darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 1:40am:


darkcobra2005,

Your refusal to answer these four questions is answer enough:

1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?
 
2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?
 
3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?
 
4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?

Your silence speaks volumes.

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:


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 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.

George,

True enough! Although, if my wife gets a bad hair cut you would think it was a life altering event.   

I guess the lesson in this is many people go to school for many different things.  Having a certificate on your wall doesn't mean you are competent, just that you passed the exam to get the certificate.   

I guess a better example would be a Medical Doctor.  Doctors spend many years earning their degree, becoming licensed to practice medicine, yet you and I both know there are doctors out there that we wouldn't want cutting off a hang-nail much less any other type of medical proceedure.   

Now, I know the comparison from a polygraph examiner to a medical doctor is weak at best, so let's look at something a little closer in nature.  Let's say a sonigram technician.  A person using a machine to interpret signals from that machine in order to help make a diagnosis.  Sounds almost like a polygraph.  Technically a sonigram would be a monograph (single output). 

The instrument or device isn't the issue.  Both are machines, which if the machine itself is calibrated properly is unbiased and infallible.  It's the technician behind the machine.  One technician can look at the output and come up with a different diagnosis than another.  The same issues arise with sonigrams as with polygraph.  All humans have similar anatomy, but they do differ from person to person.  Sonigrams aren't 100% either and the decisions made using a sonigram can be the difference between life and death, yet we continue to use them too.   

But, here's the difference...  The medical community has many different tests they can run to diagnose a problem.  None of those tests on their own are 100% accurate.  They combine the use of several tests to make a diagnosis.  One test may be an indicator of a medical problem, but one or two more tests will be done to confirm and or clarify the issue.   

That's why I believe the conclusion of any polygraph test should be validated by other means.  Background check, drug testing, interrogation.  The polygraph alone should not be the sole determining factor in any decision, be it legal or employment related.   

I beleive the polygraph exam has a place and that it will never be eliminated.  I do believe that the use of polygraph exams should be strictly regulated to the same standars of other diagnostic testing such as sonograms, cardiograms.  Those tests are highly standardized and therefore less likely to produce errors in the results.  I think the underlying issues with polygraph exams is there is not true standardization.

If the standardization ever happens, the I think you will see a drastic improvement in both the quality and effectiveness.  But, for now, you have some states, like Arizona where you don't even have to be licensed.  You buy a machine, take a couple of courses and put your add in the yellow pages.  Tada!  Your an examiner.

But, I do believe there are examiners out there who are competent, and can effectively use the device to identify deception.  Unfortunately they are few and far between, in my opinion.  Most of them prefer not to engage in the discussions on this site, and I think that is a pitty.   

So, where does that leave all of us????  Well, that's the real question.  I'm not saying if you can't beat them, join them.  But I don't see anyone gaining any ground at this point.  Since we know that polygraph is going to be around for a long time, shouldn't we at least be attempting to get the standardization in place first? At the same time, loby for laws which will prevent polygraph from being used as a sole determination for employment?  The law should include language which would prevent a DI or Inconclusive exam from being used against a person where there is no other evidence of deception found by other methods.   

Ok, I ran out of ideas and need to eat lunch anyway.  I look forward to the replies I'm sure this post will generate.  Hopefully this post will add to meaningful discussion rather than my last post made strictly for comic relief.   

Have a great weekend everyone!!!

DarkCobra,
No one is degrading the poster.  The polygraph is being degraded.  Mercible makes valid points.  But the question remains, what makes the polygraph a lie detector?  How can a few lines on a sheet of paper say that someone is lying when he or she is being truthful?  How can they say someone is truthful when he or she is lying?  Could it not be confusion, anger, sadness, love, hate, anxiety, nervousness, fear, excitement, adrenaline, ambivalence, frustration, happiness, uncertainty, stress, exhaustion, or place-your-emotion/feeling-here that causes a particular reading or reaction?  How does spending a few months in a polygraph school (to get back towards the original topic ) make someone an expert in reading minds?  How does that person account for all human emotions and possibilities?

George,

Loved the Haiku, with your permission I would like to use it in one of my classes. because it presents an interesting Dicotomy.  Darkcorba is at least consistant with his undying support for the polygraph. And  he and nonombre have the courage to openly support there positions. But all we ever seem to get is local LEO polygraphers,  with the nerve to post here. I would like to see a FED post here, but then again I do truly believe that the best and brightest are not working for the feds.
ANd if they are,  they don't stay long because of the beatings, they get from the masses of mediocrity. Or are the FED examiners that scared to come out from behind the bureacratic vail. But alas none ever come to play.

and again George ... Loved the HAIKU !!!

EosJupiter,

I'm glad you enjoyed the haiku, and of course you're welcome to cite it in your class.

With regard to federal polygraphers not having the courage to post here, that does indeed seem to be the case.

As for typos, note that you can go back and correct them by clicking on the "modify" link within the relevant post.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 9:53pm:


Darkcobra,

Thanks for your response.  You must be the only polygrapher that thinks the polygraph is NOT a lie detector.  The few I've had the privilege of meeting were convinced I was "hiding something" or "not being honest" with them.   

So are you saying that the polygraph is only effective when the examinee admits to something?

When a question produces "some stress" in an examinee and he or she does not offer an admission, is the subject lying, in your opinion?

Nice Haiku, George.

mustb