Video and/or Sound Recording of Polygraphs

[Fair Chance]

Readers,

A thread was started many moons ago about the recording of polygraph operations.  This could be audio only or video and audio.  I believe a recording would have avoided what I went through because at a minimum, it showed obvious violations of "accepted polygraph procedures."

Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not saying that polygraph procedures are accurate or acceptable per se.  I am reaching out to examinees and examiners.

Would you or do you have a concern with recording of such examinations as to defend the use of polygraphs and justify their results?  As an examinee, would you have a problem with the exam being recorded?

There seems to be no movement by examiners or government to go in this direction but I see little reason not to personally.

Pros and cons, let's hear them.

Regards.

[sackett]

Fair Chance,

there has been an effort to mandate recording of polygraph examinations.  The ASTM has recently updated its standard to require recordings in order to be within the published standards.

On the other hand, many states, local jurisdictions and most federal agencies prohibit recording of interviews.  I don't know why.  I think it is more a management/policy issue than an individual examiner issue.  But, it is being looked at.  

I, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations.  It protects the examinee and examiner alike.  

For the record, I record all examinations, in their entirety. Thanks for bringing this topic up for discussion.

Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

I, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations.  It protects the examinee and examiner alike.  

That's strange, you stated in a post awhile back that you are against the test subject recording a test, since it could be used against the examiner.

TC

[sackett]

I, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations.  It protects the examinee and examiner alike.  

That's strange, you stated in a post awhile back that you are against the test subject recording a test, since it could be used against the examiner.

TC

No, go back an re-read it.  I said; I am against the examinee recording tests, because once the test is over and the examinee leaves, there is no control over the dissemination of the recording or any effort to ensure that it is used in a responsible manner.

Many things happen in a polygraph that the untrained, ignorant layman would not, on the surface of the process, understand (not unlike many on this board).  Snipits and sound bites taken from an examination could very well be used unethically in order to sway opinion on an issue; UNLIKE the examiner who records examinations for later use by legal, administrative or judicial authority.

Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

No, go back an re-read it.  I said; I am against the examinee recording tests, because once the test is over and the examinee leaves, there is no control over the dissemination of the recording or any effort to ensure that it is used in a responsible manner.

Polygraphers are capable of the very same thing.  

Many things happen in a polygraph that the untrained, ignorant layman would not, on the surface of the process, understand (not unlike many on this board).  Snipits and sound bites taken from an examination could very well be used unethically in order to sway opinion on an issue; UNLIKE the examiner who records examinations for later use by legal, administrative or judicial authority.

TRANSLATION:  We don't want the "shenanigans" pulled by us polygraphers exposed to the public.  We have something to "hide".

[sackett]

Mr Cullen,

1st part:  improbable but true.  But, examiners do not have the same intent or motive.  Our desire would be to present the whole test with an explanation of the process, not just soundbites taken out of context for the purposes of swaying the opinion of the listener.

2nd part:  Poor translation on your behalf.  What secrets?  What shenanigans?  Isn't everything you need to know about polygraph but were afraid to ask, right here in George's book?  Then sir, what could WE possibly be doing that would qualify as underhanded?  I guess it has something to do with the "soapbox-Kool aide" mentality;  

I'll let it go now...

Sackett

[Twoblock]

Sackett

There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.

If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.

[the_wolf]

Readers,

A thread was started many moons ago about the recording of polygraph operations.  This could be audio only or video and audio.  I believe a recording would have avoided what I went through because at a minimum, it showed obvious violations of "accepted polygraph procedures."

Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not saying that polygraph procedures are accurate or acceptable per se.  I am reaching out to examinees and examiners.

Would you or do you have a concern with recording of such examinations as to defend the use of polygraphs and justify their results?  As an examinee, would you have a problem with the exam being recorded?

There seems to be no movement by examiners or government to go in this direction but I see little reason not to personally.

Pros and cons, let's hear them.

Regards.

The APA already has in their procedural guidelines that all polygraphs should be recorded. For PCSOT polygraph it is in the APA PCSOT model, JPCOT, and other model guidelines.

My advice to anyone taking a polygraph is clear. If the examiner does not have a working camera in the room, run, don't walk away.

I record all examinations, and will never perform an examination without a camera.

[T.M. Cullen]

— I record all examinations, and will never perform an examination without a camera.

Do you provide a copy to the test subject?

Do you record all phases (Pretest interview, test, post test interrogation)?

Wish I had video of my tester claiming the test to be 98% accurate.

TC

[sackett]

Sackett

There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.

If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.

Sorry, I doubt many of the stories reported on this board.  But, for the fact of embellishment, some may be true...

Having said that, recording examinations is what keeps the examiner ethical, straight and in accordance with his training.  I wouldn't give a test without recording it.

The problem with attorneys is they never want to give up control due to the monetary aspect of doing so.  If an attorney was "behind the glass" they could easily interupt the process because they hear something they haven't heard before and want to know what's up, what's going on and how do they control it.  This interferes with the process of the polygraph and while I usually give that option, once they interfere, the test is over and it takes away sometimes, the only manner of proving they didn't do what they are suspected of.

Sackett

[Twoblock]

Sackett

The horrow stories posted here doesn't need any frosting or decorating. Most of the stories were from first time posters, while researching polygraph, happened on to this site and had no reason what so ever to lie. They probably posted on Polygraph Place and you immediately deleted it.

It's not at all ethical or legal for an "in your face" polygrapher to curse an examinee. And one that would do that would certainly alter recordings. They don't give a tinkers damn about the rights or feelings of the examinee and they also know that the APA doesn't deal out sanctions for bad conduct.

Lawyers would interfere from behind the glass ?? That buckett has a hole in it. I doubt that any of them, if allowed to be "behind the glass" would refuse to sign a paper stating that if they interfered in any way the test is over, the examinee will be considered flunked and there will be no return of fees. Interference can be controlled and I think you know that. My opinion is that the polygraph industry can't handle a level playing field. It appears that the polygrapher thinks he has to have total control, even over the examinee's mind, or there can't be a test. How far off am I? Hell, If I had total controll over a person, I could make him scratch flees with his hind leg.

I believe you would get more truthful and accurate results by conducting one run through and then give the test - leaving off the card tricks, I'm the best there is, me and this machine are 95% accurate bs. Also furnish the charts when they are requested and a willingness to pay for them. That's harder than pulling hen's teeth.

[Fair Chance]

Thanks for the interest to all who are posting.

My vison of recording is to have it certified similar to what happens in current court reporting processes.  A special program indicates if the original is altered or edited in any way.  The result is a "certified true copy".  These programs are on the market, heavily tested, and reliable.  The different agencies use similar certified recorders when they wire tap and record phone conversation for trial.

The cost is not that much and it would significantly reduce the "she says, he says" arguments.  There is technology to cut down many appeals and accusations.

Just can't see why we are not taking advantage of stuff that exist off the shelf.

Regards.

[sackett]

You posted:  "The horrow stories posted here doesn't need any frosting or decorating. Most of the stories were from first time posters, while researching polygraph, happened on to this site and had no reason what so ever to lie. They probably posted on Polygraph Place and you immediately deleted it."

Oh yes they do.  That is, why it is an "anti" polygraph board.  If people posted their real experiences, we probably would not have half the alleged postings/problems purported here...  Why?   Because, most of them probably do not them to the level they report here...

If they posted on Polygraphplace.com, they would get an honest responsive answer to their honest question.  Would it be what is expected here?   Probably not!  Nothing ever seems to be...  But, one thing stated, we examiners will provide truthful answers to real (truthful) questions.  

Sackett

[notguilty1]

Sackett

There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.

If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.

Sorry, I doubt many of the stories reported on this board.  But, for the fact of embellishment, some may be true...

Having said that, recording examinations is what keeps the examiner ethical, straight and in accordance with his training.  I wouldn't give a test without recording it.

The problem with attorneys is they never want to give up control due to the monetary aspect of doing so.  If an attorney was "behind the glass" they could easily interupt the process because they hear something they haven't heard before and want to know what's up, what's going on and how do they control it.  This interferes with the process of the polygraph and while I usually give that option, once they interfere, the test is over and it takes away sometimes, the only manner of proving they didn't do what they are suspected of.

Sackett

The only good thing about Sackett is that the more he talks the more he buries himself and the Poligraph industry.
Now, not only can he detect "Guilt" with "answer anyalisis" but he also would have you be denied your own attorney in a poligraph!!
Also the fact that he "doubts many of the stories reported on this board" shows his complete ingnorance in the verified short comings of Poligraph's.
Keep talking man!!!!.
I am just surprized that some other examiner on here does not try to shut him up.          

[Twoblock]

Sackett

See how you are. You know nothing about those posters yet you label them liars. Have you completed your mind reading project?

How about the rest of my post? How far off am I?

Can't comprehend your second paragraph.