morning.
On another note, welcome aboard and I hope you stick around. I feel that an educated and well written pro-polygraph contributor was definitely needed and lacking on this forum.
Quote:I certainly agree with your comment that polygraph not be used as the sole evidence in adjudication; that's so obvious that you needn't have even said it.
Yes, you and I know this, but it needs to be mentioned because there are so many people out there that don't.
Quote:I, for one, opt for continued screening, and the first part of your post expresses that opinion. However, the second part of your post is so contradictory to the first, that it is almost laughable. I think as a supervisor you probably expect more clarity of thought and decisiveness in your subordinates than you exhibit in your post.
Yes, I would never recommend that we stop screening, but you cannot be 100% for something that is not 100% accurate. Therefore the second part of my post although somewhat ambiguous was attempting to point this out.