- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by GARY DAVIS
- Oct 25, 2008, 11:22 AMi can think of no legitimate reason NOT to record polygraph examinations, interrogations or interviews
gary davis
gary davis
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 25, 2008, 04:31 AMPolice interrogator Jim Trainum speaks compellingly on why interrogations (which would implicitly include polygraph interrogations) should be videotaped:
Quotehttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-trainum24-2008oct24,0,7918545.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
The case for videotaping interrogations
A suspect's false confession to a murder opened an officer's eyes.
By Jim Trainum
October 24, 2008
I've been a police officer for 25 years, and I never understood why someone would admit to a crime he or she didn't commit. Until I secured a false confession in a murder case.
I stepped into the interrogation room believing that we had evidence linking the suspect to the murder of a 34-year-old federal employee in Washington. I used standard, approved interrogation techniques -- no screaming or threats, no physical abuse, no 12-hour sessions without food or water. Many hours later, I left with a solid confession.
At first, the suspect couldn't tell us anything about the murder, and she professed her innocence. As the interrogation progressed, she became more cooperative, and her confession included many details of the crime. The suspect said she had beaten the man to death and dumped his body by a river. She said she made purchases with the victim's credit card and tried to withdraw cash using his ATM card. Surveillance video from the ATM showed a woman who resembled the suspect, and an expert said the signature on the credit card receipts was consistent with the suspect's handwriting.
Even the suspect's attorney later told me that she believed her client was guilty, based on the confession. Confident in our evidence and the confession, we charged her with first-degree murder.
Then we discovered that the suspect had an ironclad alibi. We subpoenaed sign-in/sign-out logs from the homeless shelter where she lived, and the records proved that she could not have committed the crime. The case was dismissed, but all of us still believed she was involved in the murder. After all, she had confessed.
Even though it wasn't our standard operating procedure in the mid-1990s, when the crime occurred, we had videotaped the interrogation in its entirety. Reviewing the tapes years later, I saw that we had fallen into a classic trap. We ignored evidence that our suspect might not have been guilty, and during the interrogation we inadvertently fed her details of the crime that she repeated back to us in her confession.
If we hadn't discovered and verified the suspect's alibi -- or if we hadn't recorded the interrogation -- she probably would have been convicted of first-degree murder and would be in prison today. The true perpetrator of the crime was never identified, partly because the investigation was derailed when we focused on an innocent person.
The case was a turning point for me, personally and professionally. I still work as a police officer in Washington, but I also teach a class on interrogations and false confessions, and I work with law enforcement agencies nationwide to help them prevent false confessions.
I've learned that this is a nationwide problem. Of the 220 wrongful convictions in the U.S. that have been overturned based on DNA evidence, nearly 25% involved a false confession or false incriminating statements, according to the Innocence Project. In each of those cases, DNA proved that the confession was false.
Threats and coercion sometimes lead innocent people to confess, but even the calmest, most standardized interrogations can lead to a false confession or admission. Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled may be particularly vulnerable, but anyone can be dazed when confronted by police officers who claim to hold unshakable evidence of one's guilt. Some confess to crimes because they want to please authority figures or to protect another person. Some actually come to believe they are guilty, or confess to do penance for some unrelated bad behavior. Innocent people come to believe that they will receive a harsher sentence -- even the death penalty -- if they don't confess.
Videotaping interrogations is proved to decrease wrongful convictions based on false confessions. When the entire interrogation is recorded, attorneys, judges and juries can see exactly what led to a confession. Police officers become better interviewers over time, as they review tapes of their interrogations, and confessions are easier to defend in court. The only police officers I've met who don't embrace recording interrogations are those who have never done it. Too many police officers still wrongly believe that recording interrogations will be logistically difficult and expensive, and that guilty suspects won't confess if they know they are being recorded.
More than 500 jurisdictions nationwide record interrogations, but only 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, mandate the practice. California's Legislature passed bills in 2006 and 2007 that would have required interrogations to be recorded. Both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A third bill died in committee this year. California legislators should not give up. They must make this issue a priority and pass legislation to make our criminal justice system stronger and more accurate.
It may be impossible to fully understand why innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit. What is undeniable is that some do -- and that we need to enact reforms to prevent more wrongful convictions and ensure that the right people pay for these crimes.
Jim Trainum is a detective in Washington's Metropolitan Police Department.
Posted by Lethe
- May 23, 2008, 02:45 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 21, 2008, 02:20 PM
Lethe,
1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
4) Storage problems ($$)
There is four off the top of my head.
Sackett
As previously pointed out, (1) is no reason at all. You can't say "It is okay to not record exams because management says it is okay." That is circular reasoning.
As for (2) and (3), not wanting the information to get out, that seems pretty weak, since the person being interviewed could simply report what questions she was asked and how the procedure went. A few details might not be remembered clearly, but most will be, especially if people compare notes. Very little is gained towards these two ends, certainly not enough in my mind to justify the cost, which is not being able to effectively follow up on complaints and weeding out bad polygraphers or referring them for additional training.
As for (4), yeah; it'd cost some money. But the records need not be kept indefinitely. For most purposes, 90 days should suffice. If you had a problem with the exam, you need to tell them you want it reviewed within that time frame or you've waived the right. A few evidence boxes would probably suffice at most locations for storing this info for three months, especially with many departments keeping much of the data electronically. Besides, the APA says private practitioners should record exams and keep those recordings for at least some period of time. If they can do it, so can the gov't.
If you want to save money so badly, why not just hire a polygrapher fresh out of polyschool? He'd no doubt be cheaper to hire than an experienced veteran, like yourself. Oh, yeah, he'd probably not be as good and accuracy is kind of important; the savings wouldn't be worth the shoddier results.
Having recordings would allow problems to be properly investigated, often probably exonerating the examiner. Plus, higher-ups could randomly review the data for quality control purposes. You can't order out of a catalog without your phone call possibly "being recorded for quality assurance purposes," but you can be polygraphed without that!
Especially since it's pretty easy for an unscrupulous polygrapher to manufacture whichever result he wants, I would think that having some sort of record of what went on would be more important to you.
Posted by sackett
- May 21, 2008, 09:19 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 21, 2008, 05:32 PMQuote1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
Not a reason. Policies can be changed.
Not a reason to you. You obviously have never tried to change management opinion about something so engrained. I never said I agreed, just giving the answers Lethe asked for. Interesting Cullen, and of course I know this, nothing I answer will satisfy you, so I will stop trying to make sense with you since sense is not what you are about. I will no longer acknowledge your postings since it has nothing to do with opposing discourse, but sarcasm and attacks.Quote2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
Or run the risk of having the "shenanigans" that go on during examinations made public. Examiners would be forced to clean up their act.
Your opinion. See above.Quote3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
Why? Is the test is incapable of scientifically detecting deception if the questions are known beforehand? Besides, questions are already pretty much known. Example, with preemployment at the intel agencies (foreign contact question, disclosure of classified info...etc.)
Once again. Lethe asked me for an answer to something I said. I responded and you attack with examples of limited knowledge of bureaucratic processes. See above.Quote4) Storage problems ($$)
No such thing as a free lunch! Cost of doing business.
Once again. Ignorance of reality keeps you running. See above. That is it! Have a nice life...
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 21, 2008, 05:32 PMQuote1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
Not a reason. Policies can be changed.
Quote2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
Or run the risk of having the "shenanigans" that go on during examinations made public. Examiners would be forced to clean up their act.
Quote3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
Why? Is the test is incapable of scientifically detecting deception if the questions are known beforehand? Besides, questions are already pretty much known. Example, with preemployment at the intel agencies (foreign contact question, disclosure of classified info...etc.)
Quote4) Storage problems ($$)
No such thing as a free lunch! Cost of doing business.
TC
Posted by sackett
- May 21, 2008, 02:20 PMQuote from: 5970617D70150 on Apr 23, 2008, 04:35 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 23, 2008, 12:10 PMQuote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Okay. That's fair.
But give us just one or two valid reasons for not recording exams. That's fair, isn't it? You claim that at least one such reason exists; it does not seem too much to require some evidence of that claim.
Lethe,
1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
4) Storage problems ($$)
There is four off the top of my head.
Sackett
Posted by cat
- May 20, 2008, 03:56 PMIn reply to the question about recording tests. In my personal opinion, I believe they should be recorded. Everyone knows I think polygraghs are communist, so use a communist tactic against it.
Think about it, they're putting you in a room, you and the tester only. If the tester is bias or for whatever reason, i.e., doesn't like the way you are dressed, your skin color, the way you speak, etc. you get my drift. Polygraghers are just as human as the rest of us. So, I think if they are going to give these examines, there should be some kind of third party present. You must have a third person present during medical exams and numerous other things.
I believe if the examiner knows they are being "watched", he will keep his bais in check. And the examinee will feel more at ease and not so isolated and nervous.
Just a thought
Think about it, they're putting you in a room, you and the tester only. If the tester is bias or for whatever reason, i.e., doesn't like the way you are dressed, your skin color, the way you speak, etc. you get my drift. Polygraghers are just as human as the rest of us. So, I think if they are going to give these examines, there should be some kind of third party present. You must have a third person present during medical exams and numerous other things.
I believe if the examiner knows they are being "watched", he will keep his bais in check. And the examinee will feel more at ease and not so isolated and nervous.
Just a thought
Posted by Lethe
- Apr 23, 2008, 04:35 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 23, 2008, 12:10 PMQuote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Okay. That's fair.
But give us just one or two valid reasons for not recording exams. That's fair, isn't it? You claim that at least one such reason exists; it does not seem too much to require some evidence of that claim.
Posted by sackett
- Apr 23, 2008, 12:10 PMQuote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Posted by Lethe
- Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
Posted by sackett
- Apr 22, 2008, 01:00 PMlethe,
there are thousands of government agencies at various and different levels (i.e. local, county, state and federal) using polygraph. You demand an answer to your question, then why don't you ask each and every one of them the question. This, rather than waiting for someone here to answer for them all, then accusing examiners of not answering your question.
IOW, only representitives from that particular agency can answer your question, so stop asking it in such a broad manner, then throwing a temper tantrum when your question is not answered...
Sackett
there are thousands of government agencies at various and different levels (i.e. local, county, state and federal) using polygraph. You demand an answer to your question, then why don't you ask each and every one of them the question. This, rather than waiting for someone here to answer for them all, then accusing examiners of not answering your question.
IOW, only representitives from that particular agency can answer your question, so stop asking it in such a broad manner, then throwing a temper tantrum when your question is not answered...
Sackett
Posted by Lethe
- Apr 21, 2008, 05:54 PMQuote from: 5B72637F72170 on Apr 09, 2008, 12:20 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 08, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: 41687965680D0 on Apr 05, 2008, 09:39 PMIf recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it? Just curious.
Many do! What government agencies are you talking about?
Sackett
The APA recommends that all polygraph exams be audio recorded. Many polygraphers use that fact to argue that the organization supports very rigorous standards and claim the same for themselves when they record their own exams. Well, if it is good to record exams, it follows that it is not good to not record exams. It's hard to argue against recording exams since without such a record it's hard to figure out when the polygrapher wasn't following proper procedures or was conducting an exam that was shoddy by even official standards.
As for which government agencies don't record exams, the one HQed at the Hoover Building, for one. I also am given to understand that several others also don't record their exams. Why not?
To possibly save some time let me point out the following. If someone asks "Why did party A do action X?" you usually can't answer that with "Well, Party B did action Z!" Or with "I like pretzels", for that matter. (Note: This isn't a criticism of Sackett's last post; it's to head off what appears to be a common discussion technique often employed by polygraphers who are--for our own good, I'm sure--trying to manipulate others. Another technique is to try and make this discussion about me and to parse my own statements instead of simply answering the question: Why do many gov't agencies not record their poly sessions when no less a body than the august APA says they should?)
Is anyone going to answer my question? If recording exams is so awesome, and advocated by the American Polygraph Association, why don't all government agencies do so? Maybe I should add this to my list of "unanswerable questions"?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 11, 2008, 02:04 AMQuoteIt seems to me you are someone who really didn't want the job they were willing to discuss.
I got the call from the FBI a year after I received my rejection letter, so it wasn't "the job" they wanted to discuss. They said they wanted to discuss "issues of national security", and "some things that came out during the poly".
QuoteYou stated, "Polygraphers lie all the time. Did your polygrapher lie at all?"
All 4 polygraphers I dealt with lied. Even the one who tested me when I passed the poly the first time I applied at NSA.
Many have reported being lied to during the polygraph process.
You are a polygrapher, so there it is highly probable you lie when conducting your polygraphs.
If it makes you feel better, I don't think polygraphers are any more deceptive than used car salespersons.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 11, 2008, 01:13 AMTarlain,
Sackett is correct about state laws varying on the consent requirement for the taping of conversations. See the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article "Can We Tape? A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C."
Sackett is correct about state laws varying on the consent requirement for the taping of conversations. See the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article "Can We Tape? A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C."
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 11, 2008, 12:40 AMT.M. Cullen,
The interrogator that did my polygraph had without question read all of my background information, reference letters, etc. He almost immediately bombarded me with the supposed accuracy of the polygraph equipment. I'm sure I appeared unconvinced. He tried to tell me about how the Mayos Clinic has studies proving blah blah blah...I informed him it was Mayo...not Mayos. I also encouraged him to show me the "definitive" study...I was never shown one. He moved on to outstanding debt I "may" have. I have no debt...no credit cards, no loans...i own my car and rent my house. After a while I got mad and told him to just run the damn credit report...I refuse to argue about something he could figure out on his own...and he responded..."have you ever felt attracted to animals?" The whole thing was incredibly ignorant. All this occurs with the "examiner" leaving, returning, leaving, returning. One time, he ripped my book out of my hand because I was COMMANDED to stop reading the book when he left the room...he'd put it in the corner...I'd get up (how dare me)...and go get it when he left. blah blah...it went on for many hours...and then the conclusion was I seemed ok and I never heard from them again. I just received a letter for the next stage of the application process. If the damn thing worked it wouldn't take over 3 hours of interrogation before the 10 minute game on the laptop. You would also think the machine would catch the fact that I admitted to a small theft as a child...which never occurred. At the time, it just seemed like I better throw something out there before I had to go down a new road of poly-wrath. Anyhow, I have no interest in arguing with the pro-poly group here. I'm sure it is scary to have people attack your livelihood. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. Mind reading...with a laptop
sackett,
you must be right...i am all about fantasy. i have completely no idea what you do or who you are...but apparently you know me. if i post the mp3 of my poly, it would take about 2 seconds to figure out who I am and what agency hired me. you don't really expect me to do that? The examiner felt the need to use my name (usually first name) far far more times than I care to count....and when he used my last name...he would purposely mis-pronounce it. It is simple and phonetic...you have to "try" to screw it up. Keep in mind...I interrogate people everyday. Every person I talk to lies to the police. I understand why these techniques work. I just don't agree with doing it to applicants as a way to discriminate against them without cause. I understand the value of having an honest and talented applicant pool to pick from. I also understand why and how the poly is successful...and it is without a doubt very good at convincing people to tell the truth. It just is not FAIR. I'm always told to just "do the right thing." But polygraphs are inherantly dishonest...and not the right thing. Not to mention, they brand good, honest people as liars because of various reasons totally unrelated to the truth. Either way, good luck to you. I sleep well at night with my "fantasy." It is sad to watch the pro-poly people attack every one around in a hope to defend the profession. I will only ask one thing of you...please do something constructive for us...and post the states that make it criminal for a person to record their own conversation. There is not a state anywhere around me that has a law that you stated. Instead of trying to scare people (I realize this is a hard habit to break), why don't you just inform them. Until then, I will do as I please and encourage people to live as if they still have the right to record their own conversations without obtaining permission from the state government (I know it isn't a federal code...and I'm sure it is unconstitutional if it is a state code).
"Brazenly,"
Tarlain
The interrogator that did my polygraph had without question read all of my background information, reference letters, etc. He almost immediately bombarded me with the supposed accuracy of the polygraph equipment. I'm sure I appeared unconvinced. He tried to tell me about how the Mayos Clinic has studies proving blah blah blah...I informed him it was Mayo...not Mayos. I also encouraged him to show me the "definitive" study...I was never shown one. He moved on to outstanding debt I "may" have. I have no debt...no credit cards, no loans...i own my car and rent my house. After a while I got mad and told him to just run the damn credit report...I refuse to argue about something he could figure out on his own...and he responded..."have you ever felt attracted to animals?" The whole thing was incredibly ignorant. All this occurs with the "examiner" leaving, returning, leaving, returning. One time, he ripped my book out of my hand because I was COMMANDED to stop reading the book when he left the room...he'd put it in the corner...I'd get up (how dare me)...and go get it when he left. blah blah...it went on for many hours...and then the conclusion was I seemed ok and I never heard from them again. I just received a letter for the next stage of the application process. If the damn thing worked it wouldn't take over 3 hours of interrogation before the 10 minute game on the laptop. You would also think the machine would catch the fact that I admitted to a small theft as a child...which never occurred. At the time, it just seemed like I better throw something out there before I had to go down a new road of poly-wrath. Anyhow, I have no interest in arguing with the pro-poly group here. I'm sure it is scary to have people attack your livelihood. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. Mind reading...with a laptop
sackett,
you must be right...i am all about fantasy. i have completely no idea what you do or who you are...but apparently you know me. if i post the mp3 of my poly, it would take about 2 seconds to figure out who I am and what agency hired me. you don't really expect me to do that? The examiner felt the need to use my name (usually first name) far far more times than I care to count....and when he used my last name...he would purposely mis-pronounce it. It is simple and phonetic...you have to "try" to screw it up. Keep in mind...I interrogate people everyday. Every person I talk to lies to the police. I understand why these techniques work. I just don't agree with doing it to applicants as a way to discriminate against them without cause. I understand the value of having an honest and talented applicant pool to pick from. I also understand why and how the poly is successful...and it is without a doubt very good at convincing people to tell the truth. It just is not FAIR. I'm always told to just "do the right thing." But polygraphs are inherantly dishonest...and not the right thing. Not to mention, they brand good, honest people as liars because of various reasons totally unrelated to the truth. Either way, good luck to you. I sleep well at night with my "fantasy." It is sad to watch the pro-poly people attack every one around in a hope to defend the profession. I will only ask one thing of you...please do something constructive for us...and post the states that make it criminal for a person to record their own conversation. There is not a state anywhere around me that has a law that you stated. Instead of trying to scare people (I realize this is a hard habit to break), why don't you just inform them. Until then, I will do as I please and encourage people to live as if they still have the right to record their own conversations without obtaining permission from the state government (I know it isn't a federal code...and I'm sure it is unconstitutional if it is a state code).
"Brazenly,"
Tarlain