darkcobra2005,
You initially offered the absurd explanation that state laws require polygraphers to obtain a waiver of liability from examinees. When called on this, you refused further comment. Now you aver that it is insurance companies that require polygraphers to demand waivers of liability from examinees -- waivers that you nonetheless maintain have no legal force. Sorry, I'm not buying it, at least not without proof. As an investigator, wouldn't this sound fishy to you, too? I recall that you earlier
asserted that the American Polygraph Association prohibits any member from accepting Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, an assertion that you later
concededwas unfounded.
If you would fax the terms and conditions of your polygraph insurance policy to AntiPolygraph.org at (206) 984-4872, I'll confirm the liability waiver requirement and apologize for having doubted you. I'm asking for only the policy terms and conditions -- not any personally identifying information. Other polygraph examiners reading this are also invited to fax us the terms and conditions of their policies, with personally identifying information redacted.
You ask:
Quote:On this web site there are postings by attorneys that have filed law suits, in spite of the waiver signed by the examinee. Why then is it offensive or unethical in your opinion?
To the best of my recollection, the only attorney who has posted on this website who has filed a polygraph-related lawsuit is Mark Zaid. The plaintiffs he represents are suing the FBI and other federal agencies that rely on polygraph screening to make hiring decisions, not the individual polygraph examiners involved. I believe that these agencies
do not require applicants to sign any waiver of liability, although they do require that a consent statement be signed.
I think the main ethical concern regarding such waivers of liability is that, at least where pre-employment polygraph screening is concerned, they are coerced: sign the waiver or you won't get the job. In addition, requiring examinees to sign a liability waiver is a flight from accountability that I find unacceptable. Again, applicants don't have to sign such a waiver before submitting to a urinalysis test (a common requirement for public safety hiring). Why should they be required to sign one for a polygraph "test?"
You also write:
Quote:I do agree with Dr. Richardson that any complaint or suit should be recorded on a national registery and maintained. The examiner should be able to respond and profer evidence regarding the complaint.
I am glad that we are all in agreement on this point. AntiPolygraph.org will soon establish a polygraph complaint registry. It's long overdue. I agree that examiners should be informed of, and allowed to respond to, complaints. Watch for a new message thread on this topic soon. Commentary and feedback from the polygraph community will be most welcome.