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.
|