Why would a polygrapher care whether someone passed or failed their polygraph in the context of a background or criminal case? 

Sancho Panza

triple x wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 2:04am:


OK. In which agencies are polygrapher’s "rated, evaluated, and often rewarded based on the number “or” percentage of admissions and confessions they produce."? Do you have some evidence to support that contention or are you just putting forth an unsupported assumption based on your own limited knowledge of polygraph? Surely you don’t expect anyone to believe that statement without some offer of proof. Just direct me to one agency policy to that effect. 

As to your second comment can you support that either?

Re: Background Investigations. How do you know “the polygraph examiner will view any admissions or confessions of unfavorable behavior as a ‘trophy’?” Besides your use of the word “might” indicates a biased guess. 

If a polygrapher cared one way or the other wouldn’t this supposed bias result in innocent people failing the test and guilty people passing the test. It seems like in either of those cases the real guilty child molester, murderer, serial killer, kidnapper would continue to walk the streets. That is a pretty wild accusation that a polygrapher or anyone else would want people like that walking the street for the sake of a “pat on the back” 

What line of work are you in where letting the guilty go unpunished is an accepted way to achieve your goals? 

As to your last comment, this question was not about the validity of polygraph. But you have made another unsupported statement. 

I was really hoping for an INFORMED answer to my question. 

Sancho Panza

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 4:22am:



Thank you   You could have stopped there. 

Isn't your extrapolation of retcopper's claims a bit like saying that the existence of life on earth is proof that life exists on other planets?

Sancho Panza

From what I have read about the procedure, a "pass" or "fail" on a polygraph exam is not an objective process, but instead a subjective opinion as to whether or not someone is being deceptive.  That opinion appears to be predicated upon much more than just reading the squiggly lines on the chart.  

The literature regarding the polygraph is filled with instances of polygraph opinions being contradicted by other polygraph examiners.

The problem is, of course, the stakes are very high in many instances, with sometimes a person's freedom or livelihood dependant upon an opinion, which all admit is subject to accuracy rates of only 80-90 percent.

As far as the original question, because these opinions are done by humans, they are subject to any of the myriad of human frailties that beseige the species.  I don't think the question has one answer, but instead must be answered by the polygrapher who  gave an opinion which was not correct.

Frankly, I think most polygraphers are honest, hardworking people who believe they are making a difference.  But, I also see some whores out there who are in it for the obscene amount of money that can be made serving as expert testiliers, or media whores.

Regarding the first catagory,  it would seem like these folks would do everything they could to clean up their profession, and to rid the ranks of the charitans and phoney "Dr's".

This is for Sancho:

Why would any polygrapher care?  

Hmmm...I agree with nopoly4me.  Also, anything that Man devises can be corrupted and used in an unjust manner.  We are, all of us, subject to our own need for recognition and rewards for the work we do.  

One does not solely need to have quantifiable rewards (like a quota system) in order to register some accomplishment at our work.  There is a little cottage industry in law enforcement and a whole lot of money is being spent on it everywhere.  Some people, (though not by a damn sight, all, mind you) are doing all they can to justify their jobs.  Polygraphy, to my mind, is just one such cottage industry.  

And, you know...hmmm, if SGT Escalante, and others like him, do not catch (statistically speaking, of course) those pedophiles, murderers and other criminals with the tool of the exam at their disposal, how long before they lose their jobs OR have to go do regular police work?  

I mean, let's argue, hypothetically, of course, that some body of world recognized scientists came down with the last and final word on polygraphy that stated it was junk science and reading entrails proved to be just as accurate as a polygraph exam. What would then happen to this cottage industry?   

Sancho, do you see the world in absolutes?  Do you not think that we as humans are above capriciousness or just believing in something so much that we are blinded to other possibilities?  

To my mind, it is not the exam, per se, but the absolute belief of many that it determines, unequivocably, Truth or Deception that ties us down.  That belief is a chain that binds us down and limits our ability to see other avenues of approach.

Clearly, in the case of Ms. Hansen, SGT Escalante gave her a polygraph exam in which he wrote an affidavit that said she was "being deceptive" about stealing the night deposit from her employer.  It was from THAT point that the Prosecutor "locked onto her" as the perpetrator of stealing the deposit from her employer.  The polygrpah result put the blinders on and after that, she had to try and prove herself "innocent" of a crime she knew she did not do.

SGT Escalante's exam limited the scope of the investigation to the point that no one cared to look into the possibilty that the deposit bag had fallen into a recess inside the drop box, where it was eventually found almost a year later.  Ms. Hansen was being "deceptive" so she had to have stolen the money.

Similarly, in my case, in my opinion and that of many others, there was very little OBJECTIVE evidence brought to trial that made me guilty.  I had passed a polygraph examination and then failed one.  

What was the difference between the two?  I am smart enough to know that if I write that SGT Escalante may have had a vested interest in determining my guilt for whatever reason than I have to believe that Mr. Anderson may have had one to determine my innocence.  Fair is fair, right?  

In the end, there were two polygraph exams, one passed, one failed.  I do not believe in polygraphs, but if you do, fine.  One test passed, one failed can only mean two things: an INCONCLUSIVE overrall result (unless we continue to take polygraph after polygraph trying to validate or invalidate the results)  OR we bring it down to the relative training and experience of the examiners.  Despite the obvious reason why; I would tend to believe Mr. Anderson's experience of over 20 years of licensed work over SGT Escalante's barely a year's worth of licensed work.  If you had to choose between surgeons, would you not want someone well experienced in relation to another choice who is not?  I know I would.

Look, I am not saying that all polygraphers are bad, but the one in my last exam was not very professional.  Even you agreed to that.

What I am saying is that the science underlying this entire subject is little better than voodoo and anyone who sells it as the be all and get all of concretely being able to determine Truth from Deception is no better than a snake-oil salesman from the 19th century.

Finally, not only because the tests can be tainted with HUMAN subjective measures, there is another reason why these tests are inadmissible in most criminal courts in the land:  the science is not always replicable and therefore, it does not stand up to the scientific method of validity.  Our society will suffer if this junk science ever establishes legal validity in our criminal courts.

SanchoPanza

As nonombre would say "let me get this straight"  you, Barry_c and all the rest (except 1904) that have been through polygraph school. seem to be saying "unless one has been through DODPI or other poly school, one should not comment on the invalidity of the polygraph because they know not of which they speak, no matter what kind of ill experience that they had being tested. Yet all of you pass judgement on people about whom you know nothing. Is the pot calling the kettle black?

SanchoPanza,

If you ask a question to "non-polygraphers" asking what is on the mind of a polygrapher when they do certain things, the only answers you can receive will be speculation or hearsay.  What other answer could you have been expecting from a "non-polygrapher"?

I think my answer to your question was both reasonable and polite.  I don't think anyone can say the same about your responses to me.

Sergeant1107,

I agree with you.

Your response was reasonable and polite, and was in no way demeaning. There is no debating or sharing of ideas with this guy... as you will see with any of his forthcoming posts, they will all remain consistent as with all of his previous posts.


triple x