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 Jeffery
 - Jul 15, 2005, 03:00 AM
Quote from: polyfool on Jul 15, 2005, 12:57 AMSpark:

The 20% figure is straight from the mouth of an FBI polygraph examiner as well as another FBI employee.

The "reportedly" 50% is from an article entitled "The FBI Seeks to Rebuild its Image," written by Chris Mondics of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Bureau. Mondics reports that Roger Trott, Chief of the FBI's agent training unit says that half of FBI agent applicants who pass preliminary tests don't pass the polygraph.  
And that's half of those that pass the prelims.  Imagine what the failure rate would be if the feds polygraphed EVERYBODY that applied.
Posted by polyfool
 - Jul 15, 2005, 12:57 AM
Spark:

The 20% figure is straight from the mouth of an FBI polygraph examiner as well as another FBI employee.

The "reportedly" 50% is from an article entitled "The FBI Seeks to Rebuild its Image," written by Chris Mondics of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Bureau. Mondics reports that Roger Trott, Chief of the FBI's agent training unit says that half of FBI agent applicants who pass preliminary tests don't pass the polygraph.  
Posted by spark
 - Jul 14, 2005, 11:34 PM
Polyfool, where are you getting your stats from 20% but "reportedly" 50%?
Posted by polyfool
 - Jul 11, 2005, 10:36 PM
Matty:

There is a lawsuit brought by several LE officers against the federal government in regards to polygraph screening that is slowly working its way through the legal system.
Posted by polyfool
 - Jul 11, 2005, 10:30 PM
The worst thing about it is the applicant doesn't even receive informed consent when signing the waiver. When I signed mine, I believed the polygraph to be nearly 100% accurate, so I thought I had nothing to lose. I also was not told how many applicants fail the polygraph until after I failed mine. The FBI ADMITS to 20%, but it's reportedly about 50%--not very good odds with which to gamble.  
Posted by polyscam
 - Jul 11, 2005, 10:28 PM
Although you may have been wanting someone else to weigh in, the only recourse you may have is one of the following:  complaint to agency head or unit designated to handle citizen complaints for the agency with which you have applied or to a state oversight agency for polygraph examiners (if your state requires certification or licensure.  Another idea would be to lodge a complaint with any voluntary associations of which your examiner is a member such as the American Polygraph Association (APA) or the American Association of Police Polygraphphists (AAPP).  Also you may want to send a letter of complaint to any voluntary state association with which the examiner is affiliated.  Keep in mind voluntary associations are just that, so there is the possibility that no action will be taken.
Posted by Matty
 - Jul 11, 2005, 10:14 PM
Does anybody else want to weigh in on this?

Do LEO candidates have any recourse from being accused of deception when that is not the case?  Or is the opinion of the all mighty witch doctor the final word?
Posted by polyscam
 - Jul 11, 2005, 08:20 PM
Matty wrote:
QuoteBasically they make you sign the waiver if you want to proceed in the proccess and by not doing so, you will be disqualified and by doing so you are saying that they can be totally unfair and screw you if they so choose and there is nothing you can do about it.

Yep.
Posted by Matty
 - Jul 11, 2005, 08:10 PM
Talk about a rigged system!

Basically they make you sign the waiver if you want to proceed in the proccess and by not doing so, you will be disqualified and by doing so you are saying that they can be totally unfair and screw you if they so choose and there is nothing you can do about it.

This sounds more like Russia during Communisim, rather than America...
Posted by polyscam
 - Jul 11, 2005, 07:51 PM
The quick answer is: waiver of claims by examinee against agency and examiner.  This waiver must be signed prior to undergoing examination in the pre-employment setting.

You are correct in your assumption that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply.  As this is not a court or legal proceeding (pre-employment) a person only has as many rights as the testing agency allows, unless they are somehow in violation of federal or state labor legislation.

You are also correct that there is little, if any, recourse.
Posted by Matty
 - Jul 11, 2005, 05:23 PM
Given that it could be very easily argued that Pre-Employment Polygraph Screening is unreliable and in many cases a candidates pass or fail is in the hands of a possibly biased polygraph examiner, why haven't there been successful legal challenges when a candidate has been disqualified, even though that person may have no criminal record, neighbors & former employers would testify that candidate is a law abiding person who would make a great LEO?

It seems that "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here and these unethecal polygraph examiners are getting away with ruining a good persons chance to pursue the career of their dreams.

Unless I am missing something, it appears from everything I read here that this is allowed to happen and there is no recourse??  ???