Darn, guess I lied when I put my post in the challenge to Skip Webb thread, because I had to make one more.  Okay you win wannabe, obviously I lied however unintentionally so I must be an evil examiner.   

Dr Barland, how refreshing to find some other articulate counterpoints on this site.  Hope you fare better than I.  I will be following this thread with interest.  It was also a very interesting observation you made in the to those who have tried countermeasures thread.  It is my sincere hope that anyone who visits this site takes the time to read that thread.  As you noted it was indeed very telling.

With regard to the frustration expressed by a military polygraph examiner forwarded to us by Gordon Barland for our consideration....    

How are we to accept this "I'm just here to help you?" attitude?  Is it not similar to an IRS agent's introduction as he begins his audit or an Internal Affairs Division (IAD) agent's welcoming remarks to an employee suspected of criminal or administrative wrongdoing?  Would we not expect said investigated individuals to consult with their accountants and attorneys, respectively, and would we not furthermore expect these experts to advise their clients not to make any damaging admissions and while answering questions truthfully not to allow themselves to be subjected to badgering and numerous reasking of the same questions?   

Why are we to believe that this recognized "seller of jail time" is here to serve our purposes and not merely his own and that of his agency?  I think we can safely assume, if and only if these purposes happen to coincide with those of the examinee, will the examinees needs be met.  We know that in the past (perhaps currently as well) that certain agencies have evaluated their polygraph examiners on the basis of the number of confessions and admissions they obtain following DI polygraph results.   

Aside: Gordon, do you know if this is the case with this polygraph examiner and his agency?

Aside from the obvious bias that this activity represents, placing an examiner in the role of an advocate of some outcome (and an outcome known to be erroneous with a false positive polygraph result) and completely at odds with ethical practice of serious forensic disciplines, what about this practice would instill confidence in an examinee to "purge his soul" to such an individual and his agency?  I think for the time being (and likely for all time) we can safely assume that George's suggestions for innocent subjects regarding the post test phase of a polygraph are correct: never make any admissions regarding either the substantive issues addressed by the exam or any efforts at countermeasures you may have attempted to employ.  Polygraph examiners realize that the diagnostic value of their DI polygraph results is meaningless absent an admission or confession.  DO NOT be duped by this ploy to hand them that which they seek and that which will be your undoing.  A deceptive polygraph result leading to some administrative action can be challenged and litigation pursued if necessary.  The ability to do this is severely compromised by any admissions/confessions (however innocent you believe your explanations to be) you may make.  Recognize disinformation for what it is---let the buyer beware before he succumbs to the crocodile tears of this frustrated examiner.  I don't doubt that he is frustrated, just that this frustration stems from his interests, not yours...

Quote:


I find it ironic that this polygrapher assails us for giving out "bad advice" and chooses to support it with two cases where our advice was not followed.  We make it very clear (1) Never to submit to polygraph interrogation when a suspect in a crime and (2) Never to admit usage or knowledge of countermeasures.  Since these individuals ignored both of these suggestions, it would seem that they are following their own advice, not ours.

Quote:


If the military justice system allows harsh consequences to be dealt to those who “fail” a pseudoscientific test and maintain their innocence yet assigns lesser punishments to those who submit, lie, and later admit it, I feel that "unique" is a poor choice of a word to describe this system.  Perhaps “warped” is more appropriate.

This examiner would have us believe that he is genuinely concerned with helping out those who use drugs, submit to his "test," and provide deceptive answers to relevant questions.  I would have an easier time believing this examiner's sincerity if he was urging those who have engaged in wrongdoing to confess beforehand, eliminating the need for any polygraph “test.”

To suggest that one who lies on a polygraph and later admits it is better off than one who produces a “failing” chart with no accompanying admissions also appears disingenuous. This type of statement reeks of the common interrogation tactic of attempting to minimize the appearance of the consequences of what one has done.  By saying that the consequences of using drugs and lying about it are minimal compared to the punishment that will be received for producing a deceptive polygraph chart and not admitting it, this is exactly what this examiner is doing.   

A similar tactic is often used following pre-employment screening tests.  The examiner will often tell “DI” applicants that they have a good shot at being hired if they just admit that they lied.  For those readers who believe that they will still be hired after admitting that they submitted false written statements (the employment application), I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell. 

This examiner has two possible concerns:  The welfare of drug users and other deceptive criminals who lie to cover their tracks or the dwindling efficacy of his art among knowledgeable suspects in criminal situations (where polygraph “test” results are meaningless but confessions are fully admissible).  Readers of this thread can decide for themselves which is the case.

One further thought.  Again I fully agree with Gino's assertion that it would have been better for both of these individuals and probably others in similar situations to admit their guilt at the onset and eliminate the need for the polygraph.  I assumed that went without saying.  Without doubt the longer false denials go on, the further compromised their integrity becomes the harder it is to restore it.

With regard to your comment about a "warped" system, I find it shocking that you or anyone would consider a system of justice, which is interested in viewing a criminal act in the total context of how and why it occurred before rendering judgement, and rewarding those who regret and accept responsibility for their misconduct, warped.  I guess I have to wonder if the people who instilled your values system ever gave you a break for telling the truth.  I would have to conclude they did, based on your assertion that people who do bad stuff should fess up without it coming down to a polygraph examination.  I guess I have trouble reconciling the mixed messages I read on this site and in your download.

Dear Examiner,

I look forward to your responses to the questions raised here later this week. But I am puzzled by something in your post:

Quote:


Why do you believe it will be difficult for some here  to accept that values such as duty, honor, and integrity are more than just catchphrases to many who serve their country?

Wannabe/George:

    The reason I say that it may be hard for some to accept the values based culture, is that many of the examiners in the military, myself included, are military personnel.  It seems that some/many, which ever is preferred on this site, consider examiners to be without honor and integrity.  In this thread it is stated very clearly by at least two people who responded that my motives for the thoughts I expressed to Dr Barland are suspect.  That they represent misinformation and simple self-interest.  That is why I believe some/many will find that notion hard to accept.

    I did not misunderstand what was said in the download or Gino's post.  I stand by my original statement that  I agree anyone who committed a crime should not take a polygraph as they will surely be found out.  Conversely I feel anyone who did not commit a crime should not avoid a polygraph.  I know this site popularizes the "no better than a coin toss" validity statement.  And before I start, no I'm not prepared to provide a list of peer reviewed research papers to support what I will say next, maybe Dr Barland can help with that.  The research that I am aware of generally indicates that polygraph is between 85% to 90% accurate.  While my preference would be for polygraph to be 100% accurate, I recognize that it is not, however it is significantly better than eyewitness recollection, which is generally considered to be around 35% accurate (much less than a coin toss).

    I also want to clarify one thing that I think you may have misinterpreted, I never said that statements made during a polygraph were not admissible.  MRE 707(a) establishes a per se exclusion of polygraph results and states the mention of the use of polygraph in a courts martial proceeding may be grounds for a mistrial.  MRE 707(b) establishes that any statements made during a polygraph may be admissible.  While I can't speak for all military agencies, I know that in my own anyone undergoing a polygraph is advised of this clearly and in writing twice at the start of the process.

    I don't want to move off topic with a discussion of military policy regarding UA results, but will say a positive urinalysis is considered presumptive evidence that the individual purposefully ingested illegal drugs.  In most instances the individual will be offered non-judicial punishment based solely on the results of the UA, of course the individual can decline and request a courts martial.  Generally speaking an individual with a positive UA result, who passes a polygraph will be considered exculpated.  Generally speaking an individual with a positive UA, who fails a polygraph, will still be offered non-judicial punishment.  Again I don't want to get off topic with a detailed discussion of this aspect.

Okay, let me try to respond the comments here in some depth.  A couple things before I embark on this though.  First, I appreciate George acknowledging the origin of my communication with Dr Barland.  This was a private communication with Dr Barland regarding some frustration I have with the information in George’s download.  Since I did not intend for it to be post on this or any other site and I was communicating with someone who believes in the validity of polygraph, I don’t see what purpose I would hope to achieve by writing self-serving misinformation.  There was no hidden agenda when I wrote it and I wrote it from the gut.  I doubt that I will convince the doubters though, so there’s not much point in addressing that issue any further.  Second, I think and write in complete thoughts as opposed to “sound bites”.  I suspect most of you do the same, so rather than pick out phases and sentences to critique, I will generally respond to the individual posts as a whole thought from the writer.  If I fail to address something that you specifically would like addressed, let me know.

I’ll proceed through the posts chronologically.  Wannabe I think I responded to this post, but to clarify I didn’t say that anyone who commits a crime is better served by confessing, I was referring to a specific set of circumstances involving lower enlisted personnel on their first enlistment.

George, I think I already addressed this post also, but did not answer your specific question.  The answer is obviously none.  I do not make the decisions regarding prosecution and punishment, so I can’t and don't guarantee anything.  Also let me ask you a question in this vain, can you guarantee that if people follow the advice in your download nothing will happen to them?

Gino, again I think I addressed most of this, but I want to expand.  I don’t know how to express this without sounding like I’m embarking on name-calling, so I’m just going to write from the hip here and hope that it is not taken as a personal attack.  The response you posted here is really a cop-out.  The download begins by advising people to use complete honesty.  I agree with that, personally I don’t believe knowledge the control question test is a barrier.  I think there is a study out on that very topic and I will try to locate it and provide the reference.  Then it goes on to say if you don’t want to do that, then decline the test.  Again as I have previously stated I agree that anyone who has committed a crime should not take a polygraph.  Then it goes on to say that if you decide to submit, or feel compelled to submit, here are some countermeasures you can use.  Then it says if all else fails, don’t make admissions and don’t admit to being on this site or doing any research or using countermeasures.  This is in complete conflict with your earlier advice.  Then it says if that advice wasn’t followed, here’s the grievance procedure.  So to say they didn’t follow your advice, so their problems are self-made (understanding of course their initial misconduct was self-made), I consider a cop-out.  While my communication with Dr Barland spoke of specific advice that is given in the download, I believe in a general sense that everyone should balance the INFORMATION they are provided and make a decision regarding their specific situation.  I feel that the information should not be provided in a manner that advocates a particular course of action.  If the info is good, the reader will certainly make an appropriate decision without being told to follow a specific course.  Also throughout the download you mix screening and criminal testing together.  Dr Barland addresses this problem well in the “to those who have tried countermeasures” thread.  The bottomline is a good strategy for one, is not necessarily a good strategy for the other.

Gino, in your follow-on post, the commentary is very colorful and entertaining, but short on substance.  Exactly what is it that makes an interview with a polygraph examiner so much more coercive that an interview with any other investigator?  I would also add here that our country has a long history of the judiciary safe-guarding the civil rights of persons who are abused by law enforcement and barring those avenues of abuse.  Polygraphy has been used in law enforcement since the 1940’s.  Certainly if it was the type of process you so colorfully describe it would have been banned by the judiciary.

Wannabe, I believe I addressed this post also, with one exception.  I see in your posts you frequently refer to “the flip of a coin” polygraphy, would you mind providing a list of the peer reviewed research that YOU have studied to come to this conclusion or are you merely echoing someone else’s statements?

As I re-read my comments I recognize that some of them, particularly the last two, seem antagonistic.  I tried to re-word them, but can’t seem to express them any better than they are now written.  I do not mean these as personal attacks, please don’t interpret them that way.