Dan, all I can say is I hope they don't hire you.  Califmike, let me ask you, would you want Dan working as a Deputy Sheriff in your community?  If so, I hope he does get hired there.  On second thought stike that because it wouldn't be fair to the others who live in your community.

Dan, your example illustrates exactly why law enforcement agencies across the nation have undertaken pre-employment polygraph screening.  The people who work as law enforcers in this country have to be more honest, more resistant to temptation than the average person.  Mark Twain said it best when he said, "Opportunity can make a thief of anyone."  The fact that you routinely stole from your employer, an activity which is estimated to cost the rest of us about $10 billion a year, is bad enough.  The fact that you can so completely rationalize that misconduct by saying it was easy, because there weren't any surveillance cameras, and it was a big company that didn't pay you enough, is even more distrubing.

Few people face as much temptation as a uniformed patrol officer to be dishonest.  If you think you worked for a big company that didn't pay you enough, how easy will it be to rationalize that you are now working for a Government that doesn't pay you enough.  If your fear of "someone seeing you and getting in trouble" wasn't enough to deter you then, how could we expect that when you walk into that business burglary at 2:00 am, with no one around that you wouldn't help yourself to some merchandise in the future.  After all the thief will be blamed for it and the insurance company will cover the loss, you deserve it for risking your life at odd hours to protect an ungrateful public for inadequate wages.

Dan, please go find another job.  Law Enforcement is not for you.  Follow George's advice and JUST SAY NO to the polygraph.

Wannabe, glad to hear I'm not alone on this.  Your comment on the coin flip debate related to comments in another thread.  Would it be possible for you to post your comment there so we don't end up too disjointed in our discourse on that subject.  To clarify, what I was looking for was what sources other than the chats and info on this site have you used to come to this conclusion, if any?  The point I wanted to illustrate is that people who are making serious life-altering decisions should verify information for themselves from the source, rather than blindly accepting someone else's summary of that information.  I'm not trying to put you on the spot and I don't need a detailed comprehensive listing, just a run down of what actions you took beyond the boundaries of this site.  It seems to me that most people don't go beyond summaries, George disagrees with that.  I'm just curious which side you fall on with regard to this.

Well, I do appreciate both sides of this dilemma. I was only 18 when this happened, young and stupid. Everybody always says, "Oh, he was just young and didn't know any better." But it's true. When your young, almost any person feels that they can do anything, and without consequences. Some young people just brush it off like nothing happened, but, unlike most young people, I have a very guilty conscience. I understand my wrongs and feel even more guilty that I've taken more sandwiches than they accused me of. If I confess this to the background investigator, at least I'll get it off my chest, if I get the job or not.

Dan,

Wannabe and Examiner are blowing smoke up your skirt on this. Every background investigator and polygraph examiner expects you to have stolen something at one point in your life. No one since Christ walked this earth has been perfect, so don't make yourself out to be. Honesty is the best policy. You obviously have matured since you "stole" those items. If the department isn't intelligent enough to see that, they don't deserve to have you as an officer. There are plenty of departments out there that will give you a fair shake. Sure they'll ask you about the thefts and they'll be point blank tough questions. Answer truthfully and you'll be okay. 

Wannabe: If you are a law enforcement officer already, congrats. If not, you are out of your league telling others who should and should not seek a career in LE. 

Examiner: You're just protecting your facade of a profession. Your lies and lack of remorse for screwing up peoples dreams is more disturbing to me than petty theft. How many dollars are you taking from people like Dan because you are on your "holier than thou" pedestal?  Crawl back under that rock you came from until you learn how to play nice.

exactly the type of responce I would expect from someone who says "pull my finger". Good Pseudo Relevant, I hope morre people that think they can justify the crimes they commit get hired in YOUR neighborhood. I think I made it pretty clear that indiscretions made while young and still learning about life are a differrent story, PROVIDED, a lesson was learned and if that was the case, dan would not be sitting here saying at first that he thought it was ok because.... then turning around and saying how sorry he was and that he learned his lesson.


and ummmm Pseudo Relevant are you a cop and if so where, I want to be sure never to enter your jurisdiction, must be some real winners there.

dan,

I've been following the discussion your initial question has sparked, and would like to share some observations here with all.

First of all, the question you initially asked is, "if I answer this truthfully will the sheriffs dept. still concider me or will I have to look for a job somewhere else?" I do not know the answer to this question, but it seems to me that Pseudo Relevant's statement that "[e]very background investigator and polygraph examiner expects you to have stolen something at one point in your life" is about right.

In fact, the probable-lie "control" question "test" (CQT) used by law enforcement agencies in the polygraph screening of applicants is designed to pass through people who would commit petty theft from an employer and then lie about to a background investigator. This is evidenced by the fact that one of the most popular probable-lie control questions used in pre-employment polygraph screening is, "Other than what you told me, did you ever take anything of value that did not belong to you?"

I find it perverse that persons who bare their souls to their polygraphers, and then answer "control" questions like the one above with a clean conscience, are likely to become false positives (and, in many cases, to have their admissions blown out of all proportion).

Note that the "complete honesty" approach described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does not mean allowing your polygraph interrogation to become a confessional. It means being completely honest with your polygrapher about your knowledge of polygraphy. Should you choose this approach, bear in mind our warning regarding the risks involved:

Quote:


In another message thread ("CM advice on dealing with DI results misguided"), Examiner confirmed that in his view, a subject's knowledge of "the lie behind the lie detector" is no barrier to conducting a CQT. And be aware (as also confirmed by Examiner's statements in the aforementioned message thread) that whether or not you are completely honest with your polygrapher, your polygrapher will lie to and attempt to deceive you.

Wannabe wrote on Sep 7^th, 2001 at 3:27am:


Well, what you see is what you get. You have your opinion based on what I don't know. Mine is based on over twenty years experience in both Federal and Municipal LE, with the last seven years being the senior recruiter and background investigator for my agency. 

Quote:


What? Are you merely a parrot? Do you honestly believe every single police officer in your neighborhood's police department has a spotless record? The fact is, just like Dan, every applicant has made some mistakes, whether it's drug experimentation, petty theft, vandalism, etc. Utopia doesn't exist. There aren't any perfect cops, anywhere. If you take a real look at the person instead of making superficial judgements, you'll find plenty of good qualified people. Those people actually make better officers than those who claim to have never done anything wrong. Why? They tend to show compassion towards the citizens they deal with. They know what it feels like to have done something wrong and can relate better to the wrongdoer. 


Quote:


Are you saying that Dan didn't learn his lesson? Rationalization is natural. It is a self defense mechanism. For you to say that Dan (who went through the natural progression of denying it was "really wrong" for him to take those items, then realizing he was wrong, and subsequently learning from his mistake)  is not credible, you are absurdly out of touch with reality. Confession, though good for the soul, is hard to do sometimes. One of the reasons for that is... a person must realize he/she was wrong (something most people hate to admit to themselves or anybody else). Once they know in their heart they're wrong, the struggle turns to how to deal with it. To make peace they must confess to someone. If it is suppressed, it won't stay suppressed for long. 

Quote:


Again the parrot... There alot of "real winners" in my agency. We have officers from every walk of life. We don't have a singular mold for our officers. As a matter of fact, those applicants who claim to be "perfect" are scrutinized more closely, because history proves that most everyone has done something wrong at some point in their life. Not only that, people with no life experience dealing with wrongdoing on a personal level tend to be "momma's boys" or "major league suck-ups", bringing strife and unrest to the agency. We don't "play" at law enforcement. It's not a game. The sooner you realize that, the better your chances of making an informed decision about whether you should come here or not.

Wannabe wrote on Sep 7^th, 2001 at 3:32am:
 

Nothing. What it refers to is your lack of understanding regarding how the real world is and how the LE community finds qualified applicants.

Quote:


No. What I am implying is that you apparently have no LE experience to draw upon which would allow you to make a thoroughly informed decision. You are trying to determine for others what is and is not an acceptable history based on your own moral standards. Not an entirely bad thing, but not fair or realistic. If what you said to/about Dan is a hard and fast rule (should you be in the position of making any hiring decisions for LE personnel) then your success rate will be very very low.