spark wrote on Mar 15
th, 2006 at 8:35am:
Lets say…. “I” say “YOU” did this and that...”you” say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows “your” not lying about not doing this and that. Then subsequently, “I” am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word). Shortly there after, “I” say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry. If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe “me” because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George. Maybe he wouldn’t have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T. That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?
Spark,
If you succeeded in convincing someone who had borne false witness to recant his accusation, that is wonderful, and I congratulate you. For a criminal interrogator, I think there could hardly be a more rewarding experience than to vindicate a person who has been wrongly accused. But it is wrong to suppose that such an experience imparts validity to polygraphy (which, again, has no scientific basis).
Because of polygraphy's unreliability, a person falsely accused who submits to a polygraph interrogation might very well become a false positive, wrongly reinforcing suspicions against him. Conversely, a liar might pass the polygraph, either through the random error associated with polygraphy (as did "Angel of Death"
Charles Cullen and "Green River Killer"
Gary Leon Ridgway) or through the use of countermeasures.
To the extent that investigators rely on the polygraph, they should understand that it is little more than an interrogational prop. While it may be useful for getting admissions/confessions from the naive and gullible, the chart readings themselves are evidence of nothing.
And, back to the original topic of this message thread, by no means should polygraph results be relied on to assess the honesty and integrity of applicants for employment.