not been shown to be generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community

However is used daily by CHP in selection of candidates for positions on the CHP.  I would suggest the CHP does in fact use polygraph and the statement of this Captain does not reflect the attitude of the CHP accurately.  Just a guess.

Amusing but also reality.  Polygraph will be here for a long time unless a new manner of determining credibility is found.

Hunter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 2:12am:


I dont find it to be amusing at all. A frightening reality is more like it.
Frightening that a morally sound person can be subjected to an unscientific 'test of truth', only to be declared a liar !! 

Frightening and scandalous that the govt still permits the use of inaccurate and ancient technology + armchair detectives to determine 
which of us are liars.

I intend to create a scenario, then have myself tested to prove just how unreliable the entire process really is.

[quote author=0F002522243925244A0 link=1199894591/0#6 date=1199988522][Regarding staging a phony test. I suggest you think long and hard about how to present yourself in a polygraph test with a surreptitious gameplan---quote]

I would submit, that any of the "psychology student" tests where a mock crime is used as the basis of the test would fall nicely under the catagory of a "phoney test".  Afterall, the studetns didn't actually commit a crime, but instead, given permission to do whatever they are being tested about.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:


EJ:

My apologies, it wasn't my purpose to misdirect the conversation by quoting out of context, simply to winnow down the previously posted material for ease of referral.  The point is, (which I am sure MOST people reading this were able to pick up on without feeling misled), was that any test short of an actual high stakes polygraph test, (which most are), is a phony test.  If someone wants to set up a polygrapher under false pretenses and use that as proof of the falicy of polygraphy, it is not substantially different than a college professor telling a group of kids to go out and commit a controlled mock crime and then attempt to establish a link between these phony studies and real life.  That's all.

Actually, now that I have had time to thnk about it, that's not all.  Why don't you leave the personal attacks, insinuations and innuendo at the door?  It might be a fun game for you, but frankly, I don't have the time for it.  If you want to engage me on a professional level and discuss the issues, I am up for it.  Otherwise, feel free to ignore anything I may write, as others do.

EJ:

Why do you feel compelled to make assumptions about people, such as questioning my experience as a police officer?  I have put murderers in jail, solved spectacularly violent crimes, likely saved a few lives and scraped a lot of dead ones up off the pavement, along with scooping the remains of decomps up and into the body bag.  And no, I haven't dealt a lot with crimes against children, and frankly believe SO's cannot be rehabilitated or treated, and should simply spend the rest of their post conviction life behind bars.  Absent that perfect solution to the problem, I have no issues with a convicted SO having to under poly testing, I just wish there was a way to administer an electric shock to thier testicles when they lied.

I also do not believe that the little studies done with college kids are true indicators of the veracity of polygraph, as the physiological responses to a college kid being asked if he "stole" the envelope from the teachers desk, (after being given permission to do so) are likely to be different than the murderer being asked if he killed his wife.  If you or the other polygraphers can't see the difference, then there is no hope.

You also seem to forget that it was you who used the term "phony test", and you did so with no information as to  how this was to be structured.   

Regarding my previous mention of fools, frauds, etc. those comments were aimed at the industry as a whole, not you individually.  If you take exception, I cannot help that.  No different that you saying all cops are donut munching lazy asz skirt chasers, or similar commentary.  I would not care about that opinion of yours, and unless you are a fool or fraud, my comments should not bother you either.

Regarding conversing on a professional level, it doesn't matter if one is a psychologist, doctor, attorney, cop or even a polygrapher.  The manner of conversing on a professional level means leaving hyperbole at the door, and discussing the issues of the subject matter in question in a reasoned, honest and articulate matter, debating the subject matter, but leaving out ad hominem attacks.

Regarding polygraphers saving lives, I haven't seen a lot of discussion regarding that aspect of the profession here, but I have read a lot of instances where the poly ruined careers, and put innocent people in jail.  Also, let's not forget Gary Ridgway and the spy scandals.

Having said that, I still have no issues with a poly being given to a crime suspect, as long as it is done in a professional manner, and the opinion rendered by the polygrapher is not given too much weight.  I think they can be a good criminal investigation tool, but I see way to much reliance given to the outcomes for my comfort.  As an example, I am working a homicide case right now, where the prime suspect supposidly "passed" a poly, but as I have learned here over the past 82 days, the poly he was given was entirely suspect.  Unfortunately, there was overreliance on that test, and they guy is walking free, despite a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary.

I also don't believe the poly should be used in LE screening at all, despite the fact that I have taken and passed several in my career.  When I entered LE 30 years ago, the poly was being used sparingly, but the state of art has not advanced much since then.  False positives still haunt the pre-employment polygraph exam.   I am of the mindset that a good background investigation is sufficient, and the reliance on the poly has replaced good background checks.

Additionally, the notion that because we catch a few liars means we get to call other people liars who are not, is poor public policy.  I suspect, EJ, you have never been accused of lying when you have told the truth on the poly, like you read about every day here.  If you had, or if any of the other poly examiners have, I believe you and they would have a different attitude on the subject.

As someone who entered police work in my early 20's, all I ever wanted to be was a cop, and for people who are in the same position as I was then, to have their career hopes dashed by a false positive, and have that accusation follow them around so they never will get into police work, is unconscionable.  Sure, a few bad apples may slip into the service, but modern police work will weed them out quickly, or they will change and become good, honest cops.  There is an axiom in the law that it is better than 10 guilty people go free, than one innocent person is found guility. 

Lastly, when cop makes a mistake, it is typically done in good faith, and I would submit that the error rate for police decisions is much lower than the 10-20 percent error rate of polygraph tests.  It is when the errors are done not in good faith, but with malice, where cops get into trouble, (and rightfully so).

Polygraphers, on the other hand, accept a 10-20 percent error rate like it is simply a cost of doing business.  In my opinion, when that error rate allows serial killers to walk free, spies to undermine our national security, and wrongfully accused truthful job applicants of being drug users, thieves, or whatever the squiggly line said they did, well, that is not acceptable.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:


Thank you for your valuable comment.
I am particularly interested in your assertion that Not Lying to the Relevant questions can provoke (produce ? ) 'hyper arousal'.
If that anomaly can and does occur, then the case for polygraph just suffered a knockout blow. I'm more determined now than ever to set up a contrived scenario and possibly get 4 different examiners to test me independently. 

If you think Mr Mashke is on a mission, wait and see. I am on a crusade.

BTW - I am impressed with your new-age domestic arrangement.