PI_Insight wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 5:05am:


My sentiments exactly. There are too many wrong hands on the equipment.  The Foxes are watching the henhouse.  I agree, it does not equate in any way to actual scientific evidence of DNA, video and other solid forensics.  Please, videotape all polygraph examinations, provide a copy to the examinee and maybe just maybe, the examiner and examinee can defend the results.

Regards.

I am glad to have offered a point of view that was taken seriously. It might seem strange that a PI planning on becoming a Polygraph Examiner would make this statement, but read on if interested:

I busted my tail to become a police officer candidate. With the few departments I tested with, I failed entry due to two reasons. One, I scored an 88 on my oral. I was issued a letter by LAPD that I needed to be in the 90's due to being caucasion. Rediculous! I failed a hearing test so marginally that I could not believe the notice I read again from LAPD. I appealed, reappealed and was still denied a job. This was after years of college and working as an investigator for six years. This obviously made me bitter about further attempts of seeking a career in law enforcment. 

Putting the the Polygraph into the equation to become a peace officer was really never a worry. I finally was hired as a police officer and made sergeant before I became a PI. To be a cop I had to pass the following tests: 

Background               Based on fact and opinion
Oral Board                 Opinion of 3 interviewers
Physical                     Based on fact
Medical                      Based on opinion and fact
Psych                        Based on computer evaluation
Polygraph                  Based on opinion

Notice there are five steps that are not "fact" based. faced with this as well as the civil service commission goal to put minorities and women behind the badge, the polygraph was the least of my worries. In my county, they allow cops to have smoked marijuana three years ago and to have used cocaine ten years ago.  Even more rediculous. One test is based on the hidden meanings behind a battery of pysch tests that are exmained by a computer program.

So looking back at my oral score of 88 and a slight hearing problem, todays standards are very low to be a police officer. And to be frank, below common sense.

This puts the pre employment polygraph into an equation to determine employment eligibilty as a minimal hurdle. Sadly, the polygraph and 3 interviewers can ruin your career after many years of  keeping out of trouble, college, physical training, expense, keeping good credit and stepping up to the plate with high hopes. Then "opinionated" testing that is not fact based ruins your life plans in a matter of hours. 

Every application I filled out thereafter, I had to state the reason I did not get hired by LAPD. Generally I received a "thanks but no thanks letter"  from every police agency. 

Once I became a police officer, I served diligently and honestly, and quickly learned that some of the worst and best people I ever met were cops. Many told me that they used drugs, stole and were basically using their badge to lure sex from women other than thier  wives. 

After all this, I look back and say, "Gee, with all these hurdles and requirements, the polygraph really was not that important. It did not weed out the bad cops."

I am disturbed by some of the insults and unprofessional writings I see here. I am in agreement that the polygraph and oral board processes are highly questionable. I only hope that when anyone determines they are going into law enforcement, that they make sure they can meet all these testing standards before wasting years and money on preparedness.   

After all this trouble and the rigors of a six month academy, I worked with some of the worst people I have ever met. (As well as some of the best.)

Bottom line:   With all these hurdles, why do some of the worst people get through these screens and become a horrible public servant?  The polygraph is not the only unfair test of an individual's ability to live their dream of being in law enforcement. Again, it is the examiner's skill that brings truth to the polygraph. So how would you like to pass it and find out three interviewers did not like you, and your career is ruined? Or the civil service commission was meeting minority quotas, or a computer says your are not psycologically 
fit?   

This is the system we live with. And even with this experience, I still use the polygraph everyday to determine where to focus my investigative efforts,with great success. 

Best regards,