Quote:Nonombre,
What about the false possitive? Those who are telling the truth and still fail the polygraph. We all read a lot about innocent people failing the polygraph examination on this website. I assume you know the consequences of failing? I am sure some would admit to wrong doings during the polygraph not uncovered by the background investigation but the question still remains - what about the false positive results, is it fair?
Opp,
I have addressed my concerns about the possibility of false positives in earlier posts. I know they do occur (although not in the numbers that some on the site would like you to believe) So to best answer your question, please allow me to repeat part of an earlier posting I made on this topic:
"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.
The beauty of a weighted point system the that the unfairness in one or more of the stages can be mitigated by shifting points earned in those areas the applicant did much better in.
I mean, look at it this way. How would you like it, if you aced every bit of the process to include the polygraph exam, and was then "disqualified" by a couple of panel members who happened to disagree with your feelings about something you were asked, or worse harbored some concealed prejudice against you?
In most applicant systems you would be dead in the water. With a properly weighted numerically scored applicant system, your excellent results in the other areas would qualify you for a rightfully earned position."
Nonombre