LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Apr 27
th, 2009 at 6:35pm:
Before trying to use countermeasures, think carefully. I am a polygraph examiner, and I have often caught examinees attempting countermeasures. When I do, their career goal, at least with my employer, is essentially over. [/b]
I have big issues with this statement. About 5 years ago, I failed a polygraph when I was applying for an internship at a state crime laboratory due to a false positive. I was naturally devastated at the time because the laboratory I had applied to had previously had a long history of problems due to a particularly well known scientist. Later, I applied to a much better agency and passed their polygraph and am now working for them as a fingerprint examiner.
Anyone with a real forensic background knows that you cannot be an objective scientist and an investigator at the same time - it's too easy to manipulate your results. I think your statement reveals your true intent - it is to have some control over another person's future. I think the real objective truth is unimportant to you.
As a forensic scientist, I am going to tell you flat out - you and I are not in the same league and we are not performing our work by the same ethical standard that the public deserves. By your statement, it is clear we are not on the same side of the public's interests and that you have your own agenda. When I identify someone, I make no assumptions about that person's guilt or innocence. Can you say that you do the same?
I've seen a some defense of polygraphing based upon the 2003 NAS report. In case you are not aware, in 2008, the NAS met again to review all forensic sciences, including fingerprints and death investigation. The results of those proceedings
WILL eventually have an impact on laws and law enforcement practices. There is a big push for all expert disciplines with some scientific application to move toward a statistical basis for their conclusions. Are you prepared for that since your discipline is not admissible in most courts? Are you prepared to meet the guidelines prescribed by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) and have your discipline become accredited? Are you prepared to participate in the mandating that all practitioners of your discipline (outside your agency) undergo the same training, validation, proficiency testing, and court/admissibility to the highest level of your discipline?
And just to let you know, in case you are claiming to be more psychology based that an applied science, as an expert in anything you can be called to defend the merits of your discipline in court (which polygraphy hasn't faired so well in the past). In one of my cases, the officer is being called to testify in a Daubert hearing just so that he can be admitted as an expert in gang activity.
When I examine a latent print, I have to take into account all the distortions and potentially minimal area there by itself before I even assess whether it is an identification. DNA examiners have to deal with mixed profiles. Other disciplines have to shift through their data to find the appropriate conclusions for their examinations. I find your view on countermeasures rather arrogant and unscientific. Because you assume someone may not make it easier for you to do your exam through countermeasures that's an automatic determination of deception? Grow up! If you want to be an expert, the weight of analyzing an examination is on you - not the subject.