This article in todays Los Angeles Times will leave you scratching your head WHY???.
This involves two brothers in Texas, one who committed a robbery for drug money and his brother who was arrested. The brother was convicted as a habitual criminal and sentenced to thirty years in prison. The brother confesses five years later and they BOTH pass a polygraph, however this isn't enough to please several of the key players including the victim and the chief of police.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brothers20aug20.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation
Fred F. ;)
I don't pretend to know whether the two brothers who passed the polygraph were telling the truth or not. But with regard to polygraph hypocrisy, note the following passage from the above-cited article ("As Man Waits in Prison, Sibling Admits to Crime," by Lianne Hart,
L.A. Times, 20 Aug. 2002):
QuoteThe chief of the Fort Worth Police Department also opposes Byrd's release. "What's interesting to us is that the case to release him is based on a polygraph examination, which is not admissible at trial," police spokesman Lt. Jesse Hernandez said. "We have decisive eyewitness testimony and a thorough investigation. This is what the jury considered, and they found him guilty."
The Fort Worth Police Department (http://ci.fort-worth.tx.us/police/) is now on the record as discounting the evidentiary value of polygraph "testing." Why then does it rely on this pseudoscience in its own hiring process (http://www.fortworthpd.com/hiring.htm)?!
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 21, 2002, 05:56 AMThe Fort Worth Police Department (http://ci.fort-worth.tx.us/police/) is now on the record as discounting the evidentiary value of polygraph "testing." Why then does it rely on this pseudoscience in its ownhiring process (http://www.fortworthpd.com/hiring.htm)?!
An interesting example of 'some tests are more equal than others'.
Curiously, the party line amongst polygraphers (at least on this message board) is that issue specific polygraph testing is a valid diagnostic technique, whilst screening (they largely agree upon) is worthless or in serious need of overhaul.
The argument that a polygraph test 'is not admissible at trial' might be a good one to raise during an applicant's post-test interrogation. If it's good enough for the Chief of Police, it should be good enough for a lowly law enforcement applicant.