Aren't you being a little dishonest here?

[Drew Richardson]

Darkcobra,

You are correct in your assessment that we can agree to disagree and presumably set aside those things that we disagree about.  But there are consequences to such an arrangement.  We are left largely with only discussing our mutual interest in concealed information testing.  And as you correctly state, I give very little credence to much of the polygraph research literature.  Because it has largely been performed or paid for by the industry that depends on it for its life blood (of concern to the National Academy of Sciences review panel as well), it suffers from irreparable bias and because it (simulated crimes) has no external validity it, by definition, has no bearing on real life (and from my point of view) adds little to no support to anything which is currently be operationally done in the field with regard to lie detection.  And because of all the aforementioned, it is my strong belief that your apparently quite genuine concern for those who have suffered from polygraphy's errors will in no way translate to an improved environment for future examinees as long as you and others continue to use flawed techniques.  I don't believe the remorse you have expressed for your colleague's errors merely amounts to crocodile tears, but unfortunately if you continue to utilize and support other's use of the various generally applied lie-detection formats your concern will quite sadly never be enough....  Ok, so how are you applying the GKT to your specific incident testing?  Care to share any investigative situations and test constructions with us?  Regards....

[Drew Richardson]

Darkcobra,

I am afraid your comparison between medicine and polygraphy is more specious than I can bear.  Although the former does contain aspects of art as well as science, it universally recognized as a serious body of knowledge and practice.  This is most certainly not the case for polygraphy.  In fact, surveys have indicated that a majority of the members of what would be the parent science of polygraphy (if polygraphy had any connection to science), psychophysiology, believe (CQT) lie detection to be invalid, easily manipulated, and lacking a theoretical basis for practice. Interestingly enough, both the medical (A.M.A.) and the psychological (A.P.A.) communities that you mention have called for and end to polygraph screening in years past.   I suppose it is best said by Al Zelicoff (M.D.) when he says (quoted on the home page): "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

[polyscam]

Darkcobra,

A quick correction.  Dr. Lykken (according to himself) has never been a polygraph examiner.  He has conducted studies involving polygraphy, however he has never been employed as a polygraphist.  Through his research he developed (as we all know) the "Guilty Knowledge Test" as a means of detecting knowledge of a certain event rather than deception.  Interestingly, polygraphy has only made up approximately 25% of his academic research.

[EosJupiter]

The only argument now is the Control Question Technique, which is controversial because we don't know ground truth as we do in the GKT examination, therefore we do have false positives, false negatives and inconclusive results.  

Research, under ASTM guidlines, has demonstrated 90 to 95% accuracy which few examiners dispute, however academics dispute.  Most have not been involved with polygraph as a trained and seasoned examiner.  I have the utmost sympathy for those that are called untruthful when in fact they have been truthful, it does occur.  In comparrison, we have persons convicted of crimes based on "eye witnesss" testimony that are innocent. Should we eleminate all eye witness testimony in court cases?  We know it is not 100% accurate information.  

DarkCobra,

 Eyewitness testimony is only so good anyways and a good defense lawyer stands a chance of nullifying it to a jury. But as we all know the Polygraph test is not admissable in a court of law unless all three parts of the proceeding agree, Judge, prosecutor, and defense. And at best with all three in agreement its a rare occurance.
And I would never suggest to my client that he ever take a polygraph, unless 1- its with an examiner of my choosing, 2 - in a neutral or positive location to my client.
3 - without any distractions of a law enforcement official being present.  ANd it would only be used if the Outcome is NDI.  Otherwise it won't be used.  And by your own admission the CQT has faults ... unless its 100% accurate its worthless. And I have had this discussion with other lawyers and those of us soon to be. We all believe that the polygraph flaws are actually a help to getting rid of foul device. Keep putting the guilty in jail and be a real interrogator, most really good interrogators I know, from my military experience don't need a polygraph to get the results desired.  Thoughts worth pondering ....  

[Fair Chance]

Dear EosJupiter,

I have advocated your points many times.  A good professional interrogator would have elicitated the same responses from me without the pretense of a machine which is an "art form" instead of science.

I have three degrees in technology and science.  
Do not insult me and my talents with the assumption that the polygraph as it is used is scientific.

The FBI will never get the best minds capable of solving their huge technoligical problems by pretending to potential applicants that they believe in this "science".

Regards.

[Sergeant1107]

In my opinion, what renders the polygraph utterly worthless is not that it and its operator fail to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects.  What renders the polygraph worthless is that in addition to failing to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects, it also erroneously "fails" or labels as deceptive a certain percentage of truthful subjects.

If the sole accuracy issue with the polygraph were that it was unable to detect all of the deceptive subjects but it never falsely "failed" any truthful subjects, I doubt I would have a problem with it.

If that were the case there would be some degree of certainty in those tests where deception was detected.  If there were no chance of a false positive then the polygraph would at least be of some use.  

In those cases were deception was indicated there would be certainty that the subject was, in fact, deceptive.  In those cases where no deception was indicated there would still be the uncertainty of whether the subject was being truthful or whether his deception simply went undetected.  Even so, there would be some degree of utility if the polygraph and polygraph examiners were capable of this degree of accuracy.

However, the actual accuracy of the polygraph, which includes an unknown false-positive rate, renders it worthless.  

Given the actual accuracy of the polygraph, a test result indicating deception means that either the subject was deceptive, or that the subject was truthful but is part of the unknown percentage of subjects who register as a false-positive.  A test result indicating no deception means that the subject was truthful, or that the subject was deceptive but successfully employed countermeasures, or that the subject was deceptive but is part of the unknown percentage of subjects whose deception will not be detected.

The percentages of false-positives and the percentages of deceptive subjects who escape detection are hotly debated, but I cannot recall any polygraph supporters who claimed that the correct figure for either percentage is zero.  

That being the case, what more do you know after a polygraph exam than you did prior to it?  If the subject "passed" it means he could have been truthful or he could have been deceptive.  If he "fails" it likewise means he could have been truthful or he could have been deceptive.

It is not the inability of the polygraph to detect 100% of deceptive subjects that causes the problems.  It is the unknown percentage of false-positives that renders all non-specific issue polygraph test results suspect.

[EosJupiter]

Do not insult me and my talents with the assumption that the polygraph as it is used is scientific.


Regards.

I insulted you FairChance I am a strong antipolygraph person on this board ... If I did then please accept my apologies.  And as a soon to be lawyer I plan on making it a point to dissect any and all
bogus type attempts of polygraph,  CVSA use. Everyone gets a good defense no matter what .

Now as for you DarkCobra, you would not even be chosen as a possible candidate to give a potential client a polygraph, As you are a LEO ...... Part 3 of my last post explains why, No interference by Law enforcement.  

Bottom line on interrogation ... the polygraph is the last desperate attempt to pressure someone into an admission. Its a pressure tool no more, no less. And it will work on the weak minded,  naive, and inexperienced.

As a matter of fact any interrogator counts on at least one of these short comings to break the subject THats why this web site is so vitally important to make sure that none are ever unprepared for the discord of a polygraph (electric rubber hose).

To the most extent possible my clients will be so prepared to handle any type of interrogation, its amazing that my military interrogation training works both ways. It can be put to such good use as to circumvent any attempts by the likes of a polygrapher to break them.  Every day the number of people grows who know how to beat that kluge machine. I plan on making sure it increases expotentially.  

[Fair Chance]

Dear EosJupiter,

My apoligies for the way my last statement was presented.

I am insulted by any agency or polygraph examiner to use such instrument in a "scientific" manner, not by your presentations or opininions (which I was trying to agree with).

That line was presented for the agency advocates of the polygraph prescreening process.

You have been polite and professional with your post.

Regards.

[EosJupiter]

 You may well prepare your clients to face a skilled interrigator, and by doing so get guilty clients off the hook.  If that is your lifes ambition, go for it and do well.

My personal belief is that we are responsible for our actions and the consequences that follow.  I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect.  

So the premise of the polygraper shows through finally. Guilty until polygraphed innocent !!. As a future officer of the court, it is my sworn duty to defend the rights of those I am either charged with helping or who pay me to help. The premise that I am not responsible for my actions, well that is rather funny because as a  military officer I have had as many lifes in my care, and never lost a single one. With the exception of losing good people to a ridiculous machine called a polygraph, who for no other reason than, they are nervious or inexperienced, and thus were unduly accused and chastized by certain elements of various security services, and clearances lost. Hence the reason I am so vocal on the removal of the polygraph from pre-employment and post hiring (5 year updates) within any level of government.  As a law enforcement tool, well that I leave to others to decide on how they want to handle that situation. But I will never let a polygrapher or a test ever go unchallenged. Everyone  deserves fairness in all things. ANd if a person is guilty, then the evidence will convict him. And it shows that a good cop did the right work, and it won't matter what I have done as a defense attoney. For I know I can be impartial, guilty or not. And good cops don't need a polygraph to get the evidence they need.

[George W. Maschke]

My personal belief is that we are responsible for our actions and the consequences that follow.  I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect.  

So do you require examinees to sign a waiver of liability before you will agree to polygraph them, as is standard operating procedure amongst polygraphers? Why would you do such a thing if you truly accept responsibility for your actions and their consequences?

It seems to me that the polygraph community has collectively shirked any and all responsibility for its failures and the consequences thereof.

How should polygraphers who falsely accuse the truthful of deception be held accountable?

[EosJupiter]

I did not state "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT", you ass/u/med that from my post.

DarkCobra,

Over the course of my last few posts, I have interrogated you, and found you to be deceptive, not much fun is it ? And you got ticked off, by that assuption. And I have read everything you have posted here and you appear to be genuine in your belief that your fair and doing whats right.  And doing assumptions is what polygraphers do isn't it ? Its just opinions that you give on your test. As George's ID states, Who polygraphs the polygraphers.  Now if your mad enough maybe some sobering thoughts from our little conversations will ring true ... I respect you for being a LEO, never once did I assume you to be unprofessional in your beliefs. But in order to crack this wall of belief sometimes demolition is needed. Do what you do, but be willing to listen. When a technology that is 100% proven to determine deception is invented, I will be more than willing to support its use.  Game, set, match.

[EosJupiter]

On the amends side:

DarkCobra,

 its not personal, I would never be that unfair .... regards

[George W. Maschke]

You may sign an informed consent form prior to taking a polygraph examination, it is at best worthless!!  All attorneys I have spoken with inform me that I can be sued and held accountable for errors and ommissions I make regardless of the informed consent signed by the examinee.  State Law mandates a release be signed prior to any examination, giving the name, address and telephone number of the State Polygraph Examiners Board.  (Texas).

I'm not talking about "informed consent" statements. I'm talking about waivers of liability. It is standard practice amongst polygraphers to require examinees to hold harmless the polygrapher and his employer from any and all liability claims arising from the polygraph examination. My question to you is whether you require examinees to sign a waiver of liability, and, if so, why, if it is indeed the case that you accept responsibility?

I am responsible for my actions and accept responsibility....

Would you then go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed? What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers? How can such a requirement be ethically justified? Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions?

[George W. Maschke]

The informed consent form is the form that has a release and hold harmless statement in it, and as I stated, many attorneys have reviewed it and informed me it is worthless when it comes to being taken to court.  We are not immune from suit, many have been filed against examiners and some have been awarded damages.  If State Law mandates the form and even words it for you as a matter of law, it would be illegal not to get it signed.  I have had examinees refuse to sign the form and that ends the examination before it starts.  

If the form is worthless, then why make examinees sign it? While state laws may require a consent statement be signed before a polygraph examination is administered, they most certaintly don't require polygraphers to demand a waiver of liability from examinees.

Why do most polygraphers demand such waivers of liability? It is clearly not a matter of law. It is a matter of choice. Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Again I ask:

1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?

2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?

3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?

4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?

One point I missed, all doctors have you sign a release also when they treat you for any illness, especially hospitals that have many releases that must be signed, are doctors also unethical?

While I think any comparison of polygraphy to medicine is entirely inappropriate, I would be skeptical of any doctor who required me to sign a liability waiver before administering a non-invasive, non-experimental diagnostic test. I've never been asked to sign a liability waiver for a urine test. Why should I (or anyone) have to sign one for a polygraph "test?"

[Drew Richardson]

If the form is worthless, then why make examinees sign it? While state laws may require a consent statement be signed before a polygraph examination is administered, they most certainly don't require polygraphers to demand a waiver of liability from examinees.

Why do most polygraphers demand such waivers of liability? It is clearly not a matter of law. It is a matter of choice. Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Again I ask:

1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?

2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?

3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?

4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?

While I think any comparison of polygraphy to medicine is entirely inappropriate, I would be skeptical of any doctor who required me to sign a liability waiver before administering a non-invasive, non-experimental diagnostic test. I've never been asked to sign a liability waiver for a urine test. Why should I (or anyone) have to sign one for a polygraph "test?"

George,
 
You are precisely correct.  In addition to a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act, everyone here should be pressing and insist on legal accountability.  If and when polygraphers are held personally accountable for their mistakes, I believe the whole charade that we know as polygraph-business-as-usual will crumble on that day.  Polygraphers could not practice their trade for a single day if daily mistakes were not bureaucratically and legally ignored.  When I worked as a forensic toxicologist, it was clear to me and my colleagues that if we were ever publicly shown to have made a mistake in our work product, that we would have no credibility and our career as a toxicologist was over.  No less should be expected of a group with as much influence on people's lives and the security of our nation as the polygraph community.  Perhaps a place to begin is with a listing of those polygraphers who either through subsequent investigation or victim claims are identified as having made mistakes as well as the details that would serve as supporting evidence of such mistakes.  Because of the seriousness of such charges against a polygrapher, I think it only right that a real (and verifiable) name be attached to such a charge when solely supported by a victim allegation.  Perhaps you might care to start such a list (both applicant and specific-incident testing) and consider making it available to various national organizations of both prosecutors and defense attorneys.  If the polygraph community is genuine in its desire to have only good work emanating from its practitioners, it should welcome such an idea.  And of course, those polygraphers who are identified as in any way deficient should have full opportunity to respond and counter any such claims. I think what you will see happen over a period of time, as polygraphers are held personally responsible for their mistakes, is that considerably more will publicly agree with me that their industry-approved techniques are faulty/invalid and that their mistakes are not merely due to their own personal error.  Perhaps Mark Mallah and other attorneys who follow this message board might like to comment and add their suggestions regarding any such effort.