What kind of test is generally used on an infidelity poly? CQT? GKT? R/I?
Aside from being dumb enough to believe the results would be valid in the first place, do you really think a test is going to make you or your SO feel better about things? If you do, then you have two problems: your original one, related to the state of your relationship, and two, believing that the polygraph has any validity to begin with.
Let's say you are the one taking the test, and you have not been unfaithful, but you are scored as being deceptive. Then what? Or, put the shoe on the other foot - your SO swears up and down he/she has not been unfaithful, but the results say otherwise.
The only person is who guaranteed to feel good about the outcome is the polygrapher, who is laughing all the way to the bank with your $200-300 you just pissed away in the name of "truth."
Appreciate the reply, but you assume that I or my SO is taking one.... the question actually doesn't apply to me, but to a close friend of mine who is dealing with a situation.
When his SO tells him that if he doesn't take the poly, she is divorcing him and they have three kids - it's not so easy to say I'm not taking it. I am simply trying to give him all the information and letting him decide.
On so-called "fidelity" polygraphs the technique used is almost always a probable-lie CQT.
FoolTheGraph
If your friend has been faithful and is willing to accept the risk of a false positive, it could be money well spent. If he has been unfaithful, as his SO suspects, he should fess up and save the money for his child support payments.
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2012, 12:35 PMFoolTheGraph
If your friend has been faithful and is willing to accept the risk of a false positive, it could be money well spent. If he has been unfaithful, as his SO suspects, he should fess up and save the money for his child support payments.
If you acknowledge the possibility of a false positive, that would logically include the possibility of a false negative. So, why would someone be advised to spend money on a polygraph?
If they "pass" the polygraph, it would mean they were:
1. Truthful, or...
2. Deceptive and were a false negative.
If they "fail" the polygraph, it would mean they were:
1. Deceptive, or...
2. Truthful and were a false positive.
Sergeant1107
I have been contacted by a number of couples, sometimes years later, who thanked me and told me the test helped them repair, salvage or terminate their relationship. To be fair, some have reported it was not useful, but even those did not express regret at their decision to seek and, of course, pay for my opinion.
Would you apply the logic of your argument to jury verdicts as well? If you acknowledge the possibility of an inncorrect verdict by a jury then every person you ever helped send to jail is either guilty as charged or an innocent person wrongfully convicted, and every person found not guily is either innocent or truly guilty but advantaged by an inncorrect verdict.
Quote from: pailryder on May 30, 2012, 10:55 AMSergeant1107
I have been contacted by a number of couples, sometimes years later, who thanked me and told me the test helped them repair, salvage or terminate their relationship. To be fair, some have reported it was not useful, but even those did not express regret at their decision to seek and, of course, pay for my opinion.
Would you apply the logic of your argument to jury verdicts as well? If you acknowledge the possibility of an inncorrect verdict by a jury then every person you ever helped send to jail is either guilty as charged or an innocent person wrongfully convicted, and every person found not guily is either innocent or truly guilty but advantaged by an inncorrect verdict.
I think it is clearly different. A polygraph exam purports to be a scientific test. A jury trial is nothing more than the opinion of twelve jurors regarding the evidence presented to them and while following the judge's instructions. A jury trial is not supposed to be a scientific test.
If I felt sick and went to a doctor, and he said he could give me a test (that certainly wasn't free), and that test would either come back positive (meaning I had the XYZ disease or that I was a false positive and I didn't have the XYZ disease) or negative (meaning I didn't have the XYZ disease or that I was a false negative and I did have the XYZ disease) I would not see any point in paying for such a test.
Sergeant1107
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 30, 2012, 06:40 PMIf I felt sick and went to a doctor, and he said he could give me a test (that certainly wasn't free), and that test would either come back positive (meaning I had the XYZ disease or that I was a false positive and I didn't have the XYZ disease) or negative (meaning I didn't have the XYZ disease or that I was a false negative and I did have the XYZ disease) I would not see any point in paying for such a test.
Then you should never go to a doctor, because every medical tests has the potential for a false positive/negative result.
pailryder,
Although malpractice occurs with some frequency in medicine it is a rarity relative to that which occurs in the polygraph suite. If polygraphers were held to the same standards as physicians and were routinely held responsible for their malpractice, I suggest there would be no polygraphy.
But perhaps you disagree and would be willing for polygraphers to routinely be subject to malpractice suits?? ::)
Quote from: pailryder on May 31, 2012, 07:32 AMThen you should never go to a doctor, because every medical tests has the potential for a false positive/negative result.
I should have been clearer, I suppose. While it is true that most medical tests carry some chance of a false negative or a false positive, the ones considered "accurate" (such as the throat culture or the Pap smear) have a statistically insignificant chance of false results.
The same cannot be said of the polygraph, even, I think, by its supporters.
getrealalready
We are routinely subjected to malpractice suits, and in some states, required to provide proof of insurance coverage for licensing.
hmmm, so all of these rejected candidates can sue for malpractice if the polygrapher did not follow APA guidelines or adhere to the polygraph technique?
pailryder,
Your thoughts? Should any polygrapher (and his/her agency/department) who does not audio/video tape a routine polygraph exam be subject to a malpractice suit? As best I can tell, most (certainly all applicant exams) ARE routine and given in normal places of business (polygraph suites) There seems to be no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.
pailryder
Arn't polygraph subjects required to sign a piece of paper that obsolves the polygrapher of all liabilities due to the test results?
getrealalready
I can only speak for myself, not for our government or agencies. As a private examiner, I a/v record if requested. I have some clients or client's attorneys who will not allow recording of any type. This thread is after all infidelity poly, and I think we can all see why some couples would be uncomfortable.
Some states require all internal affairs interviews of LEA personnel be recorded and APA guidelines require recording of evidentiary exams. Under EPPA both employer and employee have the right with each others knowledge to record everything.
I receive very few requests for audio/video recording, but with the computerized systems it is a simple matter.
Twoblock
Under EPPA employees can not waive any of their rights by contract or otherwise. No matter what they sign they are protected. In some states release of liability forms are allowed in some states prohibited. I personally have never used one.
So what constitutes polygraph malpractice?
Failure to follow APA guidelines?
Failure to follow accepted polygraph procedures?
Not properly scoring charts?
Poorly formulated questions?
Falsely accusing someone of countermeasures?
What does it take? Does he have to bend you over the table?
Quote from: stefano on Jun 01, 2012, 09:50 PMWhat does it take? Does he have to bend you over the table?
I don't know, I am not an attorney, steffy. Is that a real question or just wishful thinking on your part?
Well executed joke, sounds like something I would say 8-)....you must knock em dead at the donut shop! So polygraphers buy malpractice insurance, but have no clue as to why? I'm sure these companies will not pay out under all circumstances. There surely has to be a line that cannot be crossed. I'm curious to know what it is.
A cursory look at the Complete Equity Markets Inc. website revealed:
"Professional Liability Coverage
Coverage for damages resulting from negligent acts, errors or omissions on the part of the Insured in professional services rendered or which should have been rendered in the Insured's professional capacity as a polygraphist."
The application is attached for the curious. Seem as if polygraphers can be sued. Does anyone know if any rejected applicants have ever gone down this road?
stefano
I don't if this what you're talking about, but attorney Zaid filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of some failed polygraph subjects and lost. That suit was covered pretty well on this site. Therefore, federal applicants has no recoarse but to tuck tail and go. I don't know about other situations.
Twoblock,
I was thinking more of going after the polygrapher himself for malpractice, not even involving the agency. Some will chime in and say that he is the agency because he's employed by them.
I'm not so sure. I think one can sue a doctor for malpractice whether the incompetence occurred in a hospital or his private office. Also, if an agency is forced to dedicate legal resources to defend their polygrapher against numerous lawsuits, it would at the very least, bring tremendous political pressure to bear.
stefano
I think a medical malpractice suit would be much easier to win. Polygraphers has many more defence options. They would probably start with "based on the results of the machine, it is my opinion........." then go from there. I think it would be very difficult to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, because of the nature of the beast.
Further to my post, had I ever been prevented from obtaining a job because of the poly, I would have been the first to test it in the courts. You never know about these things until you get your case before a judge or a jury. I have advised many times to failed subjects to file a lawsuit. I have been sued two times and filed one in the mining realm and won all three. As I say, you never know.
I would think that not following established polygraph techniques would be grounds for malpractice.