- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by alterego1
- Jul 18, 2006, 03:56 PMI feel sorry for the new applicants going through that department's hiring process. You know they're going to try an make an example out of many of them, just to prove how well their newfound polygraph testing "works."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 06, 2006, 05:23 AMThe Fredericksburg, Virginia Free-Lance Star has published the following letter to the editor:
Quotehttp://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/072006/07062006/203276
Polygraphs are based wholly on pseudoscience
Paul Probus Jr.
Date published: 7/6/2006
I'm responding to Robert Gordon's letter ["Don't knock Caroline sheriff ignorantly ," June 27].
Mr. Gordon's last sentence referred to people picking subjects they "know nothing about." This applies to him, as well.
Apparently, Mr. Gordon is ignorant of the fact that polygraph tests have been proved, in study after study, to be unreliable and are based on pseudoscience.
It has been shown that it is only when the person administering the polygraph is able to convince the subject that the test is valid, that there are correlations between the readings given and the truth.
In other words, the person administering the test is a con man, and how convincing he or she is will determine whether the test results can even be considered close to being valid.
If Mr. Gordon is so quick to defend Sheriff Lippa's use of them, why does no criminal court in this country allow evidence produced by polygraph tests into courtrooms?
I do not believe that there are many civil courts in this country that accept their results, either.
Why? Because of the studies I mentioned above, which have proved their ineffectiveness.
Polygraphs are nothing more than tools used by prosecutors and defense attorneys to bolster their claims in the press.
Mr. Gordon's claim of not supporting Sheriff Lippa is a red-herring argument. It's not a matter of supporting Sheriff Lippa, since I am sure he is quite competent when it comes to law enforcement issues.
I would question his use of polygraphs to screen candidates for admission to the force, however--especially since their use could disqualify nervous candidates or cause potentially good candidates to not even apply, in order to avoid the hassle.
But if he is confident in building his house of cards on such a shaky foundation, who am I to interfere?
Paul Probus Jr.
King George
Date published: 7/6/2006
Posted by polyfool
- May 11, 2006, 12:49 AMEos,
Yeah, I think the sheriff is desperately in search of a solution to keep pedophiles out of his department. Although his intention is honorable, he's sadly mistaken if he seriously believes the polygraph will keep these folks out. Apparently, he hasn't been paying attention to the pedophiles who passed polys and went onto become LEO's. For example, remember the VA state trooper who passed his poly even though he'd allegedly had sex with two underage girls prior to his application to the agency? That was just a few months ago and involved a LEO stationed in the same general area.
You're right--the very people the sheriff is trying to keep will out come here, learn to pass the "test" and go on to become LEO in positions of authority. A total waste of taxpayer money that will create a false sense of security in the department.
Yeah, I think the sheriff is desperately in search of a solution to keep pedophiles out of his department. Although his intention is honorable, he's sadly mistaken if he seriously believes the polygraph will keep these folks out. Apparently, he hasn't been paying attention to the pedophiles who passed polys and went onto become LEO's. For example, remember the VA state trooper who passed his poly even though he'd allegedly had sex with two underage girls prior to his application to the agency? That was just a few months ago and involved a LEO stationed in the same general area.
You're right--the very people the sheriff is trying to keep will out come here, learn to pass the "test" and go on to become LEO in positions of authority. A total waste of taxpayer money that will create a false sense of security in the department.
Posted by EosJupiter
- May 10, 2006, 02:04 AMPolyfool,
Good to see ya !!
I read this article too, and my thoughts were,"Just another waste of tax payer money". It appears obvious that the sheriff is totally lost. All of his officers now will come here and learn how to get around it.
Regards ....
Good to see ya !!
I read this article too, and my thoughts were,"Just another waste of tax payer money". It appears obvious that the sheriff is totally lost. All of his officers now will come here and learn how to get around it.
Regards ....
Posted by polyfool
- May 10, 2006, 12:09 AM Lippa adds polygraph tests to hiring process
Caroline Sheriff Tony Lippa to implement polygraph tests, starting tomorrow
Date published: 5/6/2006
By JEFF BRANSCOME
The recent arrests of two former Caroline County deputies has prompted Sheriff Tony Lippa to begin requiring all deputy applicants to take polygraph tests.
Three deputy candidates will take the lie-detector examinations today, he said. The new hiring policy--which Lippa said he began considering four months ago--doesn't apply to existing deputies.
Former Caroline deputies Michael K. Sheward and Michael S. Brewbaker were arrested within a week of each other last month.
In a written statement, Lippa said Sheward, 30, is accused of engaging in "alleged inappropriate behavior" April 24 with two girls, ages 16 and 17.
Brewbaker, 34, of Ashland, was charged April 20 in Hanover County with seven felony counts of taking indecent liberties with a child.
Both deputies underwent background checks and drug screenings before being hired, Lippa said. He said a polygraph test may have stopped him from hiring Brewbaker because "the alleged allegations stem before he came with us."
It is unlikely the exam would have revealed anything about Sheward, he said, because the former deputy is accused of committing crimes after he was hired in Caroline. He was fired last Wednesday, the day the charges were placed.
"I can go back to my state police days," Lippa said. "You had polygraphs and yet you still had incidents that went on."
Lippa said he's done a lot to ensure professionalism in the department, noting his decision last year to implement random drug screenings.
"There are things that we're doing in trying to keep up with the times," he said.
The Fredericksburg Police Department and the Sheriff's Offices in Stafford and Spotsylvania require all deputy and officer applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and take a polygraph test.
Stafford Sheriff Charles Jett said the threat of a polygraph leads some applicants to provide information that disqualifies them from the job.
"We make it clear that one integrity issue will eliminate them from" consideration, he said.
Sheriff's Offices in Orange, Westmoreland, King George and Culpeper don't have such provisions in place. And Caroline deputy applicants still don't have to complete a psychological evaluation.
"We have a pretty in-depth interview process," said Orange Sheriff C.G. Feldman. "We know a lot of the people we hire. Most of our people are local people."
Lippa said it will cost his department $150 to administer each polygraph test, which he hopes will prevent something from "slipping through the cracks."
"We're all human," he said. "People make mistakes. When the police make a mistake it's magnified and rightly so because we have the public trust."
To reach JEFF BRANSCOME:540/374-5402
Email: jbranscome@freelancestar.com
Date published: 5/6/2006
Caroline Sheriff Tony Lippa to implement polygraph tests, starting tomorrow
Date published: 5/6/2006
By JEFF BRANSCOME
The recent arrests of two former Caroline County deputies has prompted Sheriff Tony Lippa to begin requiring all deputy applicants to take polygraph tests.
Three deputy candidates will take the lie-detector examinations today, he said. The new hiring policy--which Lippa said he began considering four months ago--doesn't apply to existing deputies.
Former Caroline deputies Michael K. Sheward and Michael S. Brewbaker were arrested within a week of each other last month.
In a written statement, Lippa said Sheward, 30, is accused of engaging in "alleged inappropriate behavior" April 24 with two girls, ages 16 and 17.
Brewbaker, 34, of Ashland, was charged April 20 in Hanover County with seven felony counts of taking indecent liberties with a child.
Both deputies underwent background checks and drug screenings before being hired, Lippa said. He said a polygraph test may have stopped him from hiring Brewbaker because "the alleged allegations stem before he came with us."
It is unlikely the exam would have revealed anything about Sheward, he said, because the former deputy is accused of committing crimes after he was hired in Caroline. He was fired last Wednesday, the day the charges were placed.
"I can go back to my state police days," Lippa said. "You had polygraphs and yet you still had incidents that went on."
Lippa said he's done a lot to ensure professionalism in the department, noting his decision last year to implement random drug screenings.
"There are things that we're doing in trying to keep up with the times," he said.
The Fredericksburg Police Department and the Sheriff's Offices in Stafford and Spotsylvania require all deputy and officer applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and take a polygraph test.
Stafford Sheriff Charles Jett said the threat of a polygraph leads some applicants to provide information that disqualifies them from the job.
"We make it clear that one integrity issue will eliminate them from" consideration, he said.
Sheriff's Offices in Orange, Westmoreland, King George and Culpeper don't have such provisions in place. And Caroline deputy applicants still don't have to complete a psychological evaluation.
"We have a pretty in-depth interview process," said Orange Sheriff C.G. Feldman. "We know a lot of the people we hire. Most of our people are local people."
Lippa said it will cost his department $150 to administer each polygraph test, which he hopes will prevent something from "slipping through the cracks."
"We're all human," he said. "People make mistakes. When the police make a mistake it's magnified and rightly so because we have the public trust."
To reach JEFF BRANSCOME:540/374-5402
Email: jbranscome@freelancestar.com
Date published: 5/6/2006