Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory (Read 64363 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Mar 6th, 2009 at 4:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Defense attorneys begin to get notifications about scrutinized lab technician
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html

In summary
Forensic Lab Technician Aaron Layton FAILED a polygraph test for the Columbus Ohio Police Department in 2003.

When Layton applied for a job with the Columbus Police Department in 2003, he failed his initial polygraph test and then made a series of admissions during a second test.

Among those admissions:
Layton told the polygraph operator that while conducting a marijuana test for the Arapahoe County Probation Department in Colorado, he got an initial positive result but skipped a required second test, then lied about it in his report. He also said he "committed perjury" when he testified about the test in court.

Layton said this action was not unique -- while working for Forensic Laboratories he "never conducted confirmatory tests and he falsified his reports 'hundreds of times.' "

He said while working at the Colorado lab, he would forge his supervisor's signature and notary stamp on affidavits involving evidence and procedural results.  

A convicted Sex Offender he was arrested in Denver in 2007 for failing to register as a sex offender and is still on probation, but he decided to seek the relatively polygraph free environment of the left coast.

He subsequently found employment with a company called Bio-Tox running forensic tests for agencies including Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

His history and the admissions he made following his polygraph test have called into question every evidentiary test he has conducted and will likely cost thousands of dollars to resolve, not to mention the possible human cost of convictions based on his perjured testimony.  All of which could have been prevented with a pre-emloyment polygraph.

Just like the one he failed for Columbus P.D.

This is one excellent example of why companies providing evidentiary services to Law Enforcement and the Courts should be exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act restrictions prohibiting Pre-employment polygraph testing.




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5960
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #1 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 4:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
While polygraphy can indeed have utility for getting admissions (such as those made by Aaron Layton), pre-employment polygraph screening should be abolished because it has no validity. It's a pseudoscientific fraud that is inherently biased against the truthful and yet easily passed through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect.

Note that the same Columbus Police Department -- whose polygraph screening Aaron Layton failed -- in 2007 hired a woman named Shatoya Wright who was just this week arrested on federal charges of making false statements regarding her relationship with a man who robbed a bank where she worked. It seems she aided and abetted the robbery. But somehow, the polygraph failed to screen her out.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #2 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 5:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
She hasn't confessed to helping in the robbery. You don't know what questions she was asked on the polygraph test. She hasn't been convicted but still you have concluded that Quote:
It seems she aided and abetted the robbery. But somehow, the polygraph failed to screen her out.

Just because it fits your pre-conceived opinions regarding polygraph doesn' t quite make it so.  

Did you ever actually do any scientific research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect?

Or is that just another one of your unconfirmed opinions?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #3 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 6:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
This is one excellent example of why companies providing evidentiary services to Law Enforcement and the Courts should be exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act restrictions prohibiting Pre-employment polygraph testing.


What about all the false positives that result from preemployment polygraph screening?

You cite one anecdotal example to justify the polygraph.  Have you done any research on how many applicants you fail have actually done anything?  Besides making your polygraph chart zig and zag too much?

TC
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #4 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 7:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
What about all the false positives that result from preemployment polygraph screening?


What about em?
The true positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.

Acknowledging that false positives do occur, what proof do you have that someone complaining about a false positive on a polygraph isn't simply lying to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a lie, any more or less than a convicted child molestor claiming his charges were just a BIG mis-understanding and he didn't do what he was accused of.  Even with dozens of victims, making statements against the pervert, they frequently go on web sites and ramble on about how wrongful accusations that have ruined their lives and frequently demand reform to laws that allow the word of a child to be weighed equally against their denials.

The only penalty for failing a pre-employment polygraph test is having to fill out another job application somewhere. Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?

It's obvious to me that there may be a possibility of psychological damage brought about from an unreasonable inability to move on. But then, the inability to move on isn't caused by the polygraph. It comes from the mind of the examinee.

Move on.  Thats what Layton did. He moved on to a place where he didn't have to take a polygraph. I certainly think its reasonable to conclude that not having to take a polygraph figured into his decision. I'll bet you dollars to bottlecaps HE knows it works.


George, I noticed you didn't answer my question.
You don't need to bother now.
If you had done any scientific research or even if you were aware of any research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect, I don't think you would be able to keep it to yourself.

NAS seemed to question the credibility of claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners. They didn't say it was impossible but they seem to doubt that there is proof that anyone could pull it off, say by, reading a book about how to beat the polygraph.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #5 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 7:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I don't think there is any serious opposition to the idea that polygraphs can be effective for eliciting damaging/disqualifying admissions from examinees.  Personally, I don't have any problem with their use in that regard.

However, if the polygraph exam ends and there has been no admissions that should be the end of it, but it is not.  At that point the examiner attempts to determine what the examinee was thinking when he answered the questions, and at that point the utility of the polygraph is at an end.  At that point there is no difference between using a polygraph and using Tarot cards or a crystal ball.  Any of the above might elicit a disqualifying admission, but none of them is capable of accurately determining the presence or absence of truth or deception.

Since it seems unlikely the polygraph would retain the same utility (eliciting admissions) were it to become more widely known that it is not, in fact, capable of detecting deception it seems that abolishing pre-employment screening is far more reasonable and logical than increasing its use.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #6 - Mar 6th, 2009 at 9:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
widely known that it is not, in fact, capable of detecting deception


What is your point?

Whatever polygraph detects, the fact still remains that  polygraph's ability to identify the true positives and true negatives (properly identifying liars and truth tellers)  significantly outweighs the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association and if a false positive occurs in a pre-employment test, the only material penalty the examinee suffers is the time spent filling out another job application.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #7 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 12:39am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Whatever polygraph detects, the fact still remains that  polygraph's ability to identify the true positives and true negatives (properly identifying liars and truth tellers)  significantly outweighs the false positives and false negatives.


Quite the contrary.  The NAS postulated that for every true positive actually caught on the polygraph there is likely a hundred or more truthful applicants declared liars.

Whatever it detects?  The standard phrase polygraph operators use when they get a "reaction" is "DECEPTION INDICATED".  Does it really indicate that?  Yes?  On what scientific basis? If not, are all these so-called examiners routinely lying when there is a reaction measured on the chart?  What happens when it becomes common knowledge for applicants that deception is really NOT INDICATED?  What will happen to the utility of the polygraph then?

Quote:
Acknowledging that false positives do occur, what proof do you have that someone complaining about a false positive on a polygraph isn't simply lying to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a lie,


What proof to you have that they are?  GM's FBI polygrapher concluded he was a drug dealer.  What proof is there that he is actually a drug dealer?  Based on a polygraph?  Are we suppose to believe everything alleged about people we read in the tabloids too?

Quote:
Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?


That's a pretty good "rationalization".  You can falsely accuse an applicant of being a drug dealer, with no proof, and call him a liar again if he dares to protest, BECAUSE , what the heck, they can just go and apply elsewhere.

TC
« Last Edit: Mar 7th, 2009 at 3:13am by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #8 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 3:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lets not mischaracterize what they might postulate and besides we’re talking about pre-employment not security screening.

The FBI reported that they administered approximately 27,000 pre-employment polygraph examinations between 1994 and 2001. More than 5,800 of these tests (21 percent) led to the decision that the examinee was being deceptive. Of these, almost 4,000 tests (approximately 69 percent of “failures”) involved obtaining direct admissions of information that disqualified applicants from employment or of information not previously disclosed in the application process that led to a judgment of deceptiveness.

For that time period with that agency, less than 7% of the 27,000 pre employment tests could be remotely considered false positives, but inside that LOW number it is not unreasonable to presume that at least part of that 7% were actually liars that just refused to own up to their lies. Based on the date of his FBI Polygraph George Maschke would fall somewhere in the 7% who after being called deceptive did not make any disqualifying admissions.

I realize that this next part will probably sail right past you given your demonstrated knowledge of polygraph, but the second series in George’s FBI polygraph contained the following 3 questions.
Quote:
Have you ever sold any illegal drugs? Answer - No.
Have you ever used any illegal drugs? Answer - No.
Have you deliberately withheld any important information from your application? Answer - No.


The FBI Polygrapher determined that there was deception indicated on this test series. Based on currently accepted polygraph procedures, there is no way to make any type of reasonable conclusion as to which question or questions caused the reaction on the exam. This is why current protocols require a follow-up test to further explore areas indicating reaction. In short problems with application information are just have likely to caused the reaction as drug use or drug sales on this test series. If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him.

The characterization that the FBI agent ACCUSED George of anything is yours not George’s.  In his complaint letter to the FBI Director he simply stated that Quote:
“The polygrapher concluded that I was attempting to deceive him.”
He further went on to describe the examiner’s demeanor as follows Quote:
“The polygrapher's demeanor and that of the chief of recruitment in Los Angeles changed instantly from warm and cordial to curt and suspicious.
I noticed he didn't hesitate to use the word accuse in his letter to LAPD when he thought it was appropriate.

He didn’t claim that the FBI agent accused him being a drug dealer or anything, why are you? Looking for drama?

And in the end, all it really cost George was the time it took him to fill out another job application. I've heard he now holds a prestigious position at the Hague and somewhere out there is an FBI Special Agent who passed his pre employment polygraph and currenlty occupies the position to which George mistakenly believes he was somehow entiltled
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #9 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 11:10am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
What is your point?


My point is that the utility of the polygraph is limited to eliciting confessions from people who believe it is capable of detecting deception.  That utility would surely be diminished, if not completely eliminated, by widespread admissions of polygraph supporters that the polygraph measures physiological responses but does not, in fact, detect lies. 

I have sat across from three separate polygraph examiners and had each of them solemnly tell me that they, not the polygraph, were the true "lie detectors" and that they could easily tell, even without the polygraph, that I was lying during my pre-employment exams.  I might have been impressed by their act if I had actually been lying, but since I had been telling the truth, all they did was convince me of both their and the polygraph's inability to detect truth or lies.

BTW, I have always thought it sounded hollow, at best, when polygraph supporters cease defending their chosen profession and instead devolve into the argument that no one is owed a job anyway, so anyone wrongly disqualified by the polygraph has nothing to complain about.  It is off-topic and is essentially an ad hominem attack, insulting the character of the posters by implying they are whining rather than voicing their concerns about the lack of validity of a purportedly scientifically valid test.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ed earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #10 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 4:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant  while I don't really care what you think about polygraph or polygraphers. True positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.

I do care about the innocent people who come on this forum looking for information that you and your buddies scare into trying to cheat on a polygraph with your half truths and horror stories. Whether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.

Contrary to what you may want to believe, 99% of polygraph research is designed towards reducing the possibilty of a false positive. polygraph does not wish to harm the innocent any more than they wish to be harmed. The process doesn't need much help spotting liars. If a Bad Guy beating the test wasn't an unusual occurrance, it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Allow me to illustrate the polygraph screening process in a manner that even a rookie patrolman can understand.

The standardized field sobriety test is used hundreds of thousands of times every year by officers in the field. It is a screening test and while there are many differences between polygraph and SFST there are some similarities.

Basically Every person who fails and SFST isn't intoxicated and every one who passes isn't sober. It does not measure the amount of alcohol in anyones blood. It measures coordination and mental accuity and from someones performance on the test and officer assigns a score. If the score is in favor of the driver, he is released. If it is on the bordeline, SFST has no INCONCLUSIVE RANGE, the officer flips a coin. If the score is high enough then based on his analysis he puts handcuffs on the driver and hauls them to Jail for an intoxilyzer which ALSO does not measure the actual amount of alcohol in blood. If the intoxilyzer fails to confirm his analysis, he lets the driver go, or maybe calls in a drug recognition expert to perform another series of screening tests which may lead to release or a blood test. If both the officer and the DRE are wrong then the guy goes to jail has charges filed and has to post bond ALL before there is any confirmation by chemical analysis that this driver has done anything wrong. The observations made by the original officer are a combination of subjective and objective but unless someone has a video camera going there is no record of the data collected except for the officers notes and his memory of the drivers performane. He intends to use both his notes and memory to provide evidence of probable cause for arrest and to support his charge of DUI at trial.

The driver is not and cannot be obligated by law to submit to a SFST, but I have never heard of an SFST training program, policy, or officer that informs the driver that they have a right to refuse to stand on the side of the road at 2 O'clock in the morning and do acrobatics for the nice policeman. They are coerced into taking the SFST by being told if they don't take the test they will just be arrested anyway. They didn't volunteer to do it. The officer didn't tell them that they have the right to refuse to do it. They aren't told that the test has an error rate. They aren't told that if they do what the officer has coerced them in to doing that their actions will be used as evidence.

The driver gets hauled to jail if he fails it and he gets hauled to jail if he refuses to submit to it whether or not he is drunk. His only crime may have been crossing a yellow line or sitting too long at a green light.

On a pre-employment examination, the examinee volunteers to take the examination by virtue of pre-exsisting knowledge that it will be required as part of the hiring process. Just like he volunteers to take a written test, submit to an interview, physical exam and psychological testing. He will be told that he does not have to take the test. The vast majority of agencies will also read him the miranda warning on the off chance he may admit to criminal activity during the exam. So he goes into the process voluntarily and aware of his rights against self incrimination. He submits to a screening test in which the data that is collected is permanently recorded for further review. Depending on Law and deartment policy this may be retained for 2 to 3 years or become part of an officers personel file.

If he passes the exam he moves on in the application process. Will he be a good officer Who knows? Some times drunks get past field sobriety tests and sometimes liars get past polygraph.

If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure. The manner in which he is questioned may differ from agency to agency or examiner to examiner, but a problem concerning the way a post test interview is conducted is not an indication of a problem with polygraph, it is an indication of a problem with the way interviews are conducted.

I've heard all the stories, some from credible about screaming accusations and angry behavior, but I have yet to ever raise my voice in an interview and never felt the need to do so in order to get admissions, I don't see why polygraph interviews would need to be any different.

If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. If neither one of those occurs, current protocols endorsed by APA call for a follow-up test to attempt to resolve any areas of reactivity.

If he passes the second test then he moves on in the process. If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure.If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. At this point if he makes no admissions then a report will be forwarded to the hiring authority indicating that there were significant and consistant reactions to certain questions on the test which were not resolved.

The APA Policy states that noone should be denied employment based solely on the outcome of a polygraph examination. They recomend that agencies further investigate the applicant in attempt to discover more information.

No One goes to jail. No one loses their freedom for even a minute. All they have to do is fill out another job application at their own convenience. Whether you read or chose to ignore the FBI pre-employment testing data I posted previously, according to their records  unresolved polygraph failures are under 7% and part of that 7% will be false positives and part of that group will be liars who didn't confess. Getting caught using countermeasures will move part of those false positives into the resolved failures group.

So It doesn't really matter whether or not you can point to a specific response that is absolute proof of deception the process has proven that it detects liars at rates significantly greater than chance and that makes it a useful tool in the pre-employment process.  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #11 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 5:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.


The conclusion of the NAS study called for the abolition of polygraph screening. The American Medical Association adopted a formal position supporting the abolition of polygraph screening just prior to the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Recent posts attempting to mischaracterize the positions of either of these groups are disingenuous at best.

Quote:
Whether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.

Yet it is ok for polygraph operators to lie to job applicants? As Drew Richardson has very capably pointed out, there are a minimum of seven deceptions conducted by polygraph examiners during each one of these screening "tests."

If such behavior is sanctioned by law enforcement agencies, I don't see the problem with an applicant who answers the relevant questions truthfully taking steps to protect himself from a false positive. It's about the same level of ethical lapse as deceptively telling a used car salesman that you found a better price elsewhere.

Quote:
Contrary to what you may want to believe, 99% of polygraph research is designed towards reducing the possibilty of a false positive.

Please offer a citation to support this statement.

Quote:
The APA Policy states that noone should be denied employment based solely on the outcome of a polygraph examination. They recomend that agencies further investigate the applicant in attempt to discover more information.

Yet in a substantial number of places--perhaps even in a majority of places--this policy is treated with a wink and a nod. If the APA was actually serious about this, I would place more stock in it.

This policy is flat-out ignored in a great number of places, including virtually every federal law enforcement agency that employs polygraphy.

Quote:
No One goes to jail. No one loses their freedom for even a minute. All they have to do is fill out another job application at their own convenience. Whether you read or chose to ignore the FBI pre-employment testing data I posted previously, according to their records  unresolved polygraph failures are under 7% and part of that 7% will be false positives and part of that group will be liars who didn't confess. Getting caught using countermeasures will move part of those false positives into the resolved failures group.


With regard to the statistics you posted, the FBI has a deliberate policy of not employing audio and or video recording polygraph examinations. Victims of this process frequently tell us that that were attributed false confessions. Until audio and/or AV recording is done of these polygraph examinations--and such tapes are immediately made available to the examinee at the conclusion of the polygraph session, any "confession percentage" numbers are suspect and will remain as such.

With regard to the "right" to employment, you are correct that no one has a right to a government job. Still, everyone has a right to receive due process in hiring selection. The reliance on polygraphy as a sole determining factor in hiring--is a denial of this due process.

More importantly, the taxpayers do have a right to have the most qualified persons employed in positions of public trust.

With regard to your earlier ad hominem attack on George Maschke: There is a reason why the FBI used George Maschke and his Army intel colleagues to do the translation in the 1st WTC bombing: the agency's utter lack of capable Arabic speakers.  

I am certainly willing to bet that the person who filled the available slot was less capable with the Arabic language and our country became less safe as a result of the more capable applicant being passed over in a flawed selection process.

My position is supported by the litany of articles published following the 9/11 atrocities describing the lack of Arabic speakers at FBI. Capable speakers could have been counted on two hands at the time, some seven years after George was disqualified solely on polygraph results.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #12 - Mar 7th, 2009 at 6:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Whether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.

Feel free to read my prior posts, but I can tell you that my advice to anyone taking a polygraph has always been to tell the truth and not withhold any information.  Not just to the relevant questions, but to all the questions.  I've disagreed with a number of antipolygraph posters on that exact point on a number of occasions.

If you consider someone like me, who consistently advises people to tell the truth while also stating that he doesn't believe the polygraph is capable of detecting deception, as someone who gives tacit approval for people to lie to the police, you certainly have a unique way of interpreting things.

You obviously feel the polygraph is good and accurate.  You certainly have that right.  Perhaps you could afford others the right to their opinions as well without subjecting them to ad hominem attacks that do nothing but damage your own credibility.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #13 - Mar 9th, 2009 at 4:10am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The only penalty for failing a pre-employment polygraph test is having to fill out another job application somewhere. Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?



Actually, yes.  A failed polygraph due to a false positive stays with you for the rest of your career.  In fact, early in my career, I failed a polygraph due to a false positive.  I then was being considered for employment to another agency in the same county, and was removed from consideration because of my previous false positive, even though the second department  didn't polygraph at all!

Additionally, the fact that one can fail a polygraph for one department, and be considered for employment anyway for another department, (must of course, pass a polygraph) goes to show that the departments themselves do not consider the polygrap as reliable.

The blanket use of the polygraph results in hiring people who have no conscious, or people who have no life experience, or true sociopaths.

Just the type of cop I want watching my back, for sure.

Good thing Gary Ridgeway painted trucks instead of being a cop. He certainly could have passed a pre-employment polygraph.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #14 - Mar 9th, 2009 at 8:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The conclusion of the NAS study called for the abolition of polygraph screening
 Odd then that the words “abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don’t appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm

Regarding what you claim to be the AMA’s Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

Drew Richardson capable? Was he even capable of passing his polygraph internship? Drew may have had to lie to an examinee seven times on the handful of exams he conducted, but that doesn’t prove anyone else does. He supposedly wrote the “Epitaph for polygraph almost 19 years ago.  Can you cite one major piece of Federal Polygraph Legislation since EPPA in 1988? Your generalized statement accusing polygraph examiners of lying is an ad hominum attack on polygraph examiners.

My comments regarding George’s situation with the FBI was not an Ad Hominum attack, I was just pointing out that a poster’s claim that the FBI accused George of being a drug dealer was misleading and (I suspect) a deliberate overstatement for dramatic purposes.  George never claimed in his letter that he was accused of anything by the FBI. In fact my post included the statement “If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him.”  Why am I unwilling to automatically assume he was truthful? The man endorses lying as a means to get a job. That puts his personal credibility at issue .

You and the other members of George’ s anti polygraph posting coalition really over use that AD HOMINIM ATTACK JUNK.  Doesn’t your Latin Dictionary have more than one page? You fellows are always Ad Hominum this and Ad Hominum that, but you don’t hesitate to accuse polygraph examiners of lying and chicanery. You accuse the FBI  of lying in their statistical reporting based on the smallest scrap of anecdotal evidence. But should anyone with a differing opinion dare question the morals or character of someone who endorses lying or voluntarily associates themselves with someone who does, you can’t wait to raise the old AD HOMINUM ATTACK Flag, can you.

Why do you accuse “polygraph”  as a whole for the failure of agencies or individuals to follow proper practices and procedures.  In a blatant Ad Hominum attack You questioned the ability and qualifications of an individual FBI agent you’ve never even met and whose work product you have never seen and it appears your reason for that is “He isn’t George”

While I agree that the  taxpayers do have a right to have the most qualified persons employed in positions of public trust, I do not agree that George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini or anyone but the hiring authority has the right to determine the necessary qualifications for a government job. Polygraph examiners almost never decide who gets hired and who doesn't any way.

Nopolycop  Were you ever able to find employment anywhere? Un less you made admissions your results should not have been shared. Blame the agency, Blame an Individual Examiner. but "Polygraph"isn't responsible, but it still didn't cost you anything material other than filling out another application.

Gino, and you too George if your reading:
I’m going to leave you with one question. I’m betting I don’t get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject.  Here it is any way.

Why haven’t you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X