Finally its over for now, Well as the poly was finished the polygrapher stated that i only had a reaction on that of theft from former employers, he told me that he could disqualify me just for that one question but that the rest looked good. He told me to give him an explanation why the reaction? so i stated that about my old job and thing that people let me hold and have never returned. He concluded that he would over look it and decide. CAn u guys give me an opinion.
Kage,
Here's an opinion. The only law enforcement agency that could possibly be considering you for employment has to be Mayberry, and you're going to be Barney's replacement.
If you do get hired, I got to believe it'll be quickly followed by you getting fired.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Jan 29, 2003, 04:42 PM
Kage,
Here's an opinion. The only law enforcement agency that could possibly be considering you for employment has to be Mayberry, and you're going to be Barney's replacement.
If you do get hired, I got to believe it'll be quickly followed by you getting fired.
Batman
Kage,
Don't worry about what Batman thinks -- he lost his parents at a young age, and has blamed people who fail polygraphs ever since :)
Skeptic
Septic,
At least I gave Kage what he was asking for, an opinion.
I had parents? I was told I was found out behind the old dog house! Can't believe anyone anymore. Well, sorry to hear they're dead. Were they nice folks?
Anyway, based on his posts, what do you think Kage's chances are?
Batman
Hello Board. This is my first post on this website and needless to say I have been DUPED!!! I took a polygraph last week as a part of the selection process for a major law enforcement agency. I am the type of person that is just TOO HONEST! Its hard for me to lie. I have never committed any major crimes against anyone and the worst thing I have ever done was get a speeding ticket. I spent about 2 hours with my examiner as a part of a pre-test interview. He asked me the general questions and I was fine. As soon as he hooked me up to the machine my heart started to race. At the end of the test he looked at me sternly and said, "Something is bothering you and you know what it is" I explained what it was and it happened years ago. He told me that was fine and that we will take the test again. Well, I got a reaction the second time. He told me that I was still withholding info and that I tell him the truth or I automatically get disqualified. I broke down in tears and told him everything. What I did was not a "crime" per se, it was in his eyes, but to me it was a situation that I let get out of control and it was a misunderstanding of sorts. He told me he will think about it and get back to me. Now, I am really afraid I might get disqualified and that this could hurt me trying to get into other law enforcement agencies. I been in mental anguish for the past several days. I am really hurting inside and I have gone into a slight depression. I have several people gunning for me and I am a major pillar in the community and people see me as a positive role model. Now, I feel like a criminal and all I want to do is hide. I have told no one the truth regarding the results of the polygraph cause it could totally ruin my life. HELP!! Should I be worried? What should I do? How do I cope? Thanks for letting me vent!! I really hate the polygraph!!! It gives decent law-abiding citizens a bad name!!
SecretAgent
SecretAgent,
A good start would be for you to educate yourself about the polygraph process. It will help you to understand and cope with what you've been through. If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) and begin reading. You might want to begin with Chapter 3, which explains how the "test" really "works" (and doesn't).
Quote from: secretagent on Feb 02, 2003, 05:57 AM
I been in mental anguish for the past several days. I am really hurting inside and I have gone into a slight depression. I have several people gunning for me and I am a major pillar in the community and people see me as a positive role model. Now, I feel like a criminal and all I want to do is hide. I have told no one the truth regarding the results of the polygraph cause it could totally ruin my life. HELP!! Should I be worried? What should I do? How do I cope? Thanks for letting me vent!! I really hate the polygraph!!! It gives decent law-abiding citizens a bad name!!
SecretAgent
Dear Secret Agent:
What you seem to be suffering from is the typical symptoms of the
mental rape done by the voodoo of polygraph. For each person the experience of going into the box is different. For those who honestly go into an exam and come out DI or Inconclusive, the trauma is extreme and lingers for a long period of time.
The poly exams are merely a ruse used to manipulate someone into an interrogation without the benefit of legal protection. Most attorneys would stop such an interrogation before the stem test was concluded, and I assure you, poly examiners adjust their fierceness and their level of deceit much more when observed by a subject's attorney.
The advise George gave you is an excellent place to start. When you arm yourself with knowledge, you will be in a better position to cope with this outrageous and viscious assault that you have endured.
I do not know what you admitted to, and it may very well be something that will completely disqualify you from joining any law enforcement agency. That is something that you will have to resolve within yourself. I wish you the very best.
Regards,
Seeker
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 02, 2003, 07:11 AM
Dear Secret Agent:
What you seem to be suffering from is the typical symptoms of the mental rape done by the voodoo of polygraph.
While true, it should be noted that from all appearances, secretagent was
NOT A VICTIM of the polygraph, but of successful associated interrogation which revealed some DQ factor. While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to, this would appear not to be another false positive. It's accusing and DQ'ing innocent examinees that creates the enduring dissonance that does damage rarely quantified or even admitted.
-Marty
OK Gents,
Please help me out here. We have an examinee, secretagent, who took a polygraph examination for employment with a law enforcement agency. He initially states he, "never committed any major crimes against anyone and the worst thing I have ever done was get a speeding ticket." (How about not so major crimes?) However he has some trouble on the polygraph, the examiner calls him on it and he immediately aknowledges what the issue was stating, "I explained what it was and it happened years ago." He continues to have problems with the polygraph and now states, "What I did was not a "crime" per se, it was in his eyes, but to me it was a situation that I let get out of control and it was a misunderstanding of sorts."
First question one has to ask is who is secretagent referring to when he says, "...it was in HIS eyes..."? Who is "his"?
So it wasn't a "crime" per se. Then what was it? It was a "situation". It was a situation that "got out of control." It was a situation that got out of control, "and was a misunderstanding of sorts."
Sounds like our "victim" maybe did something that someone else maybe thought was a crime. But in reality, we know who is to blame. As always, the polygraph examiner, the "mental rapist".
Lets remember, secretagent, in his own words is very capable of lieing, it's just "hard for me to lie" to put it in his words.
To answer your question secretagent, yes, you should be worried. Worried in that you lied during your application process. If you thought your past "situation" was just a misunderstanding why didn't you bring it up before you sat down to take the polygraph exam? You weren't "duped", and you weren't "too honest". You most likely were given the opportunity to bring up your past "situation", but you chose not to. You gambled and lost.
You mention that, "I have told no one the truth regarding the results of the polygraph...". So you just keep on lieing. Sounds like lieing isn't so hard for you after all.
George, Seeker, Marty, why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims? This guy knew full well what he was doing and now he's paying the price. He has no one to blame but himself.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Feb 02, 2003, 06:07 PM
OK Gents,
George, Seeker, Marty, why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?
batman,
Which part of "
NOT A VICTIM of the polygraph" did you not understand? You spend too much time reading between the lines [of secretagent's post] and not enough reading the lines.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Feb 02, 2003, 02:33 PM
While true, it should be noted that from all appearances, secretagent was NOT A VICTIM of the polygraph, but of successful associated interrogation which revealed some DQ factor. While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to, this would appear not to be another false positive. It's accusing and DQ'ing innocent examinees that creates the enduring dissonance that does damage rarely quantified or even admitted.
-Marty
Marty:
While I agree that Secretagent's account of his situation does smack of being busted in an interrogation, it is the method by which his admission was gained that I consider the rapist. The whole set up of a polygraph exam is just in fact that, and when someone naively enters into an exam, this does in fact have a great potential to occur. I do not pretend to suggest that he is a false positive, and if I conveyed that, I was indeed not being clear as to my opinion. His explanation of his feelings and of his reactions are atypical of what a rape victim would say of his or her feelings and reactions. This was the note that I found interesting and intended to comment on.
Do you consider my interpretation wrong, Marty, if I suggest that the polygraph exam, as it is used by law enforcement for screening purposes. has a much further reaching latitude than any type of interview for a job ever legitimately could have in our society? I have never heard of an applicant going through the mental or emotional disruption described by Secretagent wherein a polygraph was
NOT used.
Further, the end of my post says:
I do not know what you admitted to, and it may very well be something that will completely disqualify you from joining any law enforcement agency. That is something that you will have to resolve within yourself. I believe that Secretagent does have an issue here with his admission, but I also firmly hold that the polygraph exam experience
did in fact subject him to a mental rape. Or, would you gentlemen prefer to use the mentality of many and suggest that a rape victim asked for it because of the way he or she was dressed? My issue is with the process, the application of polygraph screening. I am indeed sympathetic to Secretagent for his very real feelings and reactions. I, however, do believe that being less than completely forthcoming was part and party to his demise with regard to his application. The suggested reading of
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector is an excellent tool to help victims of this type of abuse to cope and deal with the ramifications that they are left with. I certainly didn't see anyone chime in and suggest that he had some protest that needed to be made for his innocence, or that he had a false positive.
And, Caped Wonder Batman, check again for the facts, Sir. I am
NOT a GENT. I am amused that you failed to see that with those X-Ray vision glasses that you use on everyone else in here. ;D
Regards,
Seeker
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 02, 2003, 07:39 PM
Marty:
While I agree that Secretagent's account of his situation does smack of being busted in an interrogation, it is the method by which his admission was gained that I consider the rapist. The whole set up of a polygraph exam is just in fact that, and when someone naively enters into an exam, this does in fact have a great potential to occur. ..... Do you consider my interpretation wrong, Marty, if I suggest that the polygraph exam, as it is used by law enforcement for screening purposes. has a much further reaching latitude than any type of interview for a job ever legitimately could have in our society?
[Added to original: Original post by me was addressed to batman]
No. I agree with almost all of those points. if you go back to my original statement, you will note that it starts with that agreement and goes on to distinguish between the polygraph phase and the interrogation phase which oddly, is the most accurate if demeaning component. BTW, I have heard of cases where the FBI polygraphed civilians on specific incident situations and went into an interrogation of an innocent person (possibly without even getting a poly positve) at the end of which they appologized to the poor SOB who was distraught, saying the machine had been wrong.
If in fact the polygraph actually worked at near perfect levels publicly claimed I would have little problem with the interrogation component subsequent only to a failed poly.
Interrogations and confessions inflame all examinees but they create dissonance and it's distress only for the false positives. Anger perhaps is created in both. However, for examiners, the interrogation phase that yields a confession probably helps soothe the concience which otherwise might begin to twitch - and it does catch bad guys sometimes.
The anger here is more like rape than that of what happened to fair_chance in that it was some form of private disclosure secretagent did not want to make.
However, what most seem to experience that relate their stories here is of being accused of something that they did not do by someone presumed near infallible. That is hard, if not impossible, to deal with - and not just subjectively.
-Marty
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 02, 2003, 07:39 PM
I certainly didn't see anyone chime in and suggest that he had some protest that needed to be made for his innocence, or that he had a false positive.
Dear Seeker,
I read this post earlier and did not quite know how to interpret it. I do not know what exactly he is worrying about coming to the surface. Whatever it was (or is), it certainly concerns him that he does not want to let it become public.
I do not believe in using the polygraph as a prescreening tool.
I also believe that an applicant has the obligation to be completely honest in their application for exactly the arguments presented in this posting.
Should someone place this information which he holds in secret in a public newspaper or threaten the applicate to do so in the future, his career could be compromised. If his current agency already knows all the facts concerning the issue, it can not at least be used for career blackmail.
Criminals hold "levers" more valuable than gold. A "lever" in law enforcement is factual proof or hidden knowledge that a law enforcement officer violated policy or law. The criminal baits the law enforcement officer with silence "if only" he performs further acts (normally increasing in severity) until the officer cannot stop without losing his career, family, or life.
Take the polygraph out of this picture. I have people stressing, testing, and goading me almost everyday. While my polygraph was stressful because I was falsely accused, it certainly was not at all stressful compared to what I have been through in life. If I cannot handle a person yelling at me, cursing at me, and treating me with no repect, than I cannot be a law enforcement officer. People do treat us this way and we have to remain calm as best we can. The last thing I can afford to deal with are hidden ghost. This applicant still has a ghost which should be dealt with regardless of the polygraph, application process, or interrogation process. If he does not want his employer to know about it, imagine if his enemies get hold of it.
I do not stand in judgement of this person. I will say that if I could not handle a "hard grilling" by an interrogator than I probably could not handle my job.
Regards.
Batman, Hello Caped Crusader....I guess we can start our discussions between you and I today. How about these fools!! They have been advised that acting like lawyers is NOT their forte....so instead, they start acting like psychologists, giving people advice on how to "cope" (like Georgie telling secretagent to read his book which will help him cope). I certainly agree with you my fellow crime fighter (hey, I just thought of something...I may change my name to Green Lantern...then we can start the AP.ORG Justice League..and dedicate ourselves to bringing this idiotic chat room down in flames. Hey I have an idea I would like to discuss with you in a private email on how to counter their poster campaign....not that it has been any more effective then their ridiculous world-wide petition that has drawn a pitiful amount of interest. See you soon Batman....just south of Gotham City!
P.S. Seeker....it is a STIM test as in stimulation...NOT STEM as in the part of your brain which apparently is malfunctioning...My guess (and it is based on a LOT of experience) is that this guy was playing slap and tickle with someone and does not or refuses to recognize the words STOP. Disregarding those words has been held to be a CRIME called RAPE...I mention this because you apparently are a gal and I was just wondering if this changes your position on the "mental rape" of this "community pillar" (his words). I will bet that it does!
Quote from: Fair Chance on Feb 02, 2003, 08:43 PM
... If I cannot handle a person yelling at me, cursing at me, and treating me with no repect, than I cannot be a law enforcement officer.
Yes, you are quite right about that. However, you were accused by members of LE by a process publicly touted to be near infallible and that does hurt. It is obvious by your actions. Those same actions show you are dealing with it in a very professional, even admirable way. I suggest you are fairly rare amongst false positives many of whom feel shamed and hide not telling anyone. Many rape victims react the same way - sometimes even blaming themselves and become double victims.
-Marty
Quote from: Batman on Feb 02, 2003, 06:07 PM
. . . is very capable of lieing . . .
. . . like lieing isn't . . .
Batman,
First off, learn to spell. It's
lying, not
lieing. For a man who does this evey time he gives a polygraph, you should know how to spell it. Your posts immediately lose credibility with me when I see your errors.
And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or
lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The_Breeze called me a "gal" once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!
As to the issue of secretagent's polygraph . . .
I happen to see well delivered points on all sides of this discussion. As always, the pre-employment polygraph screening went well beyond its advertised parameters of spies, drugs, and false application information. I understand that agencies choose to use the polygraph in lieu of (that means instead of, Batman) a more detailed background check.
Apparently, this agency had some disqualification parameters that were met by the admission of secretagent. This agency got what it was looking for by using the polygraph, but it could have also gotten the same information through similiar methods -- bamboo, dripping water, car batteries w/ jumper cables, etc.
Subjecting unknowing applicnts to such methods of interrogation is unfair. They should be treated with more respect. But as a very famous polygrapher told me, "the polygraph will work better and better the less and less the subject knows about the methods of the test."
My major contention is the admission made by secretagent. If said admission is minor, but happens to meet DQ parameters, was it necessarily information withheld an an application?
Batman you said:
QuoteYou most likely were given the opportunity to bring up your past "situation", but you chose not to. You gambled and lost.
I disagree with this. Applications are very broad in asking questions, and even the pre-polygraph interview doesn't ask enough questions to elicit all information. There may be a DQ parameter that is met for an admission that is made in which the question is never asked during the polygraph and the pre-test interview.
I'm stabbing, but let's say that secretagent was involved in a crime of passion, a situation that could easily get out of control. I have yet to see a standard law enforcement application that asks questions of that sort, or heard of anyone getting asked these questions in a pre-test interview for a standard law enforcement position (there have been cases of the CIA using the poly to "enter the bedroom"). If an admission was made about an inappropriate relationship, could that have sparked a DQ parameter yet not been withheld on an application or during the pre-test interview?
The torture of the polygraph on the unknowing is truly intense, yet pro-polygraph types make light of the issue and continue to lay blame on the individual as if they were a criminal.
I would have preferred bamboo in my test, because the questions asked would be direct, like "are you a spy?", and under great pain I would scream "No!" They would ask the question enough times unti lI passed out, and then believe me.
Instead I was treated to the polygraph torture, where the my answer to the question of "are you a spy?" was'nt determined by what I said in response, but how I responed to the question asked 3 earlier, and the assumption that my answer to that question was a lie, even though I was telling the tuth . . . .
Just give me the damn bamboo.
Chris
Oh c'mon Captain Chris...you make this too easy. If you are going to attack someone because of their spelling and/or grammar, you ought to make double sure that yours is flawless....in this case....oops!...you blew it....probably just like you did when you took your polygraph....and lost your TS/SCI. Still confused? Recheck your posting to my hero Batman.....wherte you said that HE lost credibility with you (bet he will lose a lot of sleep over that) "" and your apparent stuttering....."withheld application?
;D
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 02, 2003, 08:48 PM
Batman, Hello Caped Crusader....I guess we can start our discussions between you and I today. How about these fools!! They have been advised that acting like lawyers is NOT their forte....so instead, they start acting like psychologists, giving people advice on how to "cope" (like Georgie telling secretagent to read his book which will help him cope). I certainly agree with you my fellow crime fighter (hey, I just thought of something...I may change my name to Green Lantern...then we can start the AP.ORG Justice League..and dedicate ourselves to bringing this idiotic chat room down in flames.
Don't flatter yourself, "Torpedo". Both of you put together have yet to demonstrate the ability to argue yourselves out of a wet paper bag. And considering how little material your "side" has to work with in the first place, perhaps either "Laurel and Hardy", or "Keystone Cops numbers 1 and 2" might be a better choice of nicknames.
The day you guys decide to engage in a debate on the facts (instead of a battle of name-calling wits in which you are clearly outgunned) will be a proud day for all of us. You can start by addressing the scientific findings of the NAS' report on polygraphy.
Skeptic
See Captain Chris...this is how it is done...you realize a mistake...and you come back and correct it....it is easy..I misspelled "where"...incorrectly spelling it "wherte" and when I was attempting (that means trying, Captain Chris) to underline an error you made, I erred and the result was a code "" rather than the underlining I wanted. I repeated this error when I was attempting to underline your misspelled word "applicnts" rather than "applicants". Also, when apparently stuttered and said "an an" when a single "an" would have been sufficient. It was a good thing that I went back and checked for MY errors...because I found yet another one of yours. The correct spelling/punctuation of the contraction for "was not" is "wasn't", not "was'nt. Next time you wish to have credibility with any of my fellow crime fighters....check your language skills!
My, how this thread has degenerated.
In general, guys, I'm not a big fan of "spelling and grammar" flames. They add nothing to arguments, and almost always, the flamer is living in a glass house. And yes, Torpedo, that includes you, too -- though I must say, I have yet to see you add anything of value to any thread, regardless.
I think attempting to deduce the whole story from most of our one- or two-paragraph horror story posts is nearly always a case of "going off half-cocked". Generally speaking, there's no way to derive "Secret Agent"'s indiscretion based upon what he's written, nor whether he's deserving of ridicule or praise. Unfortunately, unfounded, baseless assumption regarding those who post their stories here seems to be all too common among a couple of current posters who shall remain nameless (they know who they are).
I respectfully suggest that we keep our commentary confined to the polygraph itself in such cases, considering the lack of certainty regarding anything else.
Skeptic
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 03, 2003, 12:41 AM
See Captain Chris...this is how it is done...you realize a mistake...and you come back and correct it....it is easy..I misspelled "where"...incorrectly spelling it "wherte" and when I was attempting (that means trying, Captain Chris) to underline an error you made, I erred and the result was a code "" rather than the underlining I wanted. I repeated this error when I was attempting to underline your misspelled word "applicnts" rather than "applicants". Also, when apparently stuttered and said "an an" when a single "an" would have been sufficient. It was a good thing that I went back and checked for MY errors...because I found yet another one of yours. The correct spelling/punctuation of the contraction for "was not" is "wasn't", not "was'nt. Next time you wish to have credibility with any of my fellow crime fighters....check your language skills!
Torpedo,
I thought we talked about thinking before we typed, right? When will you learn this valuable tool?
Let's go back to our younger school days (although I'm sure you don't believe anything you learned except for what was taught at DoDPI). There is
spelling and then there is
grammar. Everyone makes typos (that stands for typographical error). Hell, I even got myself a new keyboard and now I'm fat-fingering the keys. I'll try not to pick on people for typos. But then there's grammar. And grammatical errors are inexcusable. Using "your" instead of "you're," "no" instead of "know," or even "lieing" (not even a word) instead of "lying." Poor grammar makes an individual appear uneducated. Deal with it.
QuoteIf you are going to attack someone because of their spelling and/or grammar, you ought to make double sure that yours is flawless....in this case....oops!...you blew it....probably just like you did when you took your polygraph....and lost your TS/SCI.
I won't attack anyone for spelling anymore (message received, Skeptic), but I'll have everyone know that you will inherently lose credibility with me by use of poor grammar.
And, Torpedo, last time I checked, grammar wasn't a part of the FBI polygraph, it was part of Phase II, which I passed. It's a good thing it wasn't part of the poly, because if your mastery of the English language was the knowledge base used to grade applicant grammar, the fail rate would be 100%.
And we're back to my clearance again. I did not lose my TS/SCI. I never submitted an EPSQ for a TS/PR becasue I knew I would be leaving the service 3 months before expiration. I asked my applicant coordiantor with the FBI if I should get a PR, and she told me that the DoJ does their own TS investigation, independant of the DoD. So in an effort of fiscal responsibility, I opted to not order a PR on myself.
And Torpedo, you continue to blast ME about clearances, while you fail to respond to my challenge to you. Belly up and take my challenge from this post:Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
« Reply #77 on: 01/30/03 at 22:56:34 »
(https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942): Ohterwise, for you credibility, keep quiet.
Chris
Marty,
You wrote:
QuoteWhile true, it should be noted that from all appearances, secretagent was NOT A VICTIM of the polygraph, but of successful associated interrogation which revealed some DQ factor.
At this point, we don't know whether SecretAgent "passed" or not. Nor is it clear whether SecretAgent's admission -- which was evidently regarding a matter highly embarrassing/humiliating to him/her -- was in fact a disqualifying factor, or whether it was responsive to any of the relevant questions in the polygraph interrogation.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 03, 2003, 08:01 AM
At this point, we don't know whether SecretAgent "passed" or not. Nor is it clear whether SecretAgent's admission -- which was evidently regarding a matter highly embarrassing/humiliating to him/her -- was in fact a disqualifying factor, or whether it was responsive to any of the relevant questions in the polygraph interrogation.
Well, it appears he passed in that issues that came up in the polygraph were resolved so there would be a NDI. However, he may in fact not have been disqualified by the specific admission - though it is unlikely. The key point here is that the examiner was not asking for more information, a normal process when the examiner does not yet have a DQ'ing admission. It's somewhat possible that the examiner may be uncertain on the law. That would certainly explain the examiners final comments.
So yes, I shouldn't have stated unequivocally that he was DQ'ed. However, I don't consider him a victim in the usual sense of being a false positive or giving a bogus confession - the concerns NAS's had.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Feb 03, 2003, 08:32 AM
The key point here is that the examiner was not asking for more information, a normal process when the examiner does not yet have a DQ'ing admission.
Good points by George and Marty. We do not know the fate of secretagent, we have all made assumptions.
What we do know is that secretagent made some sort of admission. My concern is that if he was DQ'd for this admission, was he truly given the opportunity to disclose this information prior to the polygraph??
Let's say applicant X (no relation to x_X_x), when he was in high school, cheated on his all important SAT and was never caught. It's not really a crime, per se, but something that might eat away at applicant X for the rest of his life.
Under the mental duress of the polygraph, believing that it can truly read your mind, applicant X might spill that he cheated on his SAT. And the unforgiving polygrapher DQ's him, and then blames applicant X for not revealing this information when he had the chance. What application gave this applicant the chance to disclose this action?
If the question is never asked, then the applicant believes that the action isn't relevant. So an admission to the like during the polygraph must be the only solution, in the mind of the unknowing applicant, to get the machine to read correctly.
How then can applicant X be DQ'd when he was never given the chance to reveal said information??
Batman wrote:
QuoteTo answer your question secretagent, yes, you should be worried. Worried in that you lied during your application process. If you thought your past "situation" was just a misunderstanding why didn't you bring it up before you sat down to take the polygraph exam? You weren't "duped", and you weren't "too honest". You most likely were given the opportunity to bring up your past "situation", but you chose not to. You gambled and lost.
Batman, I ask again, what if secretagent was never asked a question relevant to his "crime"?? How can you assume he gambled? He could only gamble if he knew the DQ criteria.
Chris
Marty:
I appreciate your response, and you raise valid points. I have only found real issue with one particular thing you said.
Quote from: Marty on Feb 02, 2003, 08:41 PM
Interrogations and confessions inflame all examinees but they create dissonance and it's distress only for the false positives. Anger perhaps is created in both. However, for examiners, the interrogation phase that yields a confession probably helps soothe the concience which otherwise might begin to twitch - and it does catch bad guys sometimes.
I suggest that interrogations and confessions do in fact create dissonance and distress for the majority of people - false positive, inconclusive, and DI. I believe it is the very nature of the beast.
I contend that I would have less issue with the results of an interrogation regardless of the result - admission, confession, or adamant denial. At least with interrogations, you do not manipulate your authority as a law enforcement officer by pretending to be capable of determining truth or deception by the use of a toy. A subject would enter into an interrogation full aware of the latitude that could be covered. With the polygraph, such is not the case.
I believe it is the realization that what was to be, in the minds of most, a simple paper drill that somehow turns into a horrific interrogation experience to be the most difficult thing to swallow.
Question:
Why was it when I agreed to submit to an interrogation without the benefit of my attorney present in lieu of the polygraph, it was declined?
My thinking:
The circus act that polygraph examiners are trained to go through would not have been in place. It is their set-up, their dance, that they believe causes the mental manipulation needed to get someone into the right mindset to allow them to then extract what they are seeking.
Regards,
Seeker
Fair Chance:
Yes, in fact I agree that any law enforcement officer as well as any person with access to classified information should very well be able to handle stress, including hard grilling as is typical in a lot of polygraph exams.
Your point about someone having some ghost that could open them up to blackmail is very sound and valid. I appreciate that.
All of that having been said, I have a question based on what you stated:
Quote from: Fair Chance on Feb 02, 2003, 08:43 PM
Take the polygraph out of this picture. I have people stressing, testing, and goading me almost everyday. While my polygraph was stressful because I was falsely accused, it certainly was not at all stressful compared to what I have been through in life. If I cannot handle a person yelling at me, cursing at me, and treating me with no repect, than I cannot be a law enforcement officer. People do treat us this way and we have to remain calm as best we can. The last thing I can afford to deal with are hidden ghost. This applicant still has a ghost which should be dealt with regardless of the polygraph, application process, or interrogation process. If he does not want his employer to know about it, imagine if his enemies get hold of it.
What if the person sitting for the polygraph is NOT law enforcement, or seeking a LE job? Let us also presume that it would not be a criminal investigative matter. Would you contend the same in such a situation?
Regards,
Seeker
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 04, 2003, 07:41 AM
What if the person sitting for the polygraph is NOT law enforcement, or seeking a LE job? Let us also presume that it would not be a criminal investigative matter. Would you contend the same in such a situation?
Regards,
Seeker
Dear Seeker,
I would only sit through another polygraph of any kind only if absolutely necessary (my favorite comparison is that of getting a root canal, it might be necessary but I still would prefer for it to not happen). The jobs that would require (and get away with this) are mostly governmental ones since the polygraph is not legal for pre-employment screening in the private sector. At this point in time, most government jobs are at the discretion of the government and if you want the job, you do have to jump through the hoops (yes, sometimes it is a "circus" environment!).
I do not agree with the polygraph used in probation because it is subject to misinterpretation (by chance, poor operators, and countermeasures).
If accused of wrongdoing, I would not subject myself to one in any private sector application.
As a normal person, I do not like anyone yelling, screaming, cursing, or abusing me if I have any choice in the matter. I stay away from people who do these things on my time. I do not think this is a good way to get answers because most people just become defensive and shut-down any communications. The more intellegent and strongwilled the person, the less they will communcate.
If you would give me specific examples of how and what the interrogation is about than I would hopefully be more specific in my answer.
A "one size fits all approach" is definitely not the way to get answers, information, or confessions. The interrogator must match his/her style to the mindset of the subject (this can be more civil and much more productive as any mother of two or more children learns very quickly!).
Regards.
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 04, 2003, 07:30 AM
I suggest that interrogations and confessions do in fact create dissonance and distress for the majority of people - false positive, inconclusive, and DI. I believe it is the very nature of the beast.
I think we are actually closer than would appear. I also agree poly interrogations create stress even with true DI's. I don't think it is caused by dissonance so much as shame/fear. Dissonance based stress is a different animal and has to be reconciled somehow, and probably drives more people to this site post poly than any other factor. I suspect people who are true positives on a DI [usually] don't come here at all. [The secretagent type of post is rare here compared to it's frequency in poly exams.]
[added]
-Marty
Quote from: Fair Chance on Feb 04, 2003, 09:57 AM
If you would give me specific examples of how and what the interrogation is about than I would hopefully be more specific in my answer.
A "one size fits all approach" is definitely not the way to get answers, information, or confessions. The interrogator must match his/her style to the mindset of the subject (this can be more civil and much more productive as any mother of two or more children learns very quickly!).
Regards.
Fair Chance:
Thanks for your response. To be specific, let us discuss the use of the polygraph with unjammed sources.
The practice is widely used within the FBI, and only in extreme circumstances within other agencies.
I suggest that the mere suggestion of submission to a polygraph to these types of individuals who volunteer their time and efforts, place themselves in harm's way, and operate without the advantage of a badge and gun should never be subject to a polygraph examination. I find it utterly insane. Information can be verified, and that is the very reason LE has their CI's prove their credibility prior to using them or increasing their status within the agency.
I am further outraged that the polygraph is used in these situations to delegate valuable time, engery, and resources often to the chagrin of the agency. (case in point was the release of the media frency about 5 wanted Arab men because someone was deceptive and still passed the poly) Or, on the other hand, they ignore valid information due to a DI, or Inconclusive reading, only to find that they wear the egg cart on their faces afterwards.
I am not, nor have I ever had a desire to be in law enforcement. I have had a lot of contact with them, and I have been available to them on numerous occassions. It seems to me that they are very capable of determining the validity of information or the veracity of a source without such asinine practices of hooking them up to the box.
This goes back to an interrogation. Should a RI or CI be subjected to an hard grilling interrogation? I assert that a good investigator can determine through genuine field work if the source is reliable, and if so, action should be taken on all information presented. If, on the other hand, it should be found out that a source should proves to be sending LE on a wild goose chase, there are laws out there that can be applied to this situation and charges can be filed.
In the end, I contend that sources are too valuable to discard over such lunacy as the polygraph.
This is just one such example that I question about.
Regards,
Seeker
Dear Seeker,
Before I start the following discussion I want to make very clear that I find the "validity" of polygraph usage in the FBI prescreening to be a waste of time and money unless a thorough investigation is done and a very specific incident can be identified. Even with this, the percentage outcome has not scientifically been proven and a margin of error cannot be defined. The utility of the polygraph is the main reason it still exist.
The Director of the FBI has requested an additional 13 positions specifically for polygraph for the fiscal year 2003 due to the anticipated increase in examinations (source can be verified on the FBI website under press releases, Congressional Statements). Someone at a high level is still defending this primative device and I can hear their sly justification, "There is nothing better or more cost effective." Emphasis on cost effective. Anyone who has read the complete NAS report knows that this is a very good spin on stretching the truth.
Many people on this site have attacked "The Breeze"'s posting but he has been very astute in this area. The FBI believes it saves money and footwork on "believing the polygraph". Since all successful employees and special agents successfully pass their exams, they have no reason to question or doubt the validity and endorse its usefulness and effectiveness. It allows the "good-ole-boys club" to selectively enhance the probability of finding a candidate with attributes that the current leadership wants to perpetuate without violating hiring laws. The refusal to videotape the examination, use tamper resistant time/date techniques (via computer recording), and not allowing the applicant to sign all copies of any current strips used would be ample ammunition for any expert attorney to question the chain of custody and validity of results due to possible tampering. Any long time examiner will admit that through unethical behavior they could skew the results of any polygraph experience. The videotape is key to objectively witnessing unethical behavior. The videotape can protect the polygraph examiners against false accusations and I can find no good ethical examiner who would have a problem with showing his/her exam to an objective person and defending their actions. The only outcome of this logic is that examiners who do not use videotape are not proud of their technique or procedure and fear review of such actions.
Seeker, you are trying to be logical with a system which is not founded on logic. No matter how you discuss it, it cannot make sense to a reasonable person. I would not trust my life on information provided to me by an informant (volunteer or otherwise) strictly based on polygraph. The polygraph is just another prop to intensify an interrogation. The polygraph just gives a warm and fuzzy feeling without spending any real money on footwork. A good interrogator does not need a polygraph except as a "fear inducing tool." The utility of confessions is in direct proportion to the fear that the examiner can instill in the examinee that the polygraph works.
My first few postings vented my anger that the polygraph is given so much weight in the vetting process of an FBI application without any other source of information. This is nothing short of allowing the examiner to be the "gate keeper" of the organization. By carefully controlling who is allowed to be an examiner, a supervisor can ensure his opinions will be perpetuated in spirit (similar to the sway the President can have on Supreme Court Justices by picking nominees who agree with his personal values).
Polygraphing an unjammed source serves no useful purpose if one knows all the answers anyway from other sources. If one does not have any other sources, I would be very remiss about just using a polygraph for verification if my life depended on it.
Regards.
Where do I start,
How about Steincj: Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth. I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass".... You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Marty: I think I asked, "...why can't you simply look at some of these posts and acknowledge that not all these folks are innocent victims?" This was more of a general question put to you and the others, based more on the tone of previous postings. Even though you acknowledged, with some qualifications, that scretagent did not appear to be a vicitm of polygraph, I interpreted the general tone of your post to be that he was still vitimized to some extent. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I guess when you stated, "While the "mental rape" component I am sympathetic to"..." kind of threw me.
Two Block: This is in response to a different thread. I guess you asked me some questions that I have, to date, failed to answer. Sorry, but on ocassion I do not have access to the internet for extended periods of time so I must have missed your questions. If you don't mind, would you please post them again, and I will try my best to answer. Of course that is if I can pluck out a reponse with these chicken wings of mine.
DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Feb 07, 2003, 07:28 PM
Where do I start,
How about Steincj: Jeese, I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth. I will try harder in the future, however on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary, I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass".... You know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Oh, that's good. Any women in the reading audience want to take a subjective polygraph from an idiot who thinks like this?
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 07, 2003, 11:27 PM
Oh, that's good. Any women in the reading audience want to take a subjective polygraph from an idiot who thinks like this?
Skeptic
I am one woman who wouldn't desire to submit to a polygraph by someone with such blatant bias.
Batman -
Shame on you. I am willing to chance it (like a polygraph ;)) that your intentions may not have been exactly as they came across in your post. I would hope not seeing as how you are, I believe, representing law enforcement in the USA.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. And I had come to expect better out of you, Caped Crusader.
Best,
Seeker
My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc,
"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Feb 08, 2003, 11:44 AM
My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
I was replying to the following comment by Steinjc,
"And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The Breeze called me a 'gal' once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!"
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Hey Chris, how do you like that grammar?
Batman
Batman,
I hope you have some vacation time coming up. As tightly wound as you seem to be, I really think you need a break.
Your friend,
Skeptic
Batman,
Thanks for replying to all of our posts. Without your comments, everything was just getting too intellectual.
Quote from: Batman on Feb 07, 2003, 07:28 PM
I'm sorry I'm such a doofus for using "lieing" instead of "lying". I guess that just makes me about the dumbest SOB on God's green earth.
Your words, not mine . . .
Quote
on that one rare ocassion I opened the dictionary
You mean you actually put down your DoDPI polygrapher's handbook? Judging by your posts, I think you forgot to pull your head out of your ass long enough to see what was in the dictionary.
Quote
I didn't see your picture next to the word "perfect". Now when I looked up "jackass"....
Let's leave Torpedo out of this, shall we?
QuoteYou know, some folks probably think you are a "gal" because of all your crying about how your got screwed by the FBI. Maybe if you would simply dry your tears and start acting like you stand when you piss then folks wouldn't think your a woman!
Have you ever put yourself in my shoes? Or anyone else who was a false positive? Before you say anything - there really is such a thing as a false positive. Can you understand how unbelievably painful it must be? Not only is the career you were seeking taken away from you, but also your dignity, trustworthiness, and everythihg you have ever worked for -- all voided by a simple test result. If you had this happen to you, maybe you might cry foul. But you are too tough for that, right Batman? A real man you just chalk it up as a loss and move on, right? Wrong. I'm fighting for my dignity. Mock me all you want, but I'm not letting that machine ruin me.
QuoteThe bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
You're right Batman, this claim might be BS. None of us have enough information on the situation to determine the truth. That being said, how can you instantly determine that he is lying? Could it be that his "crime," even though it might not have broken any law, was traumatic enough to effect him on his test? And if he was never asked any specific question regarding this incident, yet revealed it during the polygraph as an effort to clear his conscience, can he really be considered "deceptive"? If you never ask him about it, how can he be punished for not revealing it?
Quote
DISCLAIMER: I am just a poor old dumb ass so please excuse any misspellings, or improper use of grammer, and do not let it reflect negatively upon my credibility.
First off, your content is what makes you lose credibility. As I search for some sort of ratioanle while reading your posts, I am interrupted by the spelling alarm that goes off in my head. I get distracted from trying to find the point in your writing, and your credibility is further diminished.
And by the way, it's
grammar.
Chris
steincj,
Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS.
With regard to DoD DSS/OPM security clearance background investigations, the following may be of interest:
It's important to note that DSS does not make any security clearance determinations or recommendations. DSS simply gathers information. Once the information has been verified, and the investigations completed, DSS presents the information to the specific military service's adjudicator authority (each military service has their own), who determine whether or not to grant the security clearance, using standards set by that particular military service.
It's impossible to say if any particular thing will result in denial of a security clearance. The adjudicators use the Adjudicator Guidelines to determine whether or not the individual can be trusted with our nation's secrets. Primarily, adjudicators look for honesty, trustworthiness, character, loyalty, financial responsibility, and reliability. On cases that contain significant derogatory information warranting additional action, the adjudicator may draft a request for additional investigation/information, or request psychiatric or alcohol and drug evaluation. Even so, adjudicators are not the final authority. All denials of clearances must be personally reviewed by a branch chief, or higher.
Because of a recent change in the law, there are some factors which will positively result in the denial of a clearance. As a result of the Smith Amendment, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:
(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802))
(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD
(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.
The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases.
Respectfully,
triple_x
Quote from: x_X_x on Feb 09, 2003, 03:01 AM
Congratulations on the recent request for reinstatement of your TS.
X,
Thanks, but I didn't ask the Army for my TS back. The Army is ordering me to resubmit.
I figure the Army wants all its ducks in a row in case of a full recall. I'd be a liability to the Army if called back and didn't have my TS.
Of course, I'm interested to see how this failed polygraph will come into play. And I want every pro-polygraph person on this site to try and stop me from regaining my TS. I want them to see first hand how little weight their pathetic accusations hold.
Of course, this will be a very long ordeal.
For those who have seen my posts regarding clearances, you'll know that this is an interesting issue for me. Recently I said that I didn't pursue a TS PR while on active duty for reasons of fiscal responsibility. IRR soldiers may have been required to maintain full readiness, but it was never enforced. I guess world situations dictate otherwise nowadays.
I'll be sure to keep everyone posted, including the FBI, who I will inform shortly about this little "issue."
Chris
Quote from: Batman on Feb 08, 2003, 11:44 AM
My Dear Seeker (and you too Septic),
Now, why didn't you jump on his case for his obvious bias? Who are you trying to kid? The only reason you tried to slam me is because I am a polygraph examiner, and my point of view on the topic is different from yours and other jerks like Septic. You two can take your "blatant bias" crap and shove it!
My Dear Batman:
I have read Steincj's post several times, and frankly, I don't see the sexual bias in his as I see in yours. I do not intend nor try to slam anyone, and I have no problem with anyone who has a different view of my own. I have three small children for crying out loud - I am used to living in harmony with people who disagree with me on almost every topic you can imagine. I appreciate your "shove it" remark. Glad to see that being a lady evokes such pleasantries from a gentleman.
Quote
It's utterly amazing how when someone comments on an asinine post such as secretagent's you slugs all come crawling out of the wood work, not to refute what I said, but to play some lame "blatant bias" card. Nice try, but a lame attempt to change the topic, and shift blame. The bottom line is secreagent got caught LYING and now wants to lay blame on the doorstep of the polygraph examiner. All I'm asking is that on occasion you twits admit that some of the posts with these claims are in fact bullshit.
I prefer to think of myself as a pawn as opposed to a slug, but thanks for the kindness, Batman. If you go back and read my posts a bit slower, and thing about them, I did in fact suggest to secretagent that if his admission was one that disqualified him, then it was something with which he would have to accept and deal with. I didn't come out to fight his case for him, nor did I say that he was a false positive. My point was, and continues to be, that what he wrote was classical symptoms of how a rape victim describes his or her (yes, men are raped too) experience.
Quote
You want to talk about bias, you're all so damn bias in your way of thinking about polygraph you can't, or won't acknowledge that it works under any circumstances. Any time there is any level of success related to the utilization of polygraph it's simply played off as taking advantage of some poor stupid nitwit, or a mental raping (Oh, I believe you coined that phrase Seeker. How do you think any woman who has suffered as a victim of rape would feel about your use of the word under these circumstances? Seems a little insensitive on your part. Don't you agree Septic?). In our business we try to be a little more caring for the feelings of others. We simply call is a "Skull F--king".
Again, my Dear Bat...read my posts again. In my posts on the Westerfield polygraph, I do in fact state that the case is good ground for proof of utility issues with the polygraph. I have never suggested that the toy be taken out of an investigator's tool box for criminal matters. I have absolutely NO issue with it being used in that manner.
Now, let's talk about this rape thing that had you speaking out of turn.
During the time that I was the prime age for rape victims, the US DOJ statistics for women being raped was 1 in 4. Today, as crime has been declining, it stands at 1 in 6. I think you should be a bit more careful in suggesting to me, a woman, that I have no authority nor knowledge about rape that would allow me to use that phrase. And, thank you, but no, I did not coin the phrase. It was actually a most profound and accurate description of a polygraph exam by a federal agent pal of mine.
You think that skull f--king isn't tantamount to mental rape? My goodness, Batman. Work with me here for a minute. If an act is consensual, it is not rape. Right? If it is not consensual, it is rape. Right? If you don't agree on these basic principles, then the rest of my arguement will be useless.
If I sign a paper before going out with a guy that says that we will have consensual intimacy, but then in the process of the date I decide that it is not in my best interest to be intimate, or let's say that he decided that my idea of consensual gave him a free pass to hurt me, to abuse me, to degrade me, would you fight for his side and say that since I signed an agreement (even though in my mind I agreed to a romantic evening with compassionate and gentle intimacy), I deserved what I got? If that is the case, then would you think that no matter how I fought, screamed, and begged, that I was still under that signed release and that I just have to take what is dished out to me?
How can you tell me that skull f--king is NOT the equivalent to mental rape? When someone goes into a polygraph exam, especially in screening exams, they do not go into it with the full knowledge of what is about to happen to them. They think that they are merely going through another paper drill, and that it will be quick and painless. I am more than willing to admit that this can and very much is the case in a lot of pre-screening exams. However, I have heard (from federal agents with whom I would never attempt to question their veracity) some pretty horrid tales of polygraph exams. I have heard of them not being allowed by the examiner to go to the bathroom before the exam (and the guy REALLY had to go bad), face-to-face screaming matches that had to be broke up once they became physical, and arbitrary accusations of criminal acts. These agents left the polygraph exam room with the feeling that they had been manipulated, abused, harassed, and unnecessarily put through harsh and inhumane situations. It fell way short of their expectations and anticipations about a polygraph exam.
In the interest of time and space, I haven't gone into the depths of proving my point in hopes that you can see it if you sit back and think about it.
Again, it is the validity of the polygraph that I do not accept. The utility is another subject all together. If using any prop or toy brings about the conclusion (in a fair way) of a crime, then I would never argue to discontinue its use. I am willing to accept its use ONLY as it pertains to criminal investigations.
Regards,
Seeker
Hello Board. I read all the posts and I appreciate the feedback on both fronts. I have "recovered" from the polygraph but will ALWAYS have a fear of that thing. I did want to let everyone know that I was disqualified from the selection process. I do have some questions. I have applied with the "sister" agency to the one I was just disqualified for. The selection processs is exactly the same, the polygraph questions and the EXAMINER are the same. Is it fair to say, I will not be selected for this agency too? This isnt the end of the road for me and I know I will have to sit in that chair again in the near future. I know I will probably have to take at least 3 more within the next 2 years. I dont believe in countermeasures cause I have nothing to hide, but I have to pass the next polygraph that comes up. I know I probably wont freak out like I did before. I am a little crushed that the polygraph kept me from joining one of best law enforcement agencies in my state. I still think they should find a better system. Take care all! Thanks
Secretagent
secretagent,
I hope that you learned your lesson from your first polygraph! Don't withhold any information. If the LE agency has set a standard as far as past activities (criminal or not), then there is not much else to say is there? LE and other such agencies have good reason for establishing hiring standards. It is not enough for you to weep all over them to get in! If you don't fit the bill quit trying. Unfortunately there are no real jobs for professional victims; you might be good at that. Go get'em Batman.
Secretagent,
Did the application form for the "sister" department have a section asking you to divuldge whether you have applied to any other police forces?
If it does, or if you are ever asked that question during an interview, you are screwed. They will get your written permission to contact that department to get your FAILED poly results. As a means of saving them time and money to polygraph you, they will use your old results and fail you too.
If you are as honest as you say, you will tell every new force you apply to about your first application. They will contact that force and bam! Fail. Sorry but thems the breaks! Happened to me.
Secretagent,
check out my previous posting , "fail here, pass there". I think you will find it interesting.
Never stop trying. Anyone who tells you in a post that you are not cut out for LE is really speaking about themselves. LE has a variety of jobs to fill, from mall security to double top secret special agent.
Get in, do good, move up!!!