In an article entitled "Blagg interrogation at issue, " written by Denver Post reporter Nancy Lofholm, published on 5/14/03 and reported on the Antipolygraph.org home page, the issue of audio/videotaping of polygraph examinations is raised yet again. The analysis of the subject is very straightforward and the conclusion drawn is equally clear. There is no legitimate technological or administrative reason for not routinely audio/videotaping examinations to protect examinee, examiner, and agencies alike. Any bureaucratic intransigence on the part of any agency in so doing should not be tolerated. Only through a very clear message sent by this court and other courts confronting the same and similar issues will the badly needed change take place and reasonable practice be the norm.
Drew,
Something that has always puzzled me about this issue is this. The APA Bylaws require that polygraphs be audio and/or videotaped under this rule:
3.9.8 An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws.
Granted, these rules are not binding on any government agency. But it would seem that failure to record the sessions would be grounds for suspension or expulsion from the APA. And here in Florida, due to the lack of a state licensing procedure, membership in the APA is virtually a must to be able to perform polygraphs. So aren't most of these guys risking their jobs by not recording?
Just wondered what your take was on this.
orolan,
Neither being an APA member nor being a government polygrapher, I must admit I have no idea why the latter group would ignore the recommendations of the former body (referring, of course, to those who come from the ranks of government polygraphers and also hold membership in this body). As I recall there is a section within the APA focused on the use of polygraphy within government agencies. Unless the APA considers its recommendations to be meaningless and taken lightly by its members, it is unclear why members would be allowed to maintain membership while in conflict with recommended policy and procedure. Perhaps one of the polygraphers who frequent this site and message board can explain the apparent conflict that you raise. Of course, more fundamentally, the reason to implement audio/video taping of any and all polygraph exams is completely independent of APA recommendation, but rather dictated by logic, sound practice, and fairness.
Dear Drew,
My second polygraph experience would have made the most ardent polygraph proponent wince. Considering it was done by a "FBI Pro", there was no excuse for such poor performance. A videotape would have made the top ten of America's most pitiful videos to watch. I assure you that it would have even been painful for Congress to sit through.
Regards.
Drew,
I have contacted the APA's VP for Government and asked for any information or opinions he may have on the issue. We'll see if I get a response. If I do, I'll post it.
orolan,
When you do, please give my regards to Mr. Dutton. He may be the only government polygrapher in existence to have ever measured systolic time intervals and impedance cardiographic measures while collecting data from a blind stim test (card test)....
Gents,
Just read what it says and you'll have your answer; it's not that hard to figure out.
"3.9.8. An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws."
Key phrase, "...in conformance with governing state and federal laws." Common guys, like I said, it isn't that hard to figure out. If the governing state of federal laws require an exam to be audio/video recorded then it must be audio or video recorded and maintained as evidence.
The by-laws, as quoted above by Orolan, do not require that all polygraph examinations be audio or video recorded, unless the governing state of federal laws require it. Given this, a member of APA would only be in violation if he/she were to not record an exam when it was in fact required to be recorded and maintained as evidence by the governing state or federal laws.
Grabbing at straws does nothing to strengthen your "anti-polygraph" positions.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on May 17, 2003, 06:58 PMGents,
Just read what it says and you'll have your answer; it's not that hard to figure out.
"3.9.8. An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws."
Key phrase, "...in conformance with governing state and federal laws." Common guys, like I said, it isn't that hard to figure out. If the governing state of federal laws require an exam to be audio/video recorded then it must be audio or video recorded and maintained as evidence.
The by-laws, as quoted above by Orolan, do not require that all polygraph examinations be audio or video recorded, unless the governing state of federal laws require it. Given this, a member of APA would only be in violation if he/she were to not record an exam when it was in fact required to be recorded and maintained as evidence by the governing state or federal laws.
Grabbing at straws does nothing to strengthen your "anti-polygraph" positions.
Batman
Is that your personal interpretation of the bylaw, Batman, or the position of the APA?
"3.9.8. An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws."
Never underestimate the power of Jujitsu.
When asked to undergo a polygraph a prospective subject might consider answering: "Yes, so long as it is conducted by a member in good standing and in accordance with the professional guidelines of the American Polygraph Association. When the usual disclaimers are produced for you to sign, whip out one of your own. Nothing like striving for professionalism.
-Marty
Drew, Orolan, Fair Chance, Batman, Beech Trees, Marty:
Simple question:
If polygraph testing is as reliable and fool-proof as many polygraphers on this board would like to have us believe, then why not video/audio record all polygraph exams regardless if pre-employment or other in nature; and provide a copy of the test results to include the polygraph examiners notes and chart interpretation to the test subject or job candidate for further review?
If all polygraph examiners possess the trained ability to equally read and interpret a set of polygraph charts, then why not make the results {audio and video} available?
It is strictly my opinion, I would not be such a skeptic of polygraph testing if the polygraph exam results were not held in such a shroud of secrecy, and the test subject denied access to the test results that commonly and unfairly deny innocent and honest job candidates employment.
My question is, why not make all pre-employment polygraph test results {audio and video} available? Is this an unreasonable and unrealistic request?
If the agencies conducting the polygraph exam have nothing to fear or hide, then why not make the polygraph results available to the test subject?
Its not as if Im asking for a copy of the secret US Government investigative Project Blue Book on UFOs.
triple x
Quote from: Batman on May 17, 2003, 06:58 PMGents,
Just read what it says and you'll have your answer; it's not that hard to figure out.
"3.9.8. An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws."
Key phrase, "...in conformance with governing state and federal laws." Common guys, like I said, it isn't that hard to figure out. If the governing state of federal laws require an exam to be audio/video recorded then it must be audio or video recorded and maintained as evidence.
The by-laws, as quoted above by Orolan, do not require that all polygraph examinations be audio or video recorded, unless the governing state of federal laws require it. Given this, a member of APA would only be in violation if he/she were to not record an exam when it was in fact required to be recorded and maintained as evidence by the governing state or federal laws.
Batman
You missed your calling Batman. That sounds like something a defense atty might conjure up. The clear language mandates that where the law sets conditions and procedures, those conditions shall be adhered to. In Calif., audio recording generally requires consent of all. Thus, typical polygraphs would require consent of both the polygrapher (implicit in the APA prof rules) and the examinee. If your interpretation were correct it would imply at a minimum that jurisdictions exist where law mandates such recording else the section is completely pointless. I am unaware of ANY such mandate.
-Marty
Gents,
I find this crusade to have all polygraph examinations audio/video recorded very interesting indeed.
Why not a requirement to have all surgeries recorded in the same way? Think about it? Hell, you're not even conscious during these procedures! A surgeon could be playing vollyball with your liver for all you know, or making crude jokes about your flabby middles as he has to cut his way through the fatty tissue. And what about those times when, oops, took off the wrong leg. Wouldn't it be nice to have the conversations during those particular SNAFU's on record?
How about recording simple medical check-ups. How many innocent women have been, and continue to be, victimized by doctors during simple annual procedures? Why no hue and cry to have these recorded?
Hell, why not record car salesmen? Just think about the number of people that are ripped off every year by this bunch?
Lets address the proposal by 3-X, that all polygraphs be recorded and a copy be given to the examinee. Try going to your doctor tomorrow and tell him you want your medical records. They are yours, they're a recording of your health issues. GOOD LUCK!!! So why the big push about polygraph exams. There a hell of a lot worse things out there, but maybe just not ones that are perceived to be "easy" targets.
Marty,
No lawyer double talk, just a simple interpretation of the obvious. The by-law is quite simple, it states what it states. You can read more into it if you wish, but the bottom line is, if there is a state or federal requirement to record a polygraph examination, then it must be done. If, under these circumstances, it is not recorded, then a member of the APA would be in violation.
Next time Beech trees has sex with his wife (assuming he is married) there should be a requirement that it be recorded. After all, fraud is a crime too.
Batman
Batman,
Whether surgeries, medical check-ups, or car sales should be routinely audio- or videotaped is largely irrelevant to the question of whether such should be the case with regard to polygraph examinations.
Dr. Richardson's point was that "[t]here is no legitimate technological or administrative reason for not routinely audio/videotaping examinations to protect examinee, examiner, and agencies alike."
Can you provide us with any rational argument as to why polygraph examinations should not be recorded or why any such recording should not be provided to the examinee?
I completely agree that all polygraphs should be both audio /video recorded.
During the course of a poly I had with a local PD the Cardio cuff pressure tube broke. My examiner called for another examiner to come help him replace the tube. The second examiner then made a joke , saying that to the first polygrapher, "I always knew you needed a longer rubber."
One polygraph 'professional' joking about the length of another polygrapher's penis during an interview. I dont think that anyone who really cares about their department could excuse this kind of behavior.
I filed a complaint. The head of the polygraph division said that both men had been counseled. I have asked for a copy of the tape. Obviously something was recorded because the men were both counseled, but I want to hear it again myself.
If there was no audio tape, my complaint would have just been just swept away.
I know that polygraphers often stop the audio recording during the "heart to heart' sessions. They turn it on when the review the questions, and off when they try to turn up the heat on the person being interviewed. A complete recording audio/video would stop that kind of tampering.
If what they do and how they conduct themselves is so professional, then why protest recording it completely?
Cameras on patrol have protected good officers and captured bad officers- same idea here.
Batman,
Perhaps you need to read a few court decisions, then you will see the applicable rule in a different light.
"3.9.8. An audio or an audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases shall be made and maintained for evidentiary examinations, in conformance with governing state and federal laws."
The courts have held that the word "shall" is a definite order, unlike "could" or "might" or "should". It is synonymous with "must".
Now that the requirement has been established, the comma indicates a change in subject direction.
The second clause of the sentence merely states that the recording must be in compliance with the laws governing recordings. If your interpretation was what was intended then why doesn't this clause read "when required by governing state and federal laws"?
It is interesting that the requirement does not extend to the post-test interrogation..oops, I mean interview.
I stand on my initial allegation, that being that any APA member who doesn't record examinations is violating the bylaws. If I am told something different by a ranking officer of the APA, I'll be sure to post it here.
Orolan,
If your interpretation of this particular APA by-law is correct then there are a hell of a lot of polygrapers out there, to include those associated with federal, state, and local government, who are in direct viloation of same, however I believe your interpreation is incorrect.
George,
You stated,
"Whether surgeries, medical check-ups, or car sales should be routinely audio- or videotaped is largely irrelevant to the question of whether such should be the case with regard to polygraph examinations."
Sorry, but I disagree. I can only assume your insistance that polygraph examinations be recorded is to protect the rights of the examinee. Well what about the rights of patients, etc...? Shouldn't we be equally, if not even more concerned about this? The abuses within the medical profession are far more damaging than those within the polygraph profession. I have been a polygraph examiner since 1984 and I have yet to hear of anyone losing their life as a direct result of a polygraph examination. However, in that same time there have been countless cases of malpractise on the part of the medical profession. These incidents have resulted in the loss of life, maiming, and serious, permanent physical and psychological damage. How could this be irrelevant to the argument of recording a procedure for the protection of the examinee? Is your concern really for the protection of the examinee's rights or is it just to try and put the screws to polygraph?
If it is the latter than why don't you hop down off your high horse and simply say so. If your concerns are of a higher motive then I think you need to press forward and insist that any procedure that could harm anyone in any way be recorded in some fashion. Damn, we should be recording just about every aspect of everyday life for that matter. There's always something out there that brings pain and discomfort to someone.
As for rational as to why a polygraph examination should not be recorded, I have none. I also have no objection to recording polygraph examinations that I administer, and have done so. As for providing these recordings to the examinee, now your getting into legal issues, because these recordings are treated as evidence. I believe the examinee would eventually get a copy (through his attorney) under discovery, however that determination is made within the legal channels. I would not have the authority to release them. As for pre-employment screening, sorry, I don't administer such exams so I can not speak as to whether or not recordings of same could or could not be released to the examinee. I will say this though, I would be more willing to provide an examinee with a full recording of any polygraph examination that I adminster, than a doctor is willing to give that same person a copy of his or her own medical records. Now why is that?
Oh, 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.
Batman
Batman,
"...there are a hell of a lot of polygraphers out there, to include those associated with federal, state, and local government, who are in direct violation(sp) of same...". My point exactly. I still await word from Dr. Dutton of the APA.
As for the issue about recording other aspects of life, you are correct. There are many organizations out there working to correct the problems in the medical field as well as any other area with similar problems. They don't need our help. This forum is dedicated to polygraph issues.
I have no doubt that you perform polygraph tests in a professional manner and would not mind having the examination recorded. But the fact is, there are those who are not quite so ethical.
Batman,
There may well be good reasons for other procedures to be recorded, but as Orolan noted, AntiPolygraph.org is concerned with polygraph issues.
I am glad to see that you no longer object to the recording of polygraph examinations. Last year, in the discussion thread Who's Using Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=779.msg4622#msg4622) you expressed a different opinion:
QuoteSo the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
George,
I'd give you a point or two for digging up that quote except I don't believe it was an objection to recording interviews, polygraphs or interrogations, it was simply an explanation as to why it isn't done. I stand by what I said. The primary reason law enforcement does not routinely record interviews/interrogations is simply that much of what is said it taken out of context by defense attornies and presented to juries in such a manner as to lead them to believe a persons rights were violated, or the law enforcement officers did something illegal, improper, or wrong. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't always the law enforcement officials who object to recording what they do, it's the prosecutors. There have been numerous occasions where I would have loved to have a confession on tape, however was prohibited from doing so. Even though I have no personal objection to recording interviews or interrogations, I can certainly understand the reluctance to do so. Our jury system if far from perfect, and defense attornies are fully aware of what it takes to overload the somewhat limited mental capacities of many jurors.
Maybe you should be going after prosecutors, and elected officials rather than law enforcement officers and polygraph examiners as it pertains to recording various procedures related to interviews and interrogations, to include polygraph examinations.
Again, I believe you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you perceive yourself as having been wronged by polygraph. You have said that if you had received the postion that was denied to you (as a result of your 'failed' polygraph) then your personal vendetta against polygraph would never have come to being. I'm sorry, but I have to seriously question your overall motives as it pertains to this crusade of yours against polygraph. I would be much more impressed if you had taken this position regardless of your polygraph results, however by your own admission, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had 'passed'.
Batman
Batman,
You seem to miss the obvious logic and necessity of George's having to have failed a polygraph examination before his ability to raise the issues that he has so articulately done over the last few years. He readily admits that he was not aware of the fraud, deceit, and lack of validity connected with various aspects of polygraphy prior to that time. Although he had the conviction of the principles he now displays, prior to that time, he did by his own admission not have the knowledge that is the foundation for his commentary. Do not be misled by your own foolishness on this subject, and even worse, do not mistake and misjudge the motives of one whose words and analysis have been considerably more noteworthy than yours on topics of interest and whose goals and actions are far more selfless and less subject to the scrutiny associated with self interest than are yours...
Anonymous,
Thank you so much for that stirring blowjob of George.
However, his motivations are revealed in his simple admission that if he had in fact 'passed' his polygraph and gained admission to the "good old boys club" that he sought membership to, he would not have raised such a loyal anti-polygraph following as yourself because he would be on the inside looking out.
Don't promote George for sainthood just yet. He's just as big a hypocrite as many who post here. George didn't come upon his revelation until he was denied admission to the club. By his own words; if he had gained admission then this anti-polygraph stance of his wouldn't be an issue. He wouldn't be out there bearing the cross for the anti-polygraph community. It is possible he would still harbor his anti-polygraph sentiments, however highly doubtful he would have put voice to them. He would have simply stood by and watched all the poor, and abused polygraph victims languish in the wind, as he moved up the chain.
Your anti-polygraph god is a false one, so beware who you worship. As far as I am concerned, the only person who ever needed to suffer in order to relieve the pain of others was Jesus Christ.
I anxiously await the removal of George's appendage from your mouth so you can reply.
Batman
PS: Save all the remarks about my crudeness, it's been well documented that on occasion, and when given the proper motivation, I am such.
Batboy:
Lovely gentlemanly qualities you display in here.
You never cease to amaze me with your charm.
Regards,
Lady Seeker
Batman,
I suppose in reverse order....it is quite clear that you don't need motivation to be crude, it comes rather naturally. On rare occasion, apparently some perverse motivation must lead you to be or do otherwise.
Neither George nor any on this site has made the sacrilegious comparison you made in your recent post. I would advice against such or at least make those in your presence aware of such behavior so they can avoid the consequences of your actions.
With regard to the subject at hand, how can you possibly be so stupid? George has said on numerous occasions that he believed the foolishness of polygraph until confronted with the conflict between what he knew/knows to be ground truth regarding relevant issues and the results obtained on the polygraph exam in question. If that examination had not existed, he would have had no reason to reconsider his previous beliefs and do the research necessary to inform himself and which now allows others to benefit from that knowledge. Your crudeness, blasphemy, and stupidity all combined will not overcome knowledge and truth. Perhaps your community might do better with a different spokesperson or perhaps eventually realizing the folly of your ways you might consider another approach under a different pseudonym. You have so little credibility at this point and have so stained the name of the caped crusader that I don't believe you can recover excepting a cyber costume change at this juncture.
Anonymous,
Why is it you feel so compelled to chime in on St. George's behalf? I have to believe that such an intelligent individual as he can put forth his own comments regarding my limited words of wit.
How can I be so stupid you ask? What makes me stupid in your opinion? Is it that I do not blindly fall in line with St. George's anti-polygraph stance? Is it because I have the audacity to challenge his sacred motivation? Is it because I challenge his perception, and thus yours, of knowledge and truth? Exactly who was it that decreed St. George as the bearer of knowledge and truth? Or is it my simple crudeness and blasphemy. Who was it that I blasphemed...St. George?
Your stupidity on the other hand is obvious, based on your total lack of knowledge about the Caped Crusader. Everyone (except you) knows that the Caped Crusader has a dark side, as do all super heroes. That's what keeps St. George out of the category of super hero. He has no dark side. His motives are pure, he is all knowing and ever truthful. In reality, he is the anti-hero (a.k.a. the Anti-Christ). You better switch sides while the switcihin' is good mister.
Now if you don't mind, take a breather, and let St. George speak for himself.
Batman
Batman,
No doubt, George, will address your simple wit in due time, but, perhaps in the mean time, you might refer me to the appropriate comic book, TV or movie production where Batman comes forth with a crudity (same or similar) such as that which you displayed in your post before last. I think not...and as I said before, the polygraph community is sorely lacking if this is the best they can offer. Re-read my last post and see if you can pick up on your stupidity...even you may see the logic of George's needing to have failed a polygraph exam in order to have reason to explain the conflict between ground truth and polygraph results....if you read it three times.
By his own words; if he had gained admission then this anti-polygraph stance of his wouldn't be an issue. He wouldn't be out there bearing the cross for the anti-polygraph community. It is possible he would still harbor his anti-polygraph sentiments, however highly doubtful he would have put voice to them. He would have simply stood by and watched all the poor, and abused polygraph victims languish in the wind, as he moved up the chain.
Come on now, are you kidding me????
Is a rape victim a false hero if after her ordeal she helps young women who have been victimized also? Are people affected by drunk drivers kiiling thier family members hipocrits if they use their experience to speak about the harmfullness of drinking and driving. Your argument is weak.
Batman,
Your uncivil remarks to Anonymous are inexcusable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You write:
QuoteAgain, I believe you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you perceive yourself as having been wronged by polygraph. You have said that if you had received the postion that was denied to you (as a result of your 'failed' polygraph) then your personal vendetta against polygraph would never have come to being. I'm sorry, but I have to seriously question your overall motives as it pertains to this crusade of yours against polygraph. I would be much more impressed if you had taken this position regardless of your polygraph results, however by your own admission, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you had 'passed'.
Your opinion of my "overall motives" has no bearing on the merits of any argument(s) I've made regarding polygraphy. This attempt to change the subject with a personal attack is a classic ad hominem (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm) argument.
I explained the personal experiences that led me to speak publicly on polygraph matters in the message thread Who's Using Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=779.msg4574#msg4574). It bears repeating here.
When I failed my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination despite having told the truth, I was dumbfounded. I couldn't believe it. But it didn't directly cause me to form an antipolygraph point of view. My polygrapher had told me that the polygraph was 98% accurate. I naively believed him, and supposed I must have fallen within the 2% margin of error of an otherwise valid test.
It was only after reading David T. Lykken's seminal book on polygraphy,
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector that my position against polygraphy solidified. I was outraged to learn that my government had branded me as a liar based on a procedure that has no scientific basis whatsoever. As an officer in the Army reserve, I had adhered to a code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. My government (through an FBI polygrapher) had deliberately lied to me, just as it continues to lie to every single employee or prosepective employee it polygraphs. And I had no avenue of appeal.
For several years, I bit the bullet. I said nothing publicly. I had no idea how many others had been similarly affected. That changed in 1999, when I found the website NoPolygraph.com and linked up with other polygraph victims, who are much more numerous than I had supposed. I was at first reluctant, but ultimately felt compelled to take a public stand on the polygraph issue.
A year later--and after much research, correspondence, and cooperation with others--I co-authored
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) and helped to launch AntiPolygraph.org.
So, in some sense, my experience in failing a polygraph "test" ultimately led to my forming an antipolygraph viewpoint and the establishment of this website. But it is certainly not the sole reason.
If I had not had the experience of failing the polygraph, I might never have researched it further, or discovered the extent of the harm that reliance on this pseudoscience is causing both to individuals, and to the national security and public safety. Indeed, I would most likely have spent my time engaged in other pursuits.
Batman, you have correctly observed that there are other, greater harms in society than that caused by polygraphy. I have no disagreement with you here. But you seem to suggest that all societal ills greater than those related to polygraphy must be addressed before polygraphy comes in for scrutiny, and that if I and others focus on polygraph issues now, that we are somehow "hypocrites." I strongly disagree. (By that logic, the harm associated with reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy must be allowed to continue so long as greater problems exist, i.e., forever.) As Orolan noted, there are many organizations dedicated to addressing other issues. My life experience has made me aware of polygraph issues. I speak of that which I know. That I speak out on polygraph issues, instead of, say, medical malpractice (an issue regarding which I have little knowledge or experience) does not, in my opinion, make me a "hypocrite."
AntiPolygraph.org exists for the purpose of ending the harm associated with reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We seek to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud and abuse. We have no "hidden agenda." Before AntiPolygraph.org, there was no organization decicated to polygraph issues. The popularity of this website speaks to the need for such an organization.
All information on AntiPolygraph.org is provided to the public for free, and neither I, Gino Scalabrini, nor anyone else associated with AntiPolygraph.org receives any remuneration, in cash or in kind, for our efforts. I think that the considerable time and effort we've put into the site has been time well spent.
I make no claim to godhood, sainthood, omniscience, or super heroism.
Batman appears to be overflowing with guano at times. Although I do admit, I am very entertained quite often by his posts. I don't usually comment on Batman's posts, but Brian hit it right on the button. His argument is extremely weak this time.
By the way, Batman, what state are you in? Although not likely, maybe you are one of the 3 different examiners I dusted. ;)
PK
And so we continue to endure this thread in which no one has yet to put forth any rational explanation as to why something as simple as an audio/video recording of all polygraphs SHOULD NOT BE requred of those friendly and considerate examiners.
Dear Batboy, every time there is a thread that makes the unemployment line look ever brighter, you come in and display your total lack of upbringing. Now, I have no problems with you disagreeing with the bulk of us who see polygraph examinations for the fraud that they are, however one does have to seriously ponder the likes of you.
It is obvious from your posts that you have little to no respect for yourself, muchless for others. Being a lady, I have to have intense fear from ever being in a position to associate with you. Not only do you have a nastiness toward women, but display blatant disprespect for them. You know that ladies come in here, and to spew such low-life and ignorant remarks is very ungentlemanly-like.
Batboy, it is people in positions like yours, positions wherein your own internal ineptitude dangerously places you in a position to control lives, that is as much a risk and danger to National Security as that toy that you play with.
Audio/video recordings would provide some genuine guarantee that you do not abuse that position, or that you do not come across a strong female like myself who, out of public service, would recycle you into an appropriately functioning male member of society, and attempt to pull your arrogance and cruel nastiness out on me. Audio/video recordings would guarantee professionalism.
I have yet to hear one single argument to reason NOT audio/video recording these fraudulent and flawed "tests".
Regards,
Seeker
Gangin' up on the Batman are we?
What is it about my posts that brings all the troops to the front?
George,
Ashamed of what? My God, Anonymous' post was enough to make anyone sick. Here I always thought Beech was your head cheerleader, but Anonymous must want the position pretty bad. I do not recall you ever touting yourself for sainthood, but why would you when you have guys like Anonymous around?
Now, were you really totally truthful on your polygraph?
Brian,
What tree did you fall out of? You just can't jump in on Batman like that. You have to establish yourself by receiving a few zingers first. I'll address you after you've proven yourself more worthy.
PolyKiller,
Appreciate the kudos. As for what state I'm in, some would argue a pretty awful one.
Ah My Dear Seeker,
To you and only you do I apologize for my crude remarks, in hopes that, if we ever meet on the street you won't kick my ass. Are you a biker chick? Got any totoos? Love ya babe.
To all,
Had a good day today, made even better when I read the notes from all my on-line buddies. Thanks!!!
Oh, almost left out Anonymous:
Regarding Batman's dark side; the character for Batman was originated by Bob Kane based on a few different inspirations, Leonardo da Vinci's man with wings was the inspiration for the cape and a man being able to fly, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr was the inspiration for Bruce Wayne, but most importantly the old 1935 movie, 'The Bat Wispers' was the inspiration for the overall character. The movie is about a criminal who led a dark, shadowy life, thus the dark side of Batman!
I know, for I am......
Batman
Getting back to taping the poly:
My poly was taped, but I assume the gov. isn't just going to turn over my video/audio tape on which the polygrapher explicitly states that I passed the test. The tape would only prove that I had in fact passed the poly, however, having quota's for underrepresented people is more important than fairness. Taping poly's (or allowing tapes to be released) would only show the true absurdity of the "lie detector."
Polygraph Malcontents and others
Interesting back and forth about taping/not taping. Our agency always tapes as a matter of practice, but I can understand how an agency might find that cumbersome. Many things are not recorded in an applicant process (and that is why most of you are here after all) like the physical tests where folks are routinely dismissed for a lack of flexibility or a few seconds over on the run. Those of you that have failed, and are lashing out via your polygraph experience, just what do you expect an agency to do? keep a video data bank of thousands of prospective applicants to look for the slightest impropriety? Put your hatred of the polygraph aside for a moment and put yourself in an agency (any agency) recruiter mode. You have hundreds of applicants a testing cycle that your administration has asked you to narrow down. The recommendation here is to provide a video, charts and who knows what else to every applicant of the polygraph experience. Would you do this as an administrator? You folks sense a cover up, I say its a practical matter. We dont send the psych tests out for review, or what questions were missed on the written, or a recording of the oral board to see if you were subject to bias / subjective scoring. I guess any applicant, police or corporate, has to have a certain measure of trust.
Im always amused when the subject of hypocrisy comes up. The thinking here is that the term does not fit, because we are concerned with polygraph only. Interesting. I believe that is what the word means in this context. Pretending to be excessively outraged about the polygraph, knowing full well that many qualified applicants are lost through a variety of other preventable causes defines the word. When this is pointed out (and I have many times) the idea is dismissed as "off topic".
The fact that many who post here are hypocritical is undeniable in my view.
Based on my experiences, I also have to say that some of the stories presented here lack complete detail, which is expected from those that fail and do not accept an agencies judgement that they are indeed lacking. I will tell you this, if an agency really wants you-you will be hired. I wish I had a dollar for every applicant that swore his application was complete, failed the polygraph, and then made specific admissions in the failed area.
Capt. Jones has not only failed his FBI polygraph, but one for a reserve position. That which repeats itself is not due to chance. Think about it.
Im seeing alot of posters lately make comments about "dusting" polygraphers or in one hero's example using sophisticated multi level countermeasures. If you are taking multiple polygraphs you have probably not been hired. Perhaps you would be more specific as to the agency and the polygrapher? As no crime is committed in clenching your buttcheeks during a pseudo-scientific ritual, what would you fear from disclosure? simply post the results, or get your charts and show those as well. In other words stop the idle boasting, and prove how easy this countermeasure business really is. You are not working for the agency anyway, and have nothing to lose.
Awhile back George, I asked if you wanted to do this on an organized basis and post the results. You have ignored that request in favor of unscientific, unprovable personal accounts riddled with factual omissions and exaggeration.
And as I looked around the site briefly George I noted that you are not censoring some of the same language that you felt necessary to censor in one of my last posts where BT showed his entire ass. Is this intentional, or are you engaging in selective censorship on this "free" site?
As always , The Breeze brings some interesting discussion points to the conversation. Some that I agree with, some that I do not.
On "Good Morning America" TV Show today, they transmitted from the FBI Training Ground in
Virginia. During the show, an FBI official stated that they had over 80,000 applicants for 500 final positions this year. Certainly the fear of polygraph false positives is not stopping the application process.
The Breeze has offered that the FBI is using the polygraph procedure inappropriately to thin the applicant pool. After working for the government for many years and going through the applicant process in the FBI (including three polygraphs), I tend to lean in his direction on this point. Like it or not, it can allow the agencies to sway the applicant pool according to priorities only known to the hiring agency. Right or wrong this is the perogative of the hiring agency.
I only disagree with the fact that a permanent black mark would be placed on a person's security background strictly based on polygraph alone. This has and still is happening at the FBI during this process.
I know that videotaping every polygraph session is logistically difficult but the absolute right to take away someone's integrity through polygraph usage must have some kind of check and balance. Most appeals occur well withing one year of the actual test. With digitalized recording on DVDs, the actual expense and storage of such exams is feasible.
The actual amount of FBI applicant hires polygraphed is probably 1500 for 500 hired. For an organization as large and sophisticated as the FBI, recording such exams should not be such a big deal.
My application process is complete but I can not publicly detail my experience. I did appeal and get a third polygraph in which I passed. I was also asked if I wanted to proceed with the application process.
I know that government makes mistakes everyday. In my case, the FBI saw this mistake and corrected it to the best of their ability withing the confines of their guidelines. I am more impressed with an agency's ability to correct mistakes than I am about the mistakes themselves. I do not wish to drag the agency through the mud: I would like to see it improve its public image by recording applicant polygraphs since their outcomes have such major impact on an accused person's integrity. If polygraphs cannot or willnot be eliminated, this is surely a reasonable first step to improvement.
It does not change the feelings I have about the inappropriate use of polygraph pre-screening, especially without videotape or digital recording. I still believe that recording these exams would vindicate ethical exam givers and takers. It certainly would increase the perception that the agencies involved were trying to protect applicant rights as well as national security concerns.
Regards
Breeze,
First of all, if an agency is going to pretend they use guidlines regarding polygraphs according to the APA then why would they choose to disregard this measure?
Secondly, I assume you never applied for a fed agent position. Failing a written exam will not dq your employment, you will be given second, and third chances.
Addressing your example of applicants be rejected by the running a slow time in a physical exam. Running a measured distance is a objective measure of one's ability. A polygraph is far from objective, and no where near scientific.
" Pretending to be excessively outraged about the polygraph, knowing full well that many qualified applicants are lost through a variety of other preventable causes defines the word."
That is so insane, I'm sorry people on this board don't equate getting dq's cause your 6'0" 310 lbs and run the mile in 12 minutes, as opposed to be some attempt to measure truth which is as accurate as flippping a coin.
So before you cast everyone on here as hipocrits, try to understand the absurdity of using a polygraph as the sole criteria for employment. Someone also needs to explain to me how something that claims to be 98% accurate can be re-administered to someone if the "results" show someone is lying. Shouldn't the agency trust the reuslts enough not to allow another polygraph.
Batman, Breeze, et al,
As Dr. Richardson stated in his initial post starting this thread "There is no legitimate technological or administrative reason for not routinely audio/videotaping examinations to protect examinee, examiner, and agencies alike." There has been great discussion on this topic, but I believe the statement still stands. Breeze, the polygraph in and of itself is a cumbersome process. I don't see where having the polygrapher reach over and switch on a tape recorder adds to their duties that much. Note that this is a discussion about audio/video taping, meaning audio or video or both. As for giving these tapes and the charts to every applicant, that isn't what was originally asked. Rules already require that the charts be kept for a period of time. The APA says 1 year minimum. The problem is, they are not made available to the applicant should they desire to have them reviewed outside the agency that administered the exam. And while I'm on the subject, Batman and Drew, I have heard from an APA member regarding the requirements of 3.9.8. It was not Dr. Dutton, but this individual is an officer of the APA. He pointed out that 3.9.8 applies specifically to evidentiary examinations, and does not apply to pre-employment screening or other types of examinations. So I am willing to concede the point. Batman, you win this round.
The subject of hypocrisy was raised by Batman due to the fact that we here on the board were not doing anything about medical malpractice and the like. It had nothing to do with other reasons for why applicants were turned down. By the way Breeze, what are these other "preventable causes" for applicant rejection that you would like for us to champion?
Orolan,
Thanks, that makes the score Batman- 1 (maybe two because I think someone else conceded a point to me awhile back, but I'm not sure); Everyone Else- 110.
I may be losing but I keep on coming back, is that good for a point?
Hey Anonymous:
Wake up Dude...I repeat, regarding Batman's dark side; the character for Batman was originated by Bob Kane based on a few different inspirations, Leonardo da Vinci's man with wings was the inspiration for the cape and a man being able to fly, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr was the inspiration for Bruce Wayne, but most importantly the old 1935 movie, 'The Bat Wispers' was the inspiration for the overall character. The movie is about a criminal who led a dark, shadowy life, thus the dark side of Batman!
I know, for I am......
Batman (and I have one hell of a dark side)
Batman,
When I'm wrong I say so. And you're probably entitled to plenty of points just because of longevity.
Batman,
There is a considerable difference between the types of thoughts and behaviors that might be loosely grouped together under the heading of "a dark side" and the routine vulgarity you display. Please share with me anything that Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. did or said on screen that approaches your latest vulgarity addressed to me. No dude, you are not a depressive genius personality, just a vulgar twit....
And with regard to your listing of agencies on another thread, an impressive listing of bureaucrats perhaps...care to list a dozen of so individuals from any or all those agencies with the academic credentials in the fields of psychophysiology, statistics, etc that were represented on the NAS Panel? I don't think it was by accident that this independent group of stellar scientists was selected for the relevant study and report and not some ad hoc group of bureaucrats from the agencies you so dutifully listed for us.
Brian
Its clear we are thinking in different ways. Let me be more precise.
When I brought up the subject of running or other such tests, I was referring to the idea that such tests could be video taped to preclude abuse, not as a direct comparision to polygraph.
You see, if you piss off the person timing the run for whatever reason, perhaps he might add a few seconds if your close, or downgrade an interview score without cause. I thought the idea of videotaping was to prevent abuse, was I mistaken?
I certainly did work in the federal system as an agent, and also took and and passed the USSS polygraph (a job I did not take). I left the Federal system and for personal reasons (like spending time with my family, and not getting a divorce) I went into local law enforcement-where I currently am a detective.
I disagree with your assessment that a failed polygraph is a fatal mark on your record. Look at Fair Chance's example of how to work within an imperfect system. Not only has his initial failed polygraph not impacted his current federal position, it has not stopped his current FBI process.
And Brian, I do not know any agency that uses polygraph as the sole hiring criteria. Regardless of what you read on these pages, I know for fact that what is used is much more of a whole person approach. Polygraph has however become the lightning rod of the hiring process, and a way to subjectively dismiss an otherwise acceptable applicant as "not within parameters". This is my belief anyway.
And as far as re-testing, an agency should not use the polygraph casually. If a person fails the drug issue for example, specific re-testing and investigation should occur. That is only fair to the applicant.
Orolan
When I mentioned something like taping would be cumbersome, you chose to remind me how to turn on a VHS and camera. I meant it might be impractical in a high volume agency to keep such recordings, and it would be almost out of the question financially to provide a personal video record to each applicant. We use a time delayed recorder in the 12 hour mode to get about 6-7 tests on one video. See my point?
As far as championing other causes, I would never want anyone to waste excessive time, as some already do here, on further causes. A simple recognition would be sufficient that human bias, incompetence, arbitrary standards like those contained in some physical tests, certain psychological tests misused for applicant screening...have hurt more than polygraph ever will. Im sure you get the idea.
Why most working law enforcement officers that need answers dont mind using polygraph is simple. They have seen it work. So to be limited by someone who has just failed, and is pissed off, and wants revenge...does'nt sit well.
Personally, I want to request one if I think I need it.
Your zeal will never take the place of my experience.
Breeze,
I still think that audio taping would suffice. And if the applicant passes, and is told right then that they passed, there is no reason to keep the recording. Or, with today's technology, the audio can be burned directly onto a CD on-the-fly in MP3 format by the same laptop the polygrapher is using for the test. I have one CD with 185 songs on it, averaging 6 minutes in length. That's 18.5 hours of audio. Three days worth of polygraphs on one CD. What is impractical about that? And again, I do not advocate giving copies to every examinee. Just make it available to the examinee, or make them pay for a copy if they want one. Plenty of other agencies charge for copies of records, so I'm sure the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. can do the same.
As for the "other causes", I concede that you have a valid point. (Must not be my day. First Batman, now you.) Biased, incompetent and prejudiced interviewers do cause a lot of people to be eliminated. There will always be people like this, because we're all human. Much like the battle to end racial profiling by patrolmen, it can only be stopped by reviewing the acceptance/rejection patterns of the various interviewers. Not sure about the physical fitness tests. But my health spa is full of electronic weight-lifting machines, stair-step machines, running treadmills, etc. Kind of hard to get the machine to discriminate, don't you think?
Having never actually "failed" a polygraph, I am not a pissed off person looking for revenge. But since I basically "flat-lined" a polygraph that I very evidently lied on, without the use or knowledge of countermeasures, I find the polygraph process to be suspect.
Breeze,
You said,
And Brian, I do not know any agency that uses polygraph as the sole hiring criteria. Regardless of what you read on these pages, I know for fact that what is used is much more of a whole person approach. Polygraph has however become the lightning rod of the hiring process, and a way to subjectively dismiss an otherwise acceptable applicant as "not within parameters". This is my belief anyway.
That is the whole point about the polygraph.
The USSS and the FBI absolutely use this as the sole criteria. I know this firsthand, and also from other FBI sources. The USSS states in their conditional offer of employment that the offer is conditional to passing a polygraph examination. When at the same time they lie and state in the paper, Washinghton Post author Bill Miller, that the polygraph will not itself eliminate an applicant.
Quote from: The_Breeze on May 21, 2003, 01:45 PM...
Im seeing alot of posters lately make comments about "dusting" polygraphers or in one hero's example using sophisticated multi level countermeasures. If you are taking multiple polygraphs you have probably not been hired. Perhaps you would be more specific as to the agency and the polygrapher? As no crime is committed in clenching your buttcheeks during a pseudo-scientific ritual, what would you fear from disclosure? simply post the results, or get your charts and show those as well. In other words stop the idle boasting, and prove how easy this countermeasure business really is. You are not working for the agency anyway, and have nothing to lose.
Awhile back George, I asked if you wanted to do this on an organized basis and post the results. You have ignored that request in favor of unscientific, unprovable personal accounts riddled with factual omissions and exaggeration.
Breeze, that polygraphy is susceptible to countermeasures is well established. By contrast, no polygrapher has every demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. The discusssion you referenced above is to be found in the message thread Thanks to TLBTLD I PASSED!!! (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=874.msg6076#msg6076). Skeptical readers may judge for themselves whose arguments regarding polygraphy are based on "unscientific, unprovable personal accounts riddled with factual omissions and exaggeration."
QuoteAnd as I looked around the site briefly George I noted that you are not censoring some of the same language that you felt necessary to censor in one of my last posts where BT showed his entire ass. Is this intentional, or are you engaging in selective censorship on this "free" site?
You were not targeted for censorhip. On 18 March 2003, we upgraded the software used to run this message board. The new software included, by default, a "censor list" of vulgar words that would be automatically replaced by asterisks in all posts. This unintended "censorship" was discovered on 10 April and immediately removed.
batboy -
Well, after you call me both a small farm animal (chick) and a helpless human (babe), I tend to justify my lack of response to you. You did, however, make a legitimate apology even though you followed it with more of your vile language.
Just for the record: I am a lady. "Kick your ass.." Puhlease, NOT. I am indeed a lady, and a lady merely spanks the ass of such childish boys who have not been graduated into the ranks of manhood and have been denied the proper upbringing that teaches them to respect not only women, but all humankind. As a few in here can attest, I have a reputation for gaining great pleasure from doing just that very thing to law enforcement/intelligence agents who mistook their badge and gun for some power trip to try and hide their inner ineptitude.
And my dear Chris,
You know how I feel about the polygraph, and how I feel about your situation.
Having said that, I too take objection to your posting. I did not mean to imply that you were not devoted, dilligent or intelligent. You grabbed that statement with fury dear. Did I hit home?
And, Chris, the SAT is NOT a test of learned information. It is a test of your ability to take standardized tests. A person with excellent test taking skills can very easily score incredibly higher than their actual knowledge base. Similarly, someone who suffers from test anxiety can quite easily score much less than their true knowledge level.
The polygraph, while not a "test", does NOT measure life experiences! Wow, wouldn't that be interesting if it did? The polygraph measures physical responses. See, I once foolishly thought a polygraph could measure my life expeiences too. I even thought it was some mystical box that could see my deepest and darkest secrets. Of course that is just too much TV. We all know that isn't even remotely true now.
My comment on devoted, dilligent and intelligent people is directly related to what I have come to believe to be an accountablility placed on all applicants for a job that requires a polygraph. You blindly believed in your government. Nice. That is a kind thought. The bottom line here is this Chris, I don't want anyone to be an agent in law enforcement/intelligence agencies charged with my safety and protection who is naive enough to blindly accept anything. How does an investigator ever get to the facts without research? If that was your aspiration, to be an investigating agent, why on earth did you not take one hour out of those months you devoted yourself to prepping yourself for the FBI to type into the search bar of your browser the word "polygraph"?
Sure hindsight is 20/20, but I will back an applicant who comes to the interview table with a solid knowledge of the intricate workings of my company, agency, or business.
None of this lessens the real and genuine affect a failed poly can have on a person who was genuine and honest. To that end, yes, the polygraph exam should be audio/video recorded, and yes, it should be completely removed from the application process of ANY job.
This perhaps belonged in the Countermeasures thread, but I believe I have addressed both your comments there and those here.
Regards,
Seeker
Batman,
You speak of your dark side; I think your dark side is your true side. You find pleasure in jerking the chains of all who post to this site. You find a perverse joy in making your own prejudiced and opinionated remarks about all who post hear. You always seem to look for a fight rather than the solution.
In your real job, do you ever get along with your co-workers? Your entire career is most likely a linty of control material. I state this only because you preach so much self-righteousness that one can only surmise that you must have a closet full of skeletons in your bat cave.
Did you ever succeed at anything in your life or have you lived such a small shallow existence that you must resort to offending and trying to bully all those with whom you disagree?
Batman does provide for interesting dialogue here, if you are a fan of Jerry Springer. ;)
Mr. Shadow,
Of course the Bat Cave is littered with with skeletons; how do you think I was able to pass my initial polygraph examination? Everyone has skeletons, it's just a matter of what kind. Some are more RELEVANT than others, if you know what I mean!
What do you mean, "in my real job"? How do you know this isn't my real job?
Well, OK, it isn't. In my real job, my co-workers love me, don't yours (in your mind)? I don't know anyone who doesn't think their co-workers love them. It's your supervisors you need to worry about.
I once hit the game winning homerun in Little League, does that count for succeeding in anything in my life?
As for always looking for a fight, well you got me there Shadow. I do love a good knock down, drag out and am always on the look-out for one. The problem here is the only guy that gave me some good shots took a real swing below the belt so I don't dance with him anymore. It's not that I can't take a good punch to the 'tenders', but the one he gave was totally uncalled for. He knows who he is, and if you really are the Shadow (which I doubt) then you should know too because, "......the Shadow knows." Any guesses?
Batman
Quote from: Batman on May 24, 2003, 09:03 PMThe problem here is the only guy that gave me some good shots took a real swing below the belt so I don't dance with him anymore. It's not that I can't take a good punch to the 'tenders', but the one he gave was totally uncalled for. He knows who he is, and if you really are the Shadow (which I doubt) then you should know too because, "......the Shadow knows." Any guesses?
I for one don't have clue to whom you're referring, unless of course it's some sort of trick question (as would be typical of a professional liar) and you are actually referring to yourself. Here's a quote I think pertains to someone who posts on this board... let's see if you can guess to whom *I* am referring:
A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?- Cicero
Awww, it sounds like the bat may have gotten his feelings hurt at one time. I'm surprised, I didn't know polygraph examiners had feelings similar to those of humans. Sorry bat-fella, couldn't resist.
PK
Quote from: Seeker on May 22, 2003, 07:07 AM
.... And, Chris, the SAT is NOT a test of learned information. It is a test of your ability to take standardized tests. A person with excellent test taking skills can very easily score incredibly higher than their actual knowledge base.
Seeker
Seeker,
I've come to wonder about the evolution of the term "standardized test" into a sort of epithet. That a test is "standardized" simply means that it has some sort of repeatability or consistency in administration. The term "norming", another such term, means that scores are mapped in some way to a fixed distribution, possibly a specific demographic or time frame. That these tests, like all tests, have various reliability issues and especially biases is also true but this has little to do with standardization per se. One can find all sorts of criticisms of standardized tests but little in the way of alternatives other than warm fuzzies such as "authentic" (sounds good)! learning assessment, etc. There is a great deal of passionate*, well intentioned but poorly researched work in all these areas.
If it is so hard to effect assessment and control over these processes critical to the whole society, imagine how difficult it will be to bring accountability to the polygraph community. Just look at their response to the NAS study. You know how those pointy headed academics are.
:)
*when any research is passionate, it is born questionable. When any teacher isn't passionate, their students start class with a handicap.
-Marty
The
Arizona Republic has published a well-researched article concerning the FBI's policy of not taping interrogations (including polygraph interrogations):
Quotehttp://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1206fbitaping.html
FBI's policy drawing fire
Interrogations not taped
Dennis Wagner
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 6, 2005 12:00 AM
In the pursuit of criminals, FBI agents across the nation routinely use DNA tests, fingerprints, ballistics, psychological profiling and the world's most advanced forensic methods.
But a little-known policy at the Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps investigators from using one of the simplest and most effective tools in law enforcement: the tape recorder.
That policy appears in Section 7 of the FBI's "Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines": "Use of tape recorders for the purpose of recording the statements of witnesses, suspects and subjects is permissible on a limited, highly selective basis, and only when authorized by the SAC (special agent in charge)."
Standard FBI procedure calls for at least two agents to conduct interrogations: one asking questions and the other taking notes. The notes are used later to produce a typed summary known as Form 302.
When agents testify months or years down the road, they rely on 302s, and memory. As a result, jurors and judges hear recollections and interpretations, not what was actually said. And the defense lawyer often follows up with a cross-examination designed to impugn the agent's memory, competence or integrity.
Critics say the FBI practice leads to botched investigations, lost evidence, unprofessional conduct and damaged credibility for America's justice system.
The policy emerged as a problem for defendants, judges and juries during federal trials of Osama bin Laden, Oklahoma City bombing defendant Terry Nichols, TV star Martha Stewart and lesser-known figures.
When terrorism suspects were rounded up after the Sept. 11 attacks, their statements were not recorded.
When agents conducted a marathon interrogation of Nichols, learning of his involvement with Timothy McVeigh, not a word was retained on tape.
Responding to questions about the policy, William David Carter, an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C., wrote in an e-mail that taping is strictly limited because it "can inhibit full and frank discussion or can end an interview entirely."
Yet most other U.S. enforcement agencies leave taping to the discretion of investigators - some even encourage officers to record interrogations - without any problem.
Phoenix Police Department policy, for example, instructs violent-crimes detectives to "make every attempt to audio- or video-tape suspect and critical witness interviews in felony investigations."
Officers in Tucson, Mesa, Glendale and Scottsdale routinely tape interviews, as do detectives at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and at the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Carter refused to provide a copy of the entire policy, claiming it is an "internal FBI document." He said he did not know when the rule was instituted or by whom. He did not respond to other detailed questions on the policy.
Carter did say that recording interviews may be a "sound enforcement policy" if the subject is comfortable with a tape machine. However, he added, "The FBI believes that it would unduly burden ongoing criminal investigations and impede immediate law-enforcement responses to fast-breaking criminal events to require that all witness statements be recorded."
Motive unclear
Thomas P. Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney from northern Illinois who has studied the issue for several years, described the FBI practice as "baffling" and "sorely out of date."
"I don't get it," said Sullivan, now a defense lawyer. "They have the most sophisticated electronic equipment you can think of in the federal government, and yet they don't use the most simple equipment."
In his research for Northwestern University School of Law, Sullivan queried police agencies in 43 states and found that recorded interrogations are a benefit to police and the justice system. He also noticed a clear trend toward taping.
"Sooner or later, the federal government will get on board," he said. "I've talked to more than 400 police departments and sheriff's offices where recordings are used. I can't remember anyone who didn't like it.
A. Melvin McDonald Jr., a criminal-defense lawyer who once served as the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, referred to the FBI policy as "insane."
"It blows my mind trying to think of a rational reason for it," McDonald said. "They are usually on the cutting edge, and to say, 'We're not going to do this,' just makes no sense. . . . It's Investigations 101. I don't ever question a criminal-defense witness without taping it."
Some defenders of the FBI policy suggest that taping and transcribing interviews would become a logistical nightmare and a waste of money for an organization with 11,000 agents.
Sullivan said recorded interviews actually save money because they result in more guilty pleas, fewer defense motions to suppress confessions and fewer lawsuits over wrongful prosecution. Moreover, if FBI agents used tape recorders they wouldn't have to double-team their interviews, so staffing costs would be cut in half.
Steve Drizen, legal director at Northwestern Law's Center for Wrongful Convictions, offered another possible motive: "The main reason why the FBI does not want to record is that they do not want to let the public or juries see how brutal their psychological interrogation tactics can be."
Frederic Whitehurst, an FBI supervisor-turned-whistle-blower, said: "By not having the real data, the evidence of what was actually said, they can control the interpretation, the spin on it. . . . And you have no way to tell if they're making a mistake."
For those who doubt that FBI agents would forget, leave things out or twist the truth, Whitehurst points to the words of Danny O. Coulson, a high-level administrator at the bureau. In his book, No Heroes: Inside the FBI's Secret Counter-Terror Force, Coulson described how he became the target of a criminal probe after a botched case and agreed to be interviewed only if he could submit a sworn statement as part of the case file.
"I had seen too many criminal investigations in which FBI agents conducted interviews and then paraphrased their subject inaccurately because they were unfamiliar with the complicated subject matter or had their own spin on the case already."
Pros and cons
Jana D. Monroe, special agent in charge for the FBI in Arizona, said she authorizes taping on a case-by-case basis and considers it a useful strategy in some circumstances.
Monroe encourages agents to record interviews of juvenile defendants and child-abuse victims in Indian country to document that no coercion or prompting was used.
That rationale does not apply to most cases. In sworn testimony, FBI agents routinely find themselves defending the policy, as well as the accuracy of their Form 302 notes and memories.
Monroe noted that some U.S. attorneys have begun to press the FBI for a rule change, adding, "I don't know what the future will bring."
However, she worried that tape recordings could undermine prosecutions in some cases by revealing lies and psychological ploys that agents sometimes use during interrogations. "That might not look real good to jurors."
On the other hand, there is evidence that the FBI's no-taping practice is a turnoff for those charged with rendering verdicts.
Early this year, a federal jury in Philadelphia acquitted a banker accused of lying to agents because the only evidence was the agent's scribbled notes and testimony. "We wouldn't have been here if they had a tape recorder," one juror told the Associated Press.
The issue also proved troubling in Nichols' 1998 federal trial. Under oath, agents acknowledged that Nichols refused to sign a Miranda form but claimed he waived his rights to an attorney. Defense attorney Ronald Woods challenged that account by Agent Scot Crabtree and demanded to know why investigators failed to tape 9 1/2 hours of questioning with a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Jurors convicted Nichols of conspiracy but found him not guilty of murder at the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Afterward, jury forewoman Niki Deutchman told reporters the lack of recordings was a key weakness in the government's case.
Harvey Silverglate, a Boston defense attorney, said he despises the FBI policy because it allows agents to twist statements made by witnesses and suspects but also because it puts the nation at a greater risk of terrorism by undermining the bureau's intelligence-gathering mission.
"The system is not put together for efficiency or accuracy," Silverglate said. "It's put together for ease of prosecution. And in an age of terrorism, it actually poses a threat to national security."
Taping required
Illinois, Maine, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., have adopted statutes that require taping. Supreme court justices in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Hampshire have ordered police to record suspect interrogations.
Detectives in Mesa, Scottsdale, Chandler, Peoria and Gilbert record interviews with felony suspects at least half the time.
So do their counterparts in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Denver, Miami, Portland, Houston and hundreds of other communities.
Sullivan, who has surveyed police agencies nationwide, said most have no formal policy, so it's up to investigators. However, he said the taping of interviews is a clear trend nationwide.
Neil Nelson, a police commander and interrogations consultant in St. Paul, Minn., said recording leads to better investigations, more crimes solved, enhanced professionalism and less time spent in court.
Nelson started using a recorder during the 1980s because he couldn't keep track of suspect statements when his narcotics team busted crack houses. Now, all police in Minnesota are required to tape suspect interviews by court order.
"It is the best tool ever forced down our throats," Nelson said. Nelson, Sullivan and others dispute the argument that audio or video recording interferes with investigations or makes defendants clam up.
A 1998 study for the International Association of Chiefs of Police reported "little conclusive evidence" that videotaping affected suspects' willingness to talk. Instead, researchers found, "the majority of agencies that videotape found that they were able to get more incriminating information from suspects on tape than they were in traditional interrogations."
The law in many states, including Arizona, allows detectives to record interviews without a suspect's permission or knowledge. Even when a tape machine is visible, Nelson said, suspects usually blab away. And in cases when a defendant gets uptight or refuses to speak, agents can simply turn off the device and take notes.
Ultimately, Nelson said, recorded interviews shield detectives from allegations of misconduct.
"Taping preserves the integrity of the officers and the interrogation process. What you say on tape, you have to be careful. You can't be like Sipowicz on NYPD Blue and expect to have a career in law enforcement."
The article includes the following sidebar:
QuoteReasons to record
Most law-enforcement agencies in the United States have no policy on the recording of interviews with criminal suspects or leave it to the investigator's discretion. Where no recording exists, federal courts allow law enforcement to testify about defendant statements. Proponents of taping cite a number of reasons why tape recording should be a routine part of interviews with suspects and witnesses in major felonies:
An accurate, permanent record of the statement is retained for future use by investigators and in court.
False confessions and false prosecutions are less likely, as well as lawsuits that emanate from those problems.
Public confidence in law enforcement and the justice system is enhanced.
Detectives are more likely to conduct interrogations in a professional manner and are better able to focus on suspect responses.
Defendants' rights are safeguarded; investigators are not subjected to allegations of coercion, dishonesty or other misconduct.
Defense attorneys are less likely to file motions to suppress admissions made during interrogations.
Taped confessions induce more guilty pleas.
Recorders are useful for law-enforcement training.
Source: "Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: Everybody Wins," by Thomas P. Sullivan, in the Journal of CRIMINAL Law and Criminology.
First post here, and it is a question to anyone: :)
I have a polygraph test coming up, to be administered by a contract employee of the federal government. It will be on government property, and so (I guess) covered by federal law.
My question: is it legal for me, to the best of anyone's knowledge, to audio-record the interrogation for my own purposes without the knowledge of the polygrapher? I would, of course, be privy to the fact that the encounter was being taped. I don't see it as any different that someone wearing a wire to get damning evidence against someone, but I was interested in community opinion.
Thanks for your help ;D BTW, I have read Lie Behind The Lie Detector twice, and I find its information quite beneficial. I would recommend it to everyone here :) Cesium...
Cesium,
Under federal law, and in some states, the consent of only one party to a conversation is required, and it would be legal for a person to secretly record conversations in which he participates. But some states require the consent of all parties. See the following guide published by the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press for an overview of federal and state laws on taping conversations:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
You may have to go through a metal detector at the building. Getting 'caught' with a tape recorder may not be so hot.
I have been to the office where this polycrap will be administered several times, and they may or may not have a metal detector. I want to say that they have one they don't usually turn on.
Without getting into any specifics (I don't discuss my case with strangers, and it's irrelevant to our message board anyhow), I got into trouble with the law. The polycrap is part of my "supervised release" (probation, basically). I can't refuse it, or I get violated. Thus, I will submit to it, but I don't trust it or the polygrapher, who is supposed to be the same one who did me before.
Even though my PO states that they cannot violate me based on poly results, I choose not to believe him out of an overabundance of caution. Thus, my answer is to tape for myself what is said and done, in case someone tries to pull a fast one on me.
In your opinion, good members, what could they attempt to do to me if I were caught with a recording device? My guess is they are recording me as well. I feel I should have the same right. Thanks, and I shall let you know how things went... Cesium...
Quote from: cesium_133 on Jan 09, 2006, 02:32 AMI have been to the office where this polycrap will be administered several times, and they may or may not have a metal detector. I want to say that they have one they don't usually turn on.
Without getting into any specifics (I don't discuss my case with strangers, and it's irrelevant to our message board anyhow), I got into trouble with the law. The polycrap is part of my "supervised release" (probation, basically). I can't refuse it, or I get violated. Thus, I will submit to it, but I don't trust it or the polygrapher, who is supposed to be the same one who did me before.
Even though my PO states that they cannot violate me based on poly results, I choose not to believe him out of an overabundance of caution. Thus, my answer is to tape for myself what is said and done, in case someone tries to pull a fast one on me.
In your opinion, good members, what could they attempt to do to me if I were caught with a recording device? My guess is they are recording me as well. I feel I should have the same right. Thanks, and I shall let you know how things went... Cesium...
What can be done to you depends on whether your State is a "one party" or a "two party" State. In a one party State, only one party must be aware that a conversation is being recorded.