Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by beech trees
 - Oct 17, 2003, 02:23 AM
I seriously doubt such statistics are being recorded, as they do not benefit anyone in a position of power.

San Francisco: Cop hit with charges of sex assault
Posted by common sense
 - Oct 16, 2003, 07:45 PM
I would like to see the statistics on police corruption when comparing departments that utilize the polygraph in their hiring processes and ones that do not.  The department I work for is a large one, and it strongly relies on the polygraph while screening new hires.  However, I see far too many recruits that I feel should not have been hired.  Not to mention how many we've hired that have been formerly charged and/or investigated about illegal behavior.  The irony lies in the fact that all of these "bad apples" were cleared by their polygraph examiners as suitable for hire.  What does this leave any rational person to think about the supposed benefits of utilizing polygraph exams.