This case is very interesting and opens up a real can of worms. First of all, I think Mr. Dixon was very foolish to allow himself to be a party to malfeasance, albeit a fake scenario. Had he taken a position of only teaching those who wish to avoid a false positive, he would have been on a firmer ethical footing. I wonder how far this precedent could go? If I were very adroit at bank robbery and chose to give instruction as to the best strategies and tactics, would I be committing a crime? Remember the martial arts teacher who gave instruction to the 9/11 terrorist?--he was not charged with a crime. But if he had known of his student's nefarious intentions, would it have been a crime then?--is the penal code based on what's in your head, like "hate crimes?" It's very convoluted and a difficult concept to untangle.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 13^th, 2014 at 7:55am:



Oh the irony!  "Circumventing the law" indeed...  After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!