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 the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by beech trees
 - Aug 21, 2002, 11:41 AM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 21, 2002, 05:56 AMThe Fort Worth Police Department is now on the record as discounting the evidentiary value of polygraph "testing." Why then does it rely on this pseudoscience in its ownhiring process?!

An interesting example of 'some tests are more equal than others'.

Curiously, the party line amongst polygraphers (at least on this message board) is that issue specific polygraph testing is a valid diagnostic technique, whilst screening (they largely agree upon) is worthless or in serious need of overhaul.

The argument that a polygraph test 'is not admissible at trial' might be a good one to raise during an applicant's post-test interrogation. If it's good enough for the Chief of Police, it should be good enough for a lowly law enforcement applicant.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 21, 2002, 05:56 AM
I don't pretend to know whether the two brothers who passed the polygraph were telling the truth or not. But with regard to polygraph hypocrisy, note the following passage from the above-cited article ("As Man Waits in Prison, Sibling Admits to Crime," by Lianne Hart, L.A. Times, 20 Aug. 2002):

QuoteThe chief of the Fort Worth Police Department also opposes Byrd's release. "What's interesting to us is that the case to release him is based on a polygraph examination, which is not admissible at trial," police spokesman Lt. Jesse Hernandez said. "We have decisive eyewitness testimony and a thorough investigation. This is what the jury considered, and they found him guilty."

The Fort Worth Police Department is now on the record as discounting the evidentiary value of polygraph "testing." Why then does it rely on this pseudoscience in its own hiring process?!
Posted by Fred F.
 - Aug 21, 2002, 12:27 AM
This article in todays Los Angeles Times will leave you scratching your head WHY???.

This involves two brothers in Texas, one who committed a robbery for drug money and his brother who was arrested. The brother was convicted as a habitual criminal and sentenced to thirty years in prison. The brother confesses five years later and they BOTH pass a polygraph, however this isn't enough to please several of the key players including the victim and the chief of police.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brothers20aug20.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation



Fred F. ;)