EJohnson wrote on Dec 2
nd, 2007 at 1:29pm:
Quote:That too many in law enforcement don't understand that polygraphy is junk science is demonstrated by the fact that many (perhaps most) law enforcement agencies in the United States continue to require that applicants pass a pre-employment polygraph examination.
This notion is not endorsed by the American Polygraph Association. The APA (paraphrased) states that the applicant screening exam resulting score should NOT be the sole deciding factor for hiring criteria.
Indeed. To its credit, the American Polygraph Association has formally come out against the widespread law enforcement practice of rejecting applicants based solely on polygraph results. For more in this regard, see
American Polygraph Association Model Policy.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that law enforcement agencies (including all federal ones that require applicants to pass a pre-employment polygraph) do make decisions not to hire based solely on polygraph results. I would argue that polygraph results should play no role whatsoever in the decision to hire or not to hire anyone, and the protections of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act
should be extended to all Americans.
Quote: Quote:The point that I was making was that when polygraphers make mistakes, it is almost always others, and not the polygraphers, who suffer the consequences of their mistakes.
An obfuscation if there ever was such. Your point was to play on the public's fear that serial killer's are running around killing people while innocent men are falsly persecuted. You engaged in yet more inductive reasoning by cherry picking a famous error data point and painting the whole investigative field as erroneous and stupid.
It is not an obfuscation to mention the Ridgway case in illustrating the fact that when polygraphers make mistakes, it is not they, but
others who suffer the consequences. You had mentioned earlier that you don't know of any polygrapher who would bet his mortgage on the outcome of any one polygraph examination. The point I am making is that it is, figuratively speaking,
other peoples' mortgages that polygraphers are betting.
Quote: Quote:No doubt polygraphic interrogation has helped to solve criminal cases that could not have been solved without a confession. But polygraphy being without scientific basis, polygraph results are evidence of nothing, and should not be relied upon.
I don't need to be told that polygraph has "helped solve" criminal cases by the likes of you. Your gross understatement speaks volumes of pensiveness.
My mention that polygraphic interrogation has helped to solve criminal cases wasn't meant as a revelation. Rather, my point is that despite the fact that the polygraph has at times proven useful for obtaining confessions, the results themselves are indicative of nothing. In the candid words of the late
Len Harrelson (former director of the now defunct Keeler Polygraph Institute in Chicago):
Quote:Polygrams [i.e., polygraph charts] are polygrams. They measure and record physiological reactions. And they do so very well, but one cannot look at a polygram and say, "That is a lie." It may be a reaction, but no one can say that it is a lie. An examiner may interpret a reaction to be a lie, but in actual practice, the examiner also is observing the subject, listening to verbal explanations, and making a judgment about the person's truthfulness. Some examiners are simply better than others.
Because of their experience in talking with people and their success in obtaining confessions, polygraph examiners may come to feel very confidant [sic] about making a determination of truth or deception based on their charts. Indeed, if a person is reacting, it is the examiner's job to determine why and to obtain a confession if they believe that deception is the cause of the reactions. But without a confession, polygrams are still just polygrams.
You continue:
Quote: Quote:Nonsense. It make a big difference. A polygraph subject who understands that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud is much less likely to make admissions against interest than one who erroneously believes that polygraphy is a valid and reliable means of lie detection.
Again----you, a person who has never ran a test---or even passed a test---is telling me my business (former business.) Let me repeat. Many examinee's express great disbelief in the polygraph. The most common is the "well, they aren't good enough for the courts." I would say half of all examinee's don't trust the tests before and during their tests-----regardless of the acquantance test. Distrust and cynicism are healthy human traits and are to be expected from intelligent people.
And people who fully understand that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud are not likely to make admissions against interest because a polygraph chartgazer claims to have read deception in the charts.
Quote: Quote:Again, nonsense. Numerous federal, state, and local agencies require that applicants pass a pre-employment polygraph examination. Those who fail to pass are not hired. Period.
While such agencies may not rely solely on the polygraph (applicants may also face a criminal records check, credit check, etc.), it isn't honest to say that they don't rely on polygraphy. They most certainly do.
Well George, make up your mind. Do agencies rely soley on the polygraph for hiring decisions or not? I believe that you accidentally hedged your bets. I submit that in recent years agencies are moving away from lazy investigative tactics of using only one tool for investigations----a sort of be all/end all mentality. Agencies know that they need to diversify for more robust modalities.
Agencies that require applicants to pass a pre-employment polygraph examination (such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, etc.) make decisions
not to hire based solely on polygraph results.
Those who don't pass don't get hired. Those who do pass the polygraph are not instantly hired simply because they passed the polygraph. As I mentioned, other checks (such as a background investigation) are also performed.
But my point remains, it is not honest to maintain that agencies with polygraph screening requirements are not placing reliance on polygraph results.
Quote: Quote:I think that that which so pisses you off about AntiPolygraph.org that you spearheaded a trolling campaign on these forums is that we are publicly disseminating inconvenient truths about polygraphy.
More "truthiness" eh. You have warned me against "taunting"---yet you taunt. I think what pisses you off is that you are you. I can impathize with that-----given your past circumstances with the polygraph.
It is not a taunt to point out that you coordinated a
trolling campaign on these boards. As for Stephen Colbert's concept of
truthiness ("things that a person claims to know intuitively or 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts"), I think it pretty well characterizes the
esoteric wisdom of the polygraph sages.
Pages: [1] 
Feelings concerning Polygraph for Criminal Investigations (Read 8402 times)
