Quote:Nonombre wrote earlier:
Please elaborate on your ideas. What information do you hold that may be helpful to the truthful examinee? Please do not respond "just be 100% honest" as this is the standard and tired respone to this inquiry.
Nonombre also wrote:
We have differing opinions on this topic. "Mr." Couey was brought into custody due to investigative methodology and would not have been in custody if not for investigation. Due to his personal belief that a polygraph examination would expose his guilt he confessed. This speaks to the utility of polygraphy in investigation but not to its accuracy or validity.
I am curious about your opinion in another matter which has to do with the "I provided it but didn't do it" argument (i.e. the information on this site aids criminals in avoiding polygraphic detection). Do you hold the belief that firearm manufacturers are responsible for homicides committed with firearms? Firearms are owned and used by numerous lawful and honest citizens. Should these citizens be denied their rights to own and keep firearms? I view this argument to be very similar to the one presented in this thread.
Keep in mind this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection. If this site did in fact provide such information we would both agree that it should be immediately closed. But it does not.
Brandon,
Both you and Jeffrey ask some very good questions. I will try to answer you first in this post and get back with Jeffrey later.
Concerning your first question: "What information do you hold that may be helpful to the truthful examinee? Please do not respond "just be 100% honest" as this is the standard and tired respone to this inquiry."
I was hoping somebody would ask me about this. Okay, before I articulate my proposal, lets address again the two types of polygraph testing.:
1. Criminal testing:
2. Screening:
Since my proposal addresses screening, lets attack it first. I will get to criminal testing later:
Police pre-employment polygraph screening is only one of several steps most police applicants must successfully navagate to get to the final point of being hired. For most departments, the post-application steps are:
1. Written test
2. Psychological testing
3. Physical test
4. Polygraph Exam
5. Interview/panel
6. Background investigation.
The order might be different, but these are the basic steps. (some departments add-subtract various things, but these are the usual basics).
Okay, here is what I propose. How about we weigh the various steps according to what a particular department feels are important, then numerically score each step with an eye torwards understanding that if an applicant "bombs" one particular area (including the Polygraph), he can still get the job.
You see, if you look at all the steps closely, you will see that most are actually quite subjective in nature:
1. Written test - Some people just don't "test" well.
2. Psychological testing - Oh please, psychology is the
"softest" of the sciences.
3. Physical test - Okay, pretty objective, but once the
average cop has a couple years on the force, the
donuts do tend to take over.
4. Polygraph Exam - Arguementively Subjective, with a
documented error rate.
5. Interview/panel - NOTHING is more subject than this.
6. Background investigation. High false negative rate.
As I see it, we provide a numerical value to each of the steps and come up with a minimum "pass" number. Additionally, we design the scoring system to specifically allow an applicant to to do badly in any one area and still get the job (Yes, that includes the polygraph).
Now, if the applicant does sufficiently poorly in more than one area, he is out of the running. That will allow someone who is otherwise excellently qualified but fails the polygraph (or some other area) to still get the job.
However, if anywhere during this process, information develops that specifically disqualifies the applicant (e.g., he admits during the polygraph/psychological interview he has several bodies buried in the backyard), he is likewise out of the running.
This way, we have gone a long way to protecting against the "false positive."
Now you can still argue against all the weaknesses of the polygraph, but as I have indicated, virtually all the steps towards employment have distinct drawbacks.
Okay, what do you say? Might this work a little better?
Now about criminal testing:
John Couey happens to fall into a group of criminals which polygraph testing happens to have a 60+ year history of properly identifying. I would argue that over the years, thousands of criminal cases have been solved by the very thing that caused the Couey case to be solved. Namely, Couey, faced with the polygraph results, confesses, and takes the cops to the body.
Case closed....
Do we truly want to take such a useful tool away? Especially since our criminal justice system already protects suspects from being convicted or even charged based on the results of a polygraph exam. The criminals are already protected and as I indicated earlier, in most cases, polygraph is the last step anyway. So if a false negative occurs, all we are going to do is close a case that was going to be closed anyway.
I see a no lose situation here in regards to criminal testing.
You ask some questions regarding firearms. Please let my tired mind address that one another time...
Lastly, you argue, "...this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection."
I would argue that point. If the countermeasures taught on this site do indeed enable at least one criminal to commit a crime and avoid detection (through the use of polygraph), then are you not helping that criminal?
Nonombre