- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by orolan
- Sep 08, 2003, 08:05 PMBreeze,
My apologies. I thought I had checked all of them, but I evidently skipped Sandoval County. Calls to the HR department have gone unanswered, so I'll take your word for it that they don't polygraph. The data I have doesn't give dates, so I could not verify employment dates, nor do I know when the various departments began polygraphing applicants. As you said, sloppy research, and my hand is stinging
As for young applicants, that is possible. Does that mean the departments shouldn't waste their time and money polygraphing a young applicant, since there are no precursors to bad behavior?
My apologies. I thought I had checked all of them, but I evidently skipped Sandoval County. Calls to the HR department have gone unanswered, so I'll take your word for it that they don't polygraph. The data I have doesn't give dates, so I could not verify employment dates, nor do I know when the various departments began polygraphing applicants. As you said, sloppy research, and my hand is stinging
As for young applicants, that is possible. Does that mean the departments shouldn't waste their time and money polygraphing a young applicant, since there are no precursors to bad behavior?
Posted by The_Breeze
- Sep 08, 2003, 01:57 PMHey Orolan
Check facts before breaking squelch. One of the agencies you listed from New Mexico DOES NOT require pre-employment polygraphs, and at least one of the disgraced officers you mentioned came on board prior to the polygraph requirement almost 20 years ago. Hatred of the tool is one thing, sloppy fact finding is another.
And another thing to consider, if a young man comes on board with little life experience (no need to lie during a polygraph) but has serious character flaws, whose responsibility would it be to identify this person and reject him from a police applicant process: the psychologist or the polygrapher?
From what I can determine, the bad apples your researcher has identified for you should of been stopped cold by a competent psychological screen, but I guess you already knew that?
Check facts before breaking squelch. One of the agencies you listed from New Mexico DOES NOT require pre-employment polygraphs, and at least one of the disgraced officers you mentioned came on board prior to the polygraph requirement almost 20 years ago. Hatred of the tool is one thing, sloppy fact finding is another.
And another thing to consider, if a young man comes on board with little life experience (no need to lie during a polygraph) but has serious character flaws, whose responsibility would it be to identify this person and reject him from a police applicant process: the psychologist or the polygrapher?
From what I can determine, the bad apples your researcher has identified for you should of been stopped cold by a competent psychological screen, but I guess you already knew that?
Posted by lincoln
- Sep 05, 2003, 09:31 PMGreat posts by skeptic and orolan. They are both absolutely correct. I personally know of two officers that work for a large city department that told substantial lies regarding their past drug usage. They both passed without ever using countermeasures. I'll go even futher and state that I have been told by other cops, that they know of fellow officers who have admitted to one another that they too lied on their poly exams. THIS IS WHAT SICKENS ME ABOUT POLYGRAPH EXAMS. I could also mention a few officers, that in my opinion, misrepresent the departments they work for and engage in questionable activities, but because they were FORTUNATE enough to have passed their polygraph exams, their department had enough faith in them to give them the honor of wearing their badge.
Posted by orolan
- Sep 05, 2003, 04:47 PMQuote...as long as you are a "comfortable" liar you could be walking the streets as a police officer today?
Corporal John Mason, Pennsylvania State Police.
12 counts viewing child pornography on a state computer.
Deputy Darryl Burt, Senior Officer-Gang Crimes Unit, Bernalillo County Sheriffs Department, New Mexico
Multiple felonies involving a traffic stop of a 24 year-old male including unlawful sexual penetration and kidnapping. 34 sexual assault counts involving a 16 year-old boy. Multiple charges of drug trafficking.
Deputy Pete Montoya, Sandoval County Sheriffs Department, New Mexico
18 counts criminal sexual conduct with a 5 year-old
Sergeant Mike Garcia, Supervisor of School Resource Officers, Albuquerque Police Department
Sexual conduct with a minor, involving a 12 year-old girl
Officer Matt Griffin, New Mexico State Police, Albuquerque Police Department(twice)
5 bank robberies, 1 murder, 4 other felonies
Just a sample. Note that all five of these fine upstanding officers of the law worked for departments that mandate polygraphs in the pre-employment process.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 05, 2003, 03:41 PMQuote from: SteveM on Sep 05, 2003, 03:36 PMThat's amazing. So you could murder someone and as long as you are a "comfortable" liar you could be walking the streets as a police officer today?
Possibly, yes. Despite what some polygraphers say, there is no "automatic" response when someone lies. And since far too many departments and agencies place far too much emphasis on the results of polygraph "tests", it is indeed possible that criminals and double-agents are working in positions of trust right now.
In fact, it's more than possible -- it's happened several times that we know of. How many times it's gone undetected is an open question.
Skeptic
Posted by SteveM
- Sep 05, 2003, 03:36 PMThat's amazing. So you could murder someone and as long as you are a "comfortable" liar you could be walking the streets as a police officer today?
Posted by orolan
- Sep 05, 2003, 03:35 PMSteve,
The reason a person can lie on the polygraph and not get caught is a fundamental one. The polygraph does not detect lies. Period. What it does do is measure physiological responses to stress. If the "lie" doesn't bother a person, there is no stress in answering, thus no change in the physiological responses.
The reason a person can lie on the polygraph and not get caught is a fundamental one. The polygraph does not detect lies. Period. What it does do is measure physiological responses to stress. If the "lie" doesn't bother a person, there is no stress in answering, thus no change in the physiological responses.
Posted by SteveM
- Sep 05, 2003, 03:29 PMIs this even possible? I talked a guy a week ago and he said his polygraph went fine. Then he told me he was dishonest on 1 question. When I asked him about it further he said he just didn't want to admit to it, but he knew the question was going to be asked and did not stress about it.
Is this even possible? I've got my test coming up soon, I really don't have anything to be dishonest about because the only small things I did I was honest about in my Background booklet. But it seems strange that you could lie on the test without CMs and they would not catch it.
Is this even possible? I've got my test coming up soon, I really don't have anything to be dishonest about because the only small things I did I was honest about in my Background booklet. But it seems strange that you could lie on the test without CMs and they would not catch it.