- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polyfool
- Jun 21, 2005, 01:41 AMFair Chance:
You're exactly right. The FBI's only formal so-called recourse is a second test that puts the applicant through some additional hell, but never clears their name(except in your case.) The FBI polygraph unit has the ultimate say over who is hired by the agency and even what professions some applicants will ever be allowed to practice. No wonder the agency's polygraphers are so arrogant--they know what they say goes, regardless of how badly the hiring official may want the applicant placed in a particluar position. What a screwed up way to hire people, not to mention the abusive manner in which some applicants are treated by their examiners. So unprofessional. The FBI's hiring process turned out to be the least professional I could have ever imagined in my life..and that is by a long shot.
You're exactly right. The FBI's only formal so-called recourse is a second test that puts the applicant through some additional hell, but never clears their name(except in your case.) The FBI polygraph unit has the ultimate say over who is hired by the agency and even what professions some applicants will ever be allowed to practice. No wonder the agency's polygraphers are so arrogant--they know what they say goes, regardless of how badly the hiring official may want the applicant placed in a particluar position. What a screwed up way to hire people, not to mention the abusive manner in which some applicants are treated by their examiners. So unprofessional. The FBI's hiring process turned out to be the least professional I could have ever imagined in my life..and that is by a long shot.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 20, 2005, 10:11 PMDear Polyfool,
You have a grasp of what I find so upsetting in the use of polygraph pre-screening in the FBI. There is no formal recourse for anyone who KNOWS they were falsely accused.
The FBI has a list of ten core values which they are suppose to hold close to their existence. Number five is the protection of Civil Rights according to the Constitution. I take great exception with any "law enforcement agency" which would pronounce an applicant's dreams "dead on arrival" strictly due to polygraph results.
As you stated, "Polygraph results can end careers and that is wrong." Simple and straight to the point.
There are thousands upon thousands of trustworthy employees in our government who have served well without an polygraph. It is time we "went back to the future" of hiring procedures.
Regards.
You have a grasp of what I find so upsetting in the use of polygraph pre-screening in the FBI. There is no formal recourse for anyone who KNOWS they were falsely accused.
The FBI has a list of ten core values which they are suppose to hold close to their existence. Number five is the protection of Civil Rights according to the Constitution. I take great exception with any "law enforcement agency" which would pronounce an applicant's dreams "dead on arrival" strictly due to polygraph results.
As you stated, "Polygraph results can end careers and that is wrong." Simple and straight to the point.
There are thousands upon thousands of trustworthy employees in our government who have served well without an polygraph. It is time we "went back to the future" of hiring procedures.
Regards.
Posted by polyfool
- Jun 20, 2005, 12:49 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jun 19, 2005, 02:05 AM
Polyfool,
I absolutely intend on keeping an open mind. I never buy into what one side of an argument says to the exclusion of an opposing position. In the case of polygraph, I believe there are people out there who have been the victim of false polygraph outcomes, and something HAS to be done for them. Yet I also have seen polygraph solve some completely hopeless cases (that's what got me interested in doing polygraph testing). Bottom line, I believe there is always a better way and a place down the middle from where people can reach an agreement.
Respectfully
nonombre
Nonombre:
True, polys have helped solve some criminal cases which would never have been solved otherwise because people falsely believe they can detect lies. However, the true danger exists when polygraphers and investigators forget about the polygraph's limitations. It has the ability to implicate the innocent and exonerate the guilty. Unfortunately, not all polygraphers are ethical, which can present other problems, such as false confessions.
The problem with polygraph screening is that innocent applicants are being failed and traumatized by a subjective testing procedure and NOTHING is being done about it. Failed polygraph results can end careers and that is simply wrong.
Posted by Jeffery
- Jun 19, 2005, 04:11 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jun 19, 2005, 01:30 AM
You make a good point and I am not arguing that we have probably had false truthful outcomes...I just don't know if that makes the whole thing bad.
You also are pretty critical of how the government has done its polygraph research. I was wondering (and I am truly not being a wise guy by what I am about to say) how would you do it? I mean if the govenment gave you a million dollars tomorrow and asked you to do the perfect polygraph validy study, what would be your research design?
Respectfully
nonombre
I'd argue that in our American system of justice a procedure which labels truthful people as guilty while at the same time labeling some guilty people as guilty (and indeed, some guilty people as innocent) is a flawed system and not worth the trade off. What is the saying? "Better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted wrongly." Do you believe that?
As far as a study into polygraphics and the validity thereof: such a study would not be necessary. You can't bound blood from a stone. No million dollar study is needed to prove or disprove that. Likewise with polygraphics: once one fully understands the methods behind it, no scientist would bother with a study one way or the other.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 19, 2005, 03:26 PMNonombre,
What specifically have you done to address the plight of those applicants (and others) whose victimization you claim HAS to be addressed? Anything less than what I have suggested, leaves the people fully victimized and countless more waiting in line for future similar treatment. This is not an academic issue for these people. Although I am not upset with you personally, apparently a relative novice with more than the average intellectual curiosity and concern displayed in your industry, I am terribly concerned for the hundreds (perhaps in excess of a thousand) of people who have come to me claiming (polygraph screening) victimization over the last decade and the many tens of thousands of others who have not and likely have been victimized. Mere words of concern on your part, whether genuine or of the crocodile-tear variety, are not sufficient. Nothing less than action on your part and others will suffice. Although I understand the difficulties in doing such, I am not very sympathetic with those who know better and do not. I testified before Congress some years ago, condemning a program (applicant screening) put in place by the then current Director of the FBI several years before I was eligible to retire from the FBI. As I said before I am not the least bit sympathetic with those who continue a practice that might (let alone obviously does) victimize individuals, our national security, and our ability to hire desirable employees. You indicate that you sense I might be a bit emotional when considering the issue. My question to you is why aren't you? I will be away for a couple of days but would be happy to continue this exchange as you like when I return. Regards...
What specifically have you done to address the plight of those applicants (and others) whose victimization you claim HAS to be addressed? Anything less than what I have suggested, leaves the people fully victimized and countless more waiting in line for future similar treatment. This is not an academic issue for these people. Although I am not upset with you personally, apparently a relative novice with more than the average intellectual curiosity and concern displayed in your industry, I am terribly concerned for the hundreds (perhaps in excess of a thousand) of people who have come to me claiming (polygraph screening) victimization over the last decade and the many tens of thousands of others who have not and likely have been victimized. Mere words of concern on your part, whether genuine or of the crocodile-tear variety, are not sufficient. Nothing less than action on your part and others will suffice. Although I understand the difficulties in doing such, I am not very sympathetic with those who know better and do not. I testified before Congress some years ago, condemning a program (applicant screening) put in place by the then current Director of the FBI several years before I was eligible to retire from the FBI. As I said before I am not the least bit sympathetic with those who continue a practice that might (let alone obviously does) victimize individuals, our national security, and our ability to hire desirable employees. You indicate that you sense I might be a bit emotional when considering the issue. My question to you is why aren't you? I will be away for a couple of days but would be happy to continue this exchange as you like when I return. Regards...
Posted by nonombre
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:44 PMQuote from: ThePeaceMaker12 on Jun 19, 2005, 02:28 PM
Here is another question I have for you. Have you ever had obtained a deceptive result against somebody and then it later turns out that the suspect/applicant was in fact telling the truth. I know that here recently, the FBI identified an individual in a case as deceptive and he was a prime suspect in a murder case. Later on, they found the real murderers and discovered that their original suspect had absolutely nothing to do with the murders. Imagine, if they did not find those murderers, I wonder if the FBI would have eventually and charged and arrested this guy for murder. I also wonder if they would have been able to successfully prosecute this guy for murder. Imagine it, you are innocent of murder and then being arrested and charged for murder. You could face the death penalty or life in imprison with a bunch of animals always watching your back, all for a crime you did not commit and because some machine told investigators that you were liar when in fact you were telling the truth.
ThePeaceMaker12,
Thank you for writing. One of the benefits to our criminal justice system is that it takes a pretty good amount of evidence to convict the guilty. I do not believe the FBI would have gotten a conviction or even an indictment based on a polygraph exam (heck, in most jurisdictions, the result of a polygraph is not even admissible) I believe the majority of the people on this site are mostly concerned about the use of polygraph in screening, because in that enviornment there is little to no "due process" and a deceptive polygraph result could prevent someone from getting a job they might have otherwise been qualified for.
Respectfully,
nonombre
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:41 PMNonombre, I don't doubt the polygraph has unearthed suspects and obtained confessions from guilty people. What I am talking about is the way the polygraph prejudices investigators against innocent individuals. That's the real danger. It is better to let a few guilty people go than to falsely accuse somebody who is truly innocent. The guilty will for the most part do something stupid again and be caught, or you would need to get rid of an investigator who is not good at their job. I mean, if I was an investigator, I would do my absolute best not to rely on the polygraph machine in gathering evidence.
Posted by nonombre
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:35 PMDr. Richardson,
No problem. I do believe that based on the little I have read so far you do seem to be more emotionally than objectively involved in this issue (no insult intended). In any case, I would like to provide my point of view on the issues you have raised this morning.
Dr. R., I am of course concerned about anyone falsley accused. Yet, based on what I have so far in my new career, I have also seen the polygraph unearth signficant information that would have never been identified any other way. Maybe that is why I am no where near decrying these tests. Is there some sort of "middle of the road" answer perhaps?
Although I have no intention of stopping something that I believe has benifitted my department, I am also sensitive to the down side (namely falsely accusing the innocent). I guess we could simply ignore the exams that do not produce information, but somehow I don't think that's the answer.
I am afraid I would have to ask permission to go through all those files. However, I do know that based on what I have seen so far, most of the deceptive exams do result in the acquisition of information not known prior to the test. Therefore, maybe the numbers you suggest might be small enough for us to pull out and take a look at?
"...demagoguery and hypocrisy?" Dr. Richardson, I am NOT a hypocrite. My position here is one of some conflict. On one side I see all the help polygraph has provided to my department in criminal cases AND screening. Yet, I also see the real possibility of the damage that errors could cause. I am on this site for the very purpose of trying to learn the most I can about both sides of this argument.
Respectfully,
nonombre
No problem. I do believe that based on the little I have read so far you do seem to be more emotionally than objectively involved in this issue (no insult intended). In any case, I would like to provide my point of view on the issues you have raised this morning.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams...
Dr. R., I am of course concerned about anyone falsley accused. Yet, based on what I have so far in my new career, I have also seen the polygraph unearth signficant information that would have never been identified any other way. Maybe that is why I am no where near decrying these tests. Is there some sort of "middle of the road" answer perhaps?
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
(2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams...
Although I have no intention of stopping something that I believe has benifitted my department, I am also sensitive to the down side (namely falsely accusing the innocent). I guess we could simply ignore the exams that do not produce information, but somehow I don't think that's the answer.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
(3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such.
I am afraid I would have to ask permission to go through all those files. However, I do know that based on what I have seen so far, most of the deceptive exams do result in the acquisition of information not known prior to the test. Therefore, maybe the numbers you suggest might be small enough for us to pull out and take a look at?
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."
"...demagoguery and hypocrisy?" Dr. Richardson, I am NOT a hypocrite. My position here is one of some conflict. On one side I see all the help polygraph has provided to my department in criminal cases AND screening. Yet, I also see the real possibility of the damage that errors could cause. I am on this site for the very purpose of trying to learn the most I can about both sides of this argument.
Respectfully,
nonombre
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:28 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jun 18, 2005, 06:14 PMHi.,
I am a brand new police polygraph examiner and I thought I would take my few short months of experience and weigh in to this anti-polygraph argument with two small questions. Please don't boil me in oil for asking this, but...
If the polygraph is so utterly useless and as a result criminals and spies have little to fear of getting caught, then why are there so many postings stressing that if confronted with a lie correctly identified by the polygraph, the person correctly caught should "deny, deny, deny?"
This position would seem to indicate two things. The first is an apparent acceptance that polygraph can in fact correctly identify liars, or the many postings pushing the guilty to continue to deny would simply not exist. The second thing it would suggest to me as a law enforcement officer is that the people on this site are in fact openly attempting to assist the guilty to evade capture. I am not being a "smart ass" here, I am just relating what seems obvious to me.
This also seems to be true for the whole countermeasure controversy. For example, in one recent post by Dr. Drew Richardson (the apparent countermeasure guru) repeats the phrase, "UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES deny countermeasure use." He states this FIVE times in as many lines of text. Yet, in the same post, he insists "...examiners can not reliably detect them."
Well, if Dr Richardson, speaking from purely an objective, scientific position, truly believes that countermeasures cannot be reliably detected, then why is he so fervently telling people who have attempted countermeasures and as a result have been caught in this endeavor, to "deny, deny, deny?"
It would appear to me that Dr. Richardson's position on this topic is perhaps more personal and emotional than scientific. Otherwise he would not be so determined on instructing people who have been correctly identified as attempting countermeasures, to deny their use at any and all costs. Deliberately skew data? Not a very "scientific" position, I'm afraid.
Yet, former FBI agent Dr. Richardson, like others on this site insists he is making no attempt to assist the guilty.
I'm confused. What am I missing here?
Once again, please don't drag me behind a truck for asking about these things. I am still learning about all this and I am trying to keep an open mind. ...
:-/
Here is another question I have for you. Have you ever had obtained a deceptive result against somebody and then it later turns out that the suspect/applicant was in fact telling the truth. I know that here recently, the FBI identified an individual in a case as deceptive and he was a prime suspect in a murder case. Later on, they found the real murderers and discovered that their original suspect had absolutely nothing to do with the murders. Imagine, if they did not find those murderers, I wonder if the FBI would have eventually and charged and arrested this guy for murder. I also wonder if they would have been able to successfully prosecute this guy for murder. Imagine it, you are innocent of murder and then being arrested and charged for murder. You could face the death penalty or life in imprison with a bunch of animals always watching your back, all for a crime you did not commit and because some machine told investigators that you were liar when in fact you were telling the truth.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:11 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jun 18, 2005, 06:14 PMHi.,
I am a brand new police polygraph examiner and I thought I would take my few short months of experience and weigh in to this anti-polygraph argument with two small questions. Please don't boil me in oil for asking this, but...
If the polygraph is so utterly useless and as a result criminals and spies have little to fear of getting caught, then why are there so many postings stressing that if confronted with a lie correctly identified by the polygraph, the person correctly caught should "deny, deny, deny?"
This position would seem to indicate two things. The first is an apparent acceptance that polygraph can in fact correctly identify liars, or the many postings pushing the guilty to continue to deny would simply not exist. The second thing it would suggest to me as a law enforcement officer is that the people on this site are in fact openly attempting to assist the guilty to evade capture. I am not being a "smart ass" here, I am just relating what seems obvious to me.
This also seems to be true for the whole countermeasure controversy. For example, in one recent post by Dr. Drew Richardson (the apparent countermeasure guru) repeats the phrase, "UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES deny countermeasure use." He states this FIVE times in as many lines of text. Yet, in the same post, he insists "...examiners can not reliably detect them."
Well, if Dr Richardson, speaking from purely an objective, scientific position, truly believes that countermeasures cannot be reliably detected, then why is he so fervently telling people who have attempted countermeasures and as a result have been caught in this endeavor, to "deny, deny, deny?"
It would appear to me that Dr. Richardson's position on this topic is perhaps more personal and emotional than scientific. Otherwise he would not be so determined on instructing people who have been correctly identified as attempting countermeasures, to deny their use at any and all costs. Deliberately skew data? Not a very "scientific" position, I'm afraid.
Yet, former FBI agent Dr. Richardson, like others on this site insists he is making no attempt to assist the guilty.
I'm confused. What am I missing here?
Once again, please don't drag me behind a truck for asking about these things. I am still learning about all this and I am trying to keep an open mind. ...
:-/
The problem with the polygraph is somebody who is innnocent in like a criminal investigation and gets identified as deceptive during a polygraph interrogation. This deceptive result will prejudice investigators against the innocent individual and in my view, the innocent individual has a higher risk of being falsely arrested for a crime the individual did not commit. Not only that, but an overzealous prosecutor might be able to obtain a false conviction against the innnocent individual. As a law enforcement officer yourself you have a duty to protect the innocent and not lock them up. This polygraph machine increases the likelyhood of innocent individuals being considered guilty or worse, being charged with a crime they did not commit.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:00 PMNonombre,
My comments from before:
I am not the least bit upset with your comments or your exchanges, and am not at all interested in your leaving this site. I will however with no apology place any expressed concerns about the victimization caused by polygraph screening in what I believe to be a proper perspective for you and any who might have an interest in the subject. Regards...
My comments from before:
Quote
Nonombre,
If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams, (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such. These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic "test." I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."
I am not the least bit upset with your comments or your exchanges, and am not at all interested in your leaving this site. I will however with no apology place any expressed concerns about the victimization caused by polygraph screening in what I believe to be a proper perspective for you and any who might have an interest in the subject. Regards...
Posted by nonombre
- Jun 19, 2005, 01:44 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams, (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such. These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic "test." I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."
Good morning Dr. Richardson, Geez, I didn't mean to upset you so with my questions and comments. I am truly sorry. I was under the impression I was having an open and frank exchange of ideas with two other visitors to this site. If you would rather I leave, I will. I was just asking questions here.
Again, I am sorry.
Respectfully,
nonombre
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 19, 2005, 12:04 PMNonombre,
If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams, (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such. These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic "test." I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."
If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams, (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such. These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic "test." I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."
Posted by nonombre
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:05 AMQuote from: polyfool on Jun 19, 2005, 01:49 AMNonombre:
I hope you continue to keep an open mind regarding the poly's limitations. My examiner could have cared less that he'd failed an innocent applicant. He wasn't in search of the truth. All he wanted was an admission, even using tricks and coercion in an effort to get one. There was none since I had been honest, but that wasn't enough to keep me from becoming another FBI polygraph failure statistic.
Polyfool,
I absolutely intend on keeping an open mind. I never buy into what one side of an argument says to the exclusion of an opposing position. In the case of polygraph, I believe there are people out there who have been the victim of false polygraph outcomes, and something HAS to be done for them. Yet I also have seen polygraph solve some completely hopeless cases (that's what got me interested in doing polygraph testing). Bottom line, I believe there is always a better way and a place down the middle from where people can reach an agreement.
Respectfully
nonombre
Posted by polyfool
- Jun 19, 2005, 01:49 AMNonombre:
When the people on this site instruct others to deny using Cm's, the intent is not to help examinees beat the box. It's to assist the innocent who use Cm's to protect themselves from a false positive outcome. With that said, does that mean the guilty will use the information to their benefit? Yes, of course they will and that is unfortunate. However, what are the other options? Just take a look at the number of false positive victims who have posted on this site.
I hope you continue to keep an open mind regarding the poly's limitations. My examiner could have cared less that he'd failed an innocent applicant. He wasn't in search of the truth. All he wanted was an admission, even using tricks and coercion in an effort to get one. There was none since I had been honest, but that wasn't enough to keep me from becoming another FBI polygraph failure statistic.
When the people on this site instruct others to deny using Cm's, the intent is not to help examinees beat the box. It's to assist the innocent who use Cm's to protect themselves from a false positive outcome. With that said, does that mean the guilty will use the information to their benefit? Yes, of course they will and that is unfortunate. However, what are the other options? Just take a look at the number of false positive victims who have posted on this site.
I hope you continue to keep an open mind regarding the poly's limitations. My examiner could have cared less that he'd failed an innocent applicant. He wasn't in search of the truth. All he wanted was an admission, even using tricks and coercion in an effort to get one. There was none since I had been honest, but that wasn't enough to keep me from becoming another FBI polygraph failure statistic.