Don't worry Cullen. I will never again insinuate that you might be guilty of researching your comments or the underlying foundation for them.

George. I do not dispute that their allegations may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams.

I wouldn't expect to find anything in your book that wasn't somehow spun to support the premise you espouse. When YOU insinuate that I lack "Intellectual Honesty", I can only laugh, but that is just because I find myself at a loss for the proper way to spell the sound often described as the Bronx Cheer and proper decorum prevents me from uttering the common phrase for male bovine fecal matter. But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.


That doesn't really matter though, the reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. 

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful? 

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold you're not willing to cross.

Quote:


But your "alternative point of view" so far, just as it was awhile back when you were posting as  "Sancho Panza" (and got banned for accusing GM of aiding terrorists), is to talk around in circles, and make ridiculous claims like polygraphers don't use the term "deception indicated" to describe specific answers to specific questions.

The used car lot analogy is applicable.  The polygraph is an interrogation (even pailryder admitted that).  Just as interrogators use deceptive techniques to get info out of people they can use against them, car salesmen use deceptive sales tactics to get more money out of customers.  Being forewarned and protecting oneself accordingly in such cases is not anymore unethical than the deceptions perpetrated by polygraphic interrogators.

Basically what your are saying is it's okay FOR POLYGRAPHERS TO LIE, but not okay for the people target with those lies to lie, and  then pontificating about bad "ethics".  

TC

George, Cullen  I sure wish I could spell that Bronx Cheer thing for you guys. 

I have acknowledged repeatedly that the deceptions claimed by Drew Richardson and Dr. Lykken may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams. So, To insinuate that I am unwilling even to acknowledge the fact that {SOME}polygraphers practice deception upon examinees is deliberately false.
Your statements also might mislead people to believe that Dr. Lykken was "Anti-Polygraph". That too would be an over generalized mischaracterization. 

Until you have some credible evidence to substantiate that it goes on in all polygraph exams, just modify your over generalized unsubstantiated claim to "SOME" polygraphers practice deception and you will appear more credible and can argue that the reason behind Drew's statement is based on his personal observation. 

Cullen, what pailryder stated was that polygraph is often used as an interrogation tool, but in the same post he also stated that you were mistaken if you believed that it was the only use. 

I disagree with pailryder regarding his use of the term "often". I would encourage him to return and clarify what he means by "often". 

There is a difference between Interview and Interrogation that is generally accepted by the courts, lawyers, and law enforcement. Interrogation only begins once the investigator is convinced of the interviewee's culpability. It would be unethical behavior for any polygraph examiner to conduct an exam if he were already convinced of the examinee's culpability. Print that on a T-Shirt and I'll wear it any where polygraphers gather. Many polygraph examinations are resolved without any interrogation whatsoever. If the examiner becomes convinced that the examinee is lying he may begin an interrogation, or simply report his findings and leave the subject of interrogation to someone else. To make a blanket statement that the polygraph is an interrogation is a mis-characterization of what happens. 

In a properly conducted polygraph examination, if an interrogation occurs it only occurs after the pre-test INTERVIEW, data collection, and data evaluation are all completed and then only if the examiner becomes convinced of the examinee's culpability based on chart analysis and he has been tasked with the job of post-test interrogation. While it is possible that polygraph may have been used or may be used as an interrogation. Your  broad statement that "polygraph is an interrogation" is inaccurate and to attribute the statement in that context to pailryder is false and reprehensible.

But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

I do not agree that it is OK for polygraphers to lie even though the courts give them permission to do so under certain circumstances. Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.

The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. 

Do either of you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful? 

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold George isn't willing to cross. 

Mr Cullen

I purchased a used car recently and the salesman disclosed all known facts about the condition of the automobile.  Perhaps a better anology would be a physician perscribing a placebo.  In that case, the doctor has lied to the patient, but did the doctor do anything wrong or unethical?

getrealalready

Not in a clinical trial, if a physician makes a judgement that a patient does not require medication and prescribes a placebo instead, is that ever acceptable?

Ed Earl

By "often" I mean, more often than not.  I would cite law enforcement's acceptance of CVSA to support my observation, however, a more private forum may be a better place for us to conduct this conversation. 

Regarding the "interview" vs. "interrogation" question, which has been discussed on ths board before:

Interrogation has been defined by the courts as the direct questioning of a suspect in custody, as well as any words or actions on the part of the police officer that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  Someone acting on the behest of the police (e.g. - a civilian polygraph examiner) would be considered an agent of the state as far as a criminal court was concerned.

Prior to any questioning of a suspect in custody, the suspect must be advised of their Miranda rights.

Any suspect in custody the police wish to polygraph would absolutely require Miranda before any part of the polygraph process could take place.  If the suspect declined to waive his Fifth Amendment rights the polygraph could not place.  If the suspect asked to speak with a lawyer first, the Edwards Rule would apply and the polygraph could not take place.  

If a polygraph was not an interrogation the police could polygraph suspects in custody without advising them of their rights first.  That is absolutely not the case.  By the legal definition as accepted in the courts of this country, a polygraph of a suspect in custody is an interrogation.  

It is reasonable to call a polygraph exam an interrogation regardless of the semantical hairs some polygraph examiners wish to split on the matter.