- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Lethe
- Jul 24, 2008, 04:11 PMYes, common sense should tell you that you cannot be a police officer if you have sexually assaulted a 9 year old girl. However that same common sense will tell you that having a speeding ticket is no bar to law a successful career in law enforcement, nor is having told a lie to a friend at some point in your life.
The polygraph doesn't generally select against people lacking common sense, though it did so in this case, is usually selects for people without common sense--they're easier to control. Let's just hope that they're being controlled by the right people.
Also, there is no evidence that a polygraphed police department is better in any way whatsoever than a non polygraphed police department. However, a polygraphed police department enlarges and enriches the polygraph community, and that's all they really care about (though they program themselves to believe, without evidence, that they're doing good; it helps them to sleep at night and justify all the money they're raking in).
The polygraph doesn't generally select against people lacking common sense, though it did so in this case, is usually selects for people without common sense--they're easier to control. Let's just hope that they're being controlled by the right people.
Also, there is no evidence that a polygraphed police department is better in any way whatsoever than a non polygraphed police department. However, a polygraphed police department enlarges and enriches the polygraph community, and that's all they really care about (though they program themselves to believe, without evidence, that they're doing good; it helps them to sleep at night and justify all the money they're raking in).
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 24, 2008, 01:54 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 24, 2008, 01:34 AMWhat a dumbass!
But at least he was honest! ;-)
One of the unintended consequences of reliance on the make-believe science of lie detection for applicant screening is that those who are willing to tell the truth even when it's not in their personal interest are the most likely to be screened out, while those dishonest persons who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut are more likely to pass through. The end result may be a less honest workforce than might have been hired without the use of the lie detector.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 24, 2008, 01:34 AMQuoteVan Allen was taking a polygraph examination for the job on March 6, 2007, when he confessed that he molested a 9-year-old child on two occasions in her home in 2000. Van Allen told police he reported the incidents because he thought he had to be truthful to pass the polygraph test or he might not get the job.
What a dumbass!
TC
Posted by Lethe
- Jul 23, 2008, 04:25 PMI note with interest that in the trailer for the upcoming Keanu Reeves remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still Reeves character, an alien visitor to Earth, is made to take a polygraph exam. He is asked "control questions" like "Are the lights on in this room?" It's crap like that that helps perpetuate the myth of polygraph invincibility.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 23, 2008, 02:53 PMThe strongest argument that can be made in favor of polygraph screening is that it has the potential to elicit admissions from naïve and gullible examinees. Although knowledge of the truth about lie detectors (which have no scientific basis and are inherently biased against the truthful, yet easily fooled using simple countermeasures) is growing, large segments of the population remain convinced that the polygraph can actually detect deception. An article in today's Torrington, Connecticut Register Citizen illustrates the point:
Quotehttp://www.registercitizen.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19866111
07/23/2008
Wannabe cop lands in jail
By TRACY KENNEDY
LITCHFIELD - Winsted resident John Wesley Van Allen's efforts to gain a job as a state trooper led to a four-year jail sentence in the sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl.
Van Allen was ordered to serve four and a half years behind bars for the crimes of risk of injury to a minor and fourth-degree sexual assault Tuesday in Litchfield Superior Court. During his probation, he must undergo sex offender treatment. For 10 years, Van Allen must register as a sex offender.
Van Allen was taking a polygraph examination for the job on March 6, 2007, when he confessed that he molested a 9-year-old child on two occasions in her home in 2000. Van Allen told police he reported the incidents because he thought he had to be truthful to pass the polygraph test or he might not get the job.
Judge Michael Sheldon said he found it bizarre that after Van Allen's "moment of catharsis" he still thought he could get the job.
The victim had no recollection of being sexually assaulted because she was reportedly asleep, Assistant State's Attorney Terri Sonnemann said.
But during interviews with authorities, there were reports of subsequent activity until she was 11-years-old, Sonnemann said.
Van Allen was working as a U.S. Marine Corps recruiter at the time of the alleged incidents. Van Allen admitted he touched the child because he was curious, according to an arrest warrant.
"I did this to myself," VanAllen said.
In jail for more than a year since his April 2007 arrest, Van Allen said the criminal case made him a stronger person.
"I realize I am not part of that society and I do not want to be a part of that society," he said.
Tracy Kennedy can be reached by e-mail at courts@registercitizen.com