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:
How many sides does a stop sign have? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by annonomous
 - Sep 30, 2003, 02:35 AM
What other big departments dont give the test?
On D.C.'s web site it says they do. Any lists would be help.
Thanks
Posted by james
 - Sep 30, 2003, 01:14 AM
Fair Chance,  excellent post.  Thanks for your input.
Posted by Fair Chance
 - Sep 29, 2003, 11:59 PM
Gentlemen,

I do not believe in the polygraph for pre-screening purposes.

Philadelphia's decision to omit polygraph testing was not a result of intellectual discussion but out of pure logistics.  Their base of applicants is rather slim to begin with because of residency requirements and the starting pay.  Turnover was high and they could not afford to lose any significant amount of applicants to the polygraph.

The Washington, D.C., Department was in a similar situation.  Too few qualified applicants for the salary being offered.

On the other hand, the FBI had over 80,000 applicants for  2,000 positions.  They can use the polygraph for pre-screening, lose false positives applicants by the thousands and still satisfy their needs.  

Contrary to the "just get over it and move on" comments by the polygraph proponents on this site, careers and lives can be ruined by false positives.  "That's the price of freedom in American" is a weak argument to a person who truly believes in the system.

I know the system is not perfect but I cannot accept the blindness of stating "that is just the way it is" without trying to improve the system.

At a bare minimum,  videotapes of all polygraph examinations, including pre-screening exams, should be readily available to the applicant.  With all the money I see spent on a daily basis in the government, this would be a "drop in the bucket" which could defend or condemn  polygraph usage.

Regards.
Posted by new cop
 - Sep 29, 2003, 06:03 PM
Amen brother,  you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by james
 - Sep 29, 2003, 05:57 PM
Police departments that put too much faith in polygraph testing are hurting themselves.  Suppose that out of 50 recruits being hired for a department, only 20 ranked in the original top 50.  The reason for this is that applicants are disqualified for various reasons.  The problem is that background units in charge of hiring, are disqualifying applicants on their failed polygraph results.  As we all know, this is absurd.  So if the applicant ranked number 1 fails his/her polygraph, that person is removed from the eligibility list.  Thus making the number 2 person number 1.  So when the final list of applicants is chosen to be hired as police recruits, it is very possible that an applicant who did not even rank in the top 100 is selected as a police recruit.  What if 10 out of the 50 selected police recruits passed their polygraphs while being dishonest about issues that would be disqualifying, and on the other hand 10 GOOD applicants were dq'ed for a false positive polygraph.  What does this say about the hiring process so many departments stand by.  Hats off to the departments that have the good sense not to incorporate polygraph tests to applicants(Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Boston, NYPD) to mention a few.
Posted by james spencer
 - Sep 29, 2003, 05:24 PM
It does not take a genius to realize that police departments are often making big mistakes in the recruits they are hiring.