Sergeant:

I believe there  are some examiners who are not as good as others, just like any other profession.  Even the medcial profession is rampant with Drs who misread xrays and other tests, etc.  I alway extend the benefit of the doubt to the examinee. For example:  If after reading the investigative file, pretest interview and applying common sense and courtesy, the test doesn't come out in favor of the examinee I stand back and make a global evaluation of the whole process.  Was there  something I did wrong or is there peripheral issues that could be affecting  the process. If the subject fails and my gut feeling tells me that something might be amiss I go that extra mile for the subject. My conscience will not allow me to do anything other than this. On the flip side, if the subject passes and I still think he did the crime I will make sure that  I did everything to the best of my ability.  In any case I always try to be fair, courteous and scrupulous.

Sergeant, I am not calling you a liar because you were told you failed your exams but maybe some outside issues regarding the test affected your results.  If you were telling the truth and I have no reason to believe you weren't, then  it is my opinion the polygrpaher was wrong and not the instrument. 

Two-block:  I'll give a polygrapher's answer.

1. Have you ever heard a polygrapher describe himself as a bad polygrapher? 

No bad polygrapher wants to admit he/she is weak/incompetent or suited for this profession, but you can say the same for any profession.  That's why there are quality control supervisors who monitor and evaluate an examiner's performance during the mandatory internship, and continue to review their work even after certification.  Those who don't perform to standards are not certified;  those who are certified and don't maintain the expected level of professionalism are de-certified.

2. Have you ever heard a polygrapher blame a proven false+ on himself instead of the machine?

Not sure what you mean by a "proven false positive"; but on occasions, particularly in those exams that are inconclusive, good examiners replay their exams to determine if they did a proper pretest, obtained satisfactory charts, and tested correct relevant questions;  good supervisors ensure that examinees were suitable for testing, both physiologically and emotionally, and generally give the benefit of the doubt to the examinee.

3. Have you heard of a state polygraphy board pulling a lic. because he/she was a bad polygrapher?   

I can't speak for state boards, but I can tell you that I've sat on a number of decertification boards that resulted in weak/incompetent examiners being removed from our program.

4. People in all other professions get fired. I was fired once because I didn't tell my boss goodby when I went on vacation. THE LITERAL TRUTH. If she had been pretty enough I would have kissed her goodby. She was butt ugly. Why aren't polygraphers fired in proportion to other industries? 

I will take an educated guess and say they are weeded out prior to certification, leaving a smaller percentage of them to be fired later on for unethical behavior/incompetence.

5. Are all of you that good or is it the fact that the failed examinee has NO options?

Probably not, but examinees have the option of insisting on re-testing. 



 

Two-block:  don't know the chap/gal (Public Servant), but I wouldn't impersonate someone else as some would.  As an examiner, I feel quite strongly about "policing our own".  As you probably figured out, I have little tolerance for incompetent, abusive, and unethical examiners who do nothing to improve an already controversial profession.  I also concede that "false positives" do exist, primarily in the screening arena, but sincerly believe that it is not on the massive scale that is portrayed by many on this site, at least not within DoD.  If it were, the halls of CIA, NSA, etc, would be pretty empty.

Regards

Twoblock:

1. I have to say no to this question but I did know some examiners who stopped doing polygraphs because of the stress associated with the job. Maybe the stress was caused by the fact that they didnt think they were good examiners and were conscientious so they quit  being examiners. With human nature being what it is no one likes to admit publicly that they are bad at what 
they do. 
2
. Not a fasle pos. but I blamed myself for a few false negs. When these were disovered  I went back and tried  to be objective  as possible.I found some instances where I prbably made some errors or should have done things differently. 

3. No but it doesnt mean that it doesn't. 

4. You discriminate.  BUtt ugly bosses need some loving too.  I dont know if there ever was  study done to confirm your statement but I will say that in my dept if someone behaved inappropriately they would be disciplined and or removed as examiners.  This  would be done after a thorough investigation of the  complaint.

5. Some are better than others.

Twoblock:

No argument here. The guy should be fired if he did all that he is accused of doing.

Quickfix

Most every PD I know utilizes photo/audio equipment with their poly exams.  The price is minimal compared to the obvious value. Not only does it keep the examiners on their toes but it aslo protects them from false claims.

nolehce wrote on Apr 27^th, 2006 at 9:49pm:


Allegedliar,

The reason for recording polygraph interrogations in their entirety is to create an objective record of what was said and done. This is something that is desireable whether or not a polygraph is used during the interrogation.

Retcopper's support for recording interrogations does not suggest any lack of trust in the polygraph on his part. Rather, it suggests a simple understanding that sometimes, people lie about, mischaracterize, or simply misremember what was said during an interrogation. Recording removes doubt, and I'm glad to see that Retcopper and some of the other polygraphers who post here endorse the practice. Would that the FBI were so enlightened.

quickfix and retcopper

One more question to be answered and I'll let this subject go.

Can you give a reason why an examinee can't get a copy of his tapes and charts even when the examinee offers to withstand the cost of reproduction? Seems to me, if the popygrapher is confident that he made the right call on the exam, he shouldn't have anything to hide. If the examinee feels/knows that he told the truth to all questions and still failed, he should have the right to further review by an outside/independant quality control system. It's called "checks and balancies" in which I firmly believe. Wouldn't this give the polygraph industry a little more validity? I can't recall any other industry that has such a closed circuit system.