George,
I would be interested to know what some of the big city police departments and Fed Agencies are spending for their polygraph programs.
In this economy everybody is looking to cut programs. Education, city services,...all get cut, eventhough society knows that they have real value.
I think that a chart of govt waste on the poly would be an interesting graphic to send out to city budget cutters and other government waste organizations. I know it always tickles citizens to see how private business and government stupidity screw them out of their hard earned dollars.
I wonder what the city of philadelpia is saving since they abandoned their pre-screening polygraph testing?
I also wonder why the pro-polygraph crowd never talks about Philadelphia dropping the pre-employment poly? I guess their reply will be that the foresic scientists in Philadelphia are all wrong- just like you, Dr. Drew and the National Academy of Sciences.
You could make the chart with different categories such as cost per test, cost of equipment, cost per polygrapher-in relation to the real officers salary...
What do you think?
I have very little data regarding the costs of municipal and federal polygraph programs. I do know that in 2001, the LAPD awarded a $615,000 non-competive contract to U.S. Investigation Services, Inc. (http://www.usis.com/) to conduct pre-employment polygraph examinations at a cost of $395 per examination.
However, it's important to note that polygraph screening is generally seen as a cost-cutting measure. It's much cheaper to conduct a polygraph examination than a background investigation, and when a seemingly qualified applicant makes disqualifying admissions during a polygraph screening session, it saves the agency the cost of a background investigation.
I don't have the data to make the chart that you suggest, but I think the main costs of polygraph screening are not quantifiable in dollars. The main costs are the injustice done to those who are falsely branded as liars and the opportunity cost to the relevant agency of losing qualified applicants for no good reason. Another hazard of reliance on polygraph screening is that liars who beat the polygraph may receive less scrutiny during any background investigation because they bear the polygraph seal-of-approval.
George,
Thanks for the reply. If I were in charge, I would rather get responses from many different sources (background investigation) to help me make my determination rather than from the one source (polygraph) that has been proven faulty.
To me, the polygraph sticks out like a witness that has a history of un-realiability.
That money could be used to actually have people sift through the applicant pool and pick and choose based on useful criteria.
Thats interesting that LAPD awarded a non-competative contract to USIS. Tote the polygraph line and when your retire you can come and consult with us. I wonder who is really making policy at LAPD?
As far as cost goes I had one polygraph examiner tell me that the company he works for charges $350 per hour of polygraph testing for the private sector. I have no idea what they charge when they do pre-employment for law enforcement.
I hope this gives you and idea of what these parasites suck from the unsuspecting public.
Billybob
I have to agree with the views here, I have had 3 polygraph ...ahem..."Tests" at a cost to the taxpayers that is unknown to me. I am sure though, they aren't inexpensive. When it is all said and done, what good were they? I have beaten 3 pre-employment polys rather easily and have never even been asked about anything bothering me (see my earlier posts). Granted, I only lied about marijuana use many years ago, but it just goes to point out that THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE.
Interestingly, my polys always took place after the initial part of the background investigation, which mine is pretty much spotless (Except for a few traffic cites). It makes me wonder though, what if, in my past, I had a minor run-in or two with police, would my polys have gone differently? Perhaps agencies should consider relying more on sound investigative techniques, psychologolical exams, references, PAST WORK/SCHOOL history, etc. Wouldn't this make more sense?
"KILL" the poly and save everyone time, frustration, AND MONEY. Not to mention bringing a stop to the false sense of security the poly community has duped the public into.
Take care
PK
Keep in mind that this form of testing also requires equipment. With equipment, there must be maintenance issues, upkeep, and validation studies in order to maintain ASCLD standards. Of course, this is presuming that polygraph testing is required to meet ASCLD standards.
I think if law enforcement wishes to continue using polygraphs in the pre-employment phase of testing, they should use the polygraph as away to direct and focus the background investigation oppose to the end all be all for your employment process.
But either way the polygraph is nothing more than a load of B.S.
Billybob
Actually, more agencies are using polygraphs as pre-employment screening tools.
Can you imagine the # of crooks that would lie their way into police jobs if there were no polygraph or CVSA tests?
Just b/c you never got caught doing something doesn't mean you have never done anything.
The cost to the community by matching hiring practices with McDonalds would be far more expensive in the long run than paying for a poly test at taxpayer expense.
The polygraph has not stopped polygraphers (liars) from getting into LE!
The whole polygraph industry is based on deceptive practices. You sell your device as a machine that can distiguish truth from lies, when you know it can't. It has failed scientific testing, but you still want us to believe its works. Why? -$$$$$ You don't see lying to the American public as a crime, as long as you get paid.
Your are the 'crooks' that need to be removed from LE. What you do is a fraud and taxpayers have to pay the cost.
Is the National Academy of Sciences wrong?
Is Dr. Drew Richardson of the FBI crime Lab wrong?
Is Doug Williams (former Police Polygrapher) wrong too?
You've lied your way into a postion that has been exposed and discredited as a fraud and you want us to believe you? I think not.
This is the cost; The community cannot trust law enforcement to tell them the truth. If we cant trust the police on the polygraph issue where does it stop?
no_sugar,
Let's see here; Chicago PD Chief of Detectives gets busted for running the biggest jewel theft ring in Chicago history, Tallahassee Florida SWAT Commander gets busted for video voyeurism in Wal-Mart, Denver PD officers busted for running theft ring by stealing and selling confiscated evidence including cars.....shall I continue? Crooks in law enforcement? Sorry dude, they're already there.
And will you tell us what you did that you haven't been caught for, since we've all done such things?
no_sugar_coating,
You wrote:
QuoteJust b/c you never got caught doing something doesn't mean you have never done anything.
Your above quote also applies to you as well...
triple x
no_sugar_coating,
My response to your ridiculous reasoning is this; How many honest individuals are being kept out of law enforcement and falsely branded as liars? What is the cost to the public then? In my time as a LEO, I have personally known of several individuals who had this happen to them...and these are people that would most likely have made fine officers. The true cost to the public, because of that contraption (and those who operate them), will probably never be known.
The polygraph is not the way to keep out those who do not belong, good background and reference checks, psychological testing, work history, etc. You know, REAL police work, unlike what polygraphers do.
I do have one sure-fire way to rid the law enforcement community of a large number of it's dishonest, deviant types...GET RID OF THE POLYGRAPH!!!(Which says "bye bye" to the examiners) ;D
PK
The pre-screening polygraph is being pushed upon many Federal Law Enforcement organizations by Congress "trying to get tough" on security. Congress as usual believes that "appearing to do something" is more important than "doing it right."
My current agency does not use the polygraph for employment purposes. We have our fair share of officers who go bad but I do not think that the polygraph would have predicted or found out anything in their past which would have stopped their illegal activities.
As far as the government is concerned, the polygraph pre-screening saves them money in background checks compared to full fledged investigations. There are a surplus of applicants and this is an easy prop to use in disqualifying any body who does not meet the "good-ole-boy" test.
I just get very upset by the fact that they ruin people's lives (by taking away possible career choices) by pretending that this test is so reliable and place it in your permanent security file that your are a security risk. The test itself is subject to operator prejudice and is rarely videotaped. There is no computerized tracking of the strips and an operator can edit which tapes he wants to submit according to his/her personal preference.
Regards.
First of all, for all you paranoid polygraph haters out there, I AM NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER!!!
I AM A CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAD TO ENDURE A THREE HOUR POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IN ORDER TO BE EVEN CONSIDERED FOR A POSITION AND I HATED EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!!!!!!!!
But since I had nothing to hide and told the truth, my results were favorable and showed no deception. I must have been asked several hundered questions, not once, but TWICE!!!!!!!
Looking back, I understand the neccessity of asking all those questions in order to get an understanding of what my character consisted of. It is my "personal" opinion that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.
So for all you who don't like the polygraph, too bad. You have your right to think it is a "voodoo science". The rest of us have a right to think it is a good tool. I don't think it is foolproof, but neither is any other part of the background investigation for police officer.
So open your eyes and look at the whole picture.
no sugar coating,
You write:
QuoteThe cost to the community by matching hiring practices with McDonalds would be far more expensive in the long run than paying for a poly test at taxpayer expense.
You provide a false dilemma (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm) here. The choice that law enforcement agencies face in setting hiring policies
is not one of either relying on polygraphs (or CVSA) or matching McDonalds' hiring practices. The choice for such agencies is whether to rely on methodologies that are known to be completely invalid, cause injustice to individuals, and are readily susceptible to countermeasures, or to abandon them.
QuoteBut since I had nothing to hide and told the truth, my results were favorable and showed no deception.
Whether one passes or fails a polygraph "test" has no clear relationship with whether one has anything to hide or has told the truth. As explained in Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever. That you passed your pre-employment polygraph examination is more attributable to good luck than to your honesty.
QuoteSo for all you who don't like the polygraph, too bad. You have your right to think it is a "voodoo science".
That polygraphy is voodoo science is, in fact, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
QuoteThe rest of us have a right to think it is a good tool.
You also have the right to believe in other popular delusions such as astrology (http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html), tarot cards (http://www.skepdic.com/tarot.html), and psychic detectives (http://www.skepdic.com/psychdet.html). But your belief, however sincere, does not make such things "good tools."
QuoteI don't think it is foolproof, but neither is any other part of the background investigation for police officer.
That no part of police officer background investigations is foolproof does not in any way confer any validity to polygraphy, or justify reliance on such nonsense. The argument against polygraph screening is not merely that it is "not foolproof," but that
it has no validity whatsoever.
No_sugar_coating,
Our eyes are wide open!
You have failed to respond to the most direct questions that I have asked of you-
Do you think that, as a 'Certified police officer', you know more than The National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew Richardson of the FBI crime lab, Doug Williams, and the rest of the police community who discount the polygraph?
The 'past behavior' of the polygraph is poor! It is a confession machine and nothing else. You probably had a probable-lie control question test- which means you had to lie to pass- So don't fit your halo just yet.
I had a background investigation that took 1 year. It consisted of more than just a typical PD letter sending campaign. Each person that I listed in my personal history was contacted. Each individual then had to name three other people that knew me. These three new people then had to do the same.
Each of these individuals then had to answer questions about my behavior, spending habits, drinking, relationships....my past. They also had to trace my location and occupation on a time line.
My step brother, whom I have never met, who lives abroad, got asked just like eveyone else -his wife too.
My friends and co-workers from prior LE jobs were also asked the same questions, each of them had to name three other people who knew me.... it goes on and on a mushrooms into a large number of people.
Each of these people had to give official statements regarding me. They could not just fill in a box that says recommend/not recommed.
Then when I finally met my BI, I was questioned for about six hours about dates, contacts, finances, relationships, friends, co-workers, etc... My BI went over and over everything from ten different angles and attitudes.
I won't go on any further about the BI other than to say a real one takes more than just three hours. After all this happened, it was written up and had to then pass two more investigators for completion. I passed with flying colors.
So your saying that a polygraph exam (that has been discredited by the Supreme Court, National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Drew of the FBI crime lab...) is more trustworthy than the sworn testimony of around one hundred individuals, including officers and agents from several different agencies, a federal prosecutor, a judge, college professors, and regular citizens?
That just doesn't make sense!
A real background investigation is composed of multiple sources to form an opinion. The polygraph takes one source to come to a conclusion. That source (the polygraph) has been scientifically shot down as completely invalid and innaccurate.
As a police officer you should know that a source that has little reliability should not be used. How often do you hear polygraph testimony when you are in court? I thought so.
You can try to scare other people on this site, but I won't be one of them.
Its not accurate, so its financial cost is just waste! The LE profession cannot afford to waste money or the trust of the citizens it has sworn to protect. There can be no peace without justice!!
I'm sorry... I forgot to mention...
You can post on this message board until you are all blue in the face but it won't change the fact that most police and law enforcement agencies use and will continue to use the polygraph as a condition of employment.
Simple as THAT.
no_sugar,
You just keep right on towing the department line like a good little sheep. Meanwhile, we'll continue our efforts to end polygraph usage. I do trust that you can remember how to say "Would you like fries with that?", so you can find another job you are qualified for once we succeed.
No_sugar_coating
Who gave you your certification? Was is the Pet Psychic? Miss Cleo? Was it the creepy guy from Crossing Over?
You still have not answered my questions. I wonder why not?
LOL!!!
I got my badge...
Where's yours???
LOL!!!
Quote from: no_sugar_coating on May 15, 2003, 10:14 PMLOL!!!
I got my badge...
Where's yours???
LOL!!!
Are there any polite pro-polygraph people that post on this board?
What does LOL!!! mean?
no_sugar,
You are starting to remind me of those cops I see all the time that I went to school with. You know, the sniveling little geeks that got picked on all the time? Now they have a badge, and a gun, and a really neat car with lights and everything! And they get to act big and bad now. I say this because no cop who was truly interested in justice would rationalize that the polygraph is a valid scientific machine for any purpose.
And suethem, I think what he means by LOL is "Lame Officer's League"
Wow! Did this thread ever sink to some name calling lows.
Given all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career? Keep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer. Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant? There has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires. Granted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business. Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.
Many may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...
However, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water. The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.
But, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it. Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.
Batman
Suethem,
You ask:
QuoteWhat does LOL!!! mean?
LOL or, lol is internet chat "slang" {abbreviated} for laughing out loud.
triple x
Batman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.
And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.
So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.
no_sugar_coating,
You wrote:
QuoteBatman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.
And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.
So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.
Many readers of this board believe that polygraph testing is simply flawed and unreliable.
Instead of directing unwarranted and unprovoked personal insults to anyone and everyone that dares to question or challenge polygraph testing in general, why don't you instead try to explain or debate your position as a polygraph supporter.
I have a simple and easy question for you: if polygraph testing is fair, reliable, trustworthy, and has nothing to hide, then why not provide all pre-employment polygraph test subjects with a copy of audio/video tapes, to include all questions, notes and charts following their polygraph exam?
Why the big shroud of secrecy if there is nothing to fear or hide... ??
triple x
I will give you that. They should allow you to see what your charts and scores look like.
See... I am not above admitting that.
Quote from: Batman on May 17, 2003, 07:25 PMGiven all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career?
As an invalid diagnostic technique, polygraph screening should simply be removed from the hiring process. It doesn't need to be replaced with anything.
QuoteKeep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer. Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant?
You present a false dilemma. The choice to law enforcement agencies is not one of either doing a complete background investigation on each and every applicant or relying on pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings.
The law enforcement hiring process involves a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations.
QuoteThere has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires.
What makes someone an "obvious non-hire?"
QuoteGranted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business. Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.
The injustice to individuals associated with reliance on the invalid diagnostic technique that is polygraph screening is completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable. The Philadelphia Police Department came to this realization last year when it abolished polygraph screening (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=588.msg3053#msg3053).
QuoteMany may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...
Unfair labor practices such as polygraph screening may be ended either through legislation (e.g., the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, from which the government regrettably exempted itself) or by administrative action, such as that taken by the Philadelphia Police Department last year. An invalid technique such as polygraph screening doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Its elimination is "something better."
QuoteHowever, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water. The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.
I agree with you that the dollar expense to taxpayers is not a strong argument against polygraph screening.
QuoteBut, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it. Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.
Again, junk science like polygraphy doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Just as law enforcement applicants are not assessed on the basis such nonsense as palm readings, tea leaf readings, or cranial inspection by a "trained and experienced" phrenologist, they should not be subjected to the quackery of polygraph chart readings.
George,
Regardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.
The city of Philadelphia may have eliminated the use of polygraph as a screening tool for it's law enforcement applicants, however there are many other departments that continue to utilize it, and it is probably a rather safe bet that Philly will use it again in the future.
You asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be? Do I really need to answer that? Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.
How do you suggest law enforcement agencies weed through the hundreds and thousands of applicants? You mention things such as,
"…a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations."
I would venture to say that a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests is in fact administered, however later in the hiring process. As with any job, there must be some way of eliminating the applicants who do not obviously qualify.
As for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity. Just how difficult would it be for any agency to now say they are “raising the bar”? What would be their justification for doing so? What parts of the standards get raised? Are you talking about the ethical standards, the mental standards, the educational standards, or the physical standards?
George, I’m afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society. Very commendable, but not realistic? As I have said many times on this site, polygraph is a far from perfect tool, but when it is utilized properly, and given only the weight or consideration that is appropriate, it can be a very useful tool. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because the water is a bit dirty. No one, in a decision making position, will go along with this. Which brings us back to Philly, a great city, as long as one does not have to live there. I predict that within five years they will re-institute the policy of using polygraph when screening law enforcement applicants. This will come about once they realize how many “bad apples” have gotten through the process. No doubt the utilization of polygraph would not have, and will not, eliminate the fact that some of those same bad apples would get through the system, but it certainly would have identified many of them.
I wish you luck with your crusade, however until you can develop something a bit more concrete to offer as an alternative, I’m afraid you will not succeed.
Batman
QuoteRegardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.
As more and more people discover that polygraph "testing" is a fraud, support for it will inevitably wane.
QuoteYou asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be? Do I really need to answer that? Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.
I'm curious as to what you mean by an obvious non-hire. I don't think the definition is self-evident. I would suppose the obvious non-hires would be those who don't pass the written, verbal, or physical tests that applicants must pass.
Or are obvious non-hires those whose skin is the wrong color, or who are of the wrong sex, or who in some other way "don't fit the mold?"
Who are these "obvious non-hires," and why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" them?
QuoteAs for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity.
The standards for hiring will necessarily depend on the available applicant pool and the staffing requirements of the agency involved. As an example, LAPD is currently eliminating about half of otherwise qualified applicants based on the polygraph. Rather than arbitrarily reducing the applicant pool through the use of an invalid procedure like polygraph chart readings, LAPD could instead require higher scores in its written, verbal, and physical tests. The end result would be the hiring of more qualified applicants.
QuoteGeorge, I'm afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society. Very commendable, but not realistic?
To seek the elimination of an unfair labor practice such as polygraph screening is hardly an "Utopian" goal. The 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act did much toward that end. There is no good reason why the same law should not also apply to government, and the Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act (http://antipolygraph.org/ceppa.shtml) we've proposed would effectively accomplish that goal. Law enforcement agencies in other industrialized nations seem to get along just fine without resorting to the quackery of polygraph screening; there is no a priori reason why we in the U.S. must be subjected to such nonsense.
Batman,
In the message thread Audio/Video Taping of Polygraph Examinations (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1077.msg8059#msg8059) you wrote:
QuoteOh, I almost forgot, on another thread, an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement would be someone who has engaged in serious felony type activity, known or unknown to the agency to which he/she is applying. Nice try on playing the race/sex card, kind of low, but expected.
Thank you for this clarification. But the question remains, why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
George,
You asked,
"...why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
Because people lie George. Because people do stupid things then decide to compound that supidity by lieing. I guess that's the long and short of it.
As for "arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading", well, a very clever choice of words.
You'll have to excuse me, I believe I have a customer ringing the bell, asking for another palm reading. Maybe this time I'll break out the tea leaves, what do you think? I'd use my 8-Ball, but it hasn't been too reliable lately.
Batman
That's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.
End of story.
no_sugar_coating,
Becuase polygraph screening has no diagnostic validity, it has no bearing on the four points you raise in your last post and is most certainly not a solution for the problem you indicate that is of concern to you.
End of story.
no_sugar_coating
You remind me of "Farva" from the movie,"Super Troopers."
Oh, and by the way, the ice cream scooper girl at the mall is not impressed by your oversized fannypack, high speed!!!
Atleast the other pro-poly guys admit that its just a confession machine. I get the feeling that you think it really works and that scares me.
Quote from: no_sugar_coating on May 19, 2003, 10:58 PMThat's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.
End of story.
No_Sugar,
Do you REALLY think it is as "black and white" as that?
Let me ask you this, after reading about my experiences with the poly and knowing where I stand now in terms of my LE service, would you want me to back you up, save your life etc?
I do understand, and agree with, your views on those who have engaged in a pattern of felonious activity. They DONT belong in LE and never will. However, putting such a large amount of blind faith into a machine that is in itself based on deception, doesn't seem to make sense.
Let's say a thorough background investigation turned up nothing suspicious on an applicant. Let's say that applicant did well in all phases of testing, including psych, physical agility, etc. Does it make sense that after an agency spent a vast amount of resources on a background check, an applicant fails and is rejected because he/she produced a physiological reaction to a particular question? Which could have been brought on by embarrassment, rage, humiliation, etc.? Keep in mind, ALL these reactions look identical to responses deemed as "deceptive" by polygraph examiners.
I am curious to hear your response.
Best,
PK
no_sugar,
You forgot a couple. I added them in for you.
That's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
5. And they manage to become cops anyway.
6. They then continue their serious felony activity.