Sergeant, I not only told you where to find the numbers you asked for, I provided you numbers from the NAS study and the FBI and then explained them for you. If you are going to learn, you need to figure out how to look things uo.
Polygraphers have been repeatedly accused of lying and psychological manipulation on this board. I think a discussion about a nationwide program that teaches 100 or 1000 times more police officers how to lie and psychologically manipulate people into surrendering their rights not only germain to the topic. It also provides perspective. It isn't going off on a tangient at all. I'm sorry if it hits too close to home for you to provide a comfortable response, but the question was not about you. If you look at the questions I first asked about interdiction it was about your experience and knowledge of the program.
When a police officer suspects someone of drunk driving the driver is the only person who knows if they have been drinking too much or using drugs, but the officer still puts them through a screening test without even informing them that they have the right to refuse. He then uses a subjective "scoring system" to render an opinion as to whether or not the subject is under the influence. Without any further information the officer can handcuff them, tow their car and haul them off to jail. If a blood test is used, the suject is booked and in order to obtain release the subject has to post bond. weeks or months later if it turns out the subject was stone cold sober, He doesn't get an apology, he doesn't get back the money he paid his bondsman, and he doesn't get back the money he paid the towing company all because of a subjective opinion rendered as a result of an error ridden screening test. The only way he can get anything back is to file an expensive law suit that costs him more money and the same error ridden screening test is used to defend the officer from accusations of false arrest.
Everyone knows that there is no single or group of observable physical characteristics that only be attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication. Are there? Likewise there are no observable characteristics of a driver or vehicle moving down the highway that only be attributed to drug trafficking. An inderdiction officer screens the driver and vehicle and renders an opinion based on his observations. An applicant who fails a polygraph fills out another application and goes to work elsewhere. Isn't that what you did?
The only thing preventing you from seeing the similarities that exist in screenig drunk drivers, drug traffickers and liars is a set of blinders.
In any case the question that changed this line of discussion from a clear and convincing example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory,
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html (you should read this if you haven't. If it wasn't for polygraph this guy might have gone to work for your agency.) was this one:
Quote: 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.?
George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself.
I am becoming more and more convinced that you guys are using the back end of this forum to plan response strategies. Unless of course some or all of you are just some of George's "alternate personas"