Polygrapher allow child molester to become trooper

[beech trees]

State police agree to pay $550,000 to woman molested by trooper at 15

With the blessings of polygraphers, Michael K. Evans became a Pennsylvania State Trooper. He is now serving a five- to 10-year sentence at Waymart state prison.

Further malfeasance is reported in this story:

The girl initially passed a state police polygraph test, but the results were re-interpreted by other troopers, and the charges against Evans were thrown out by the ranking state police commander in this region.

Yet another example of how pre-employment screening using the polygraph fails, and how law enforcement uses revisionist tactics with regard to polygraph charts to their own advantage.

[The_Breeze]

BT
Been very active and zealous in bashing Law Enforcement (by association) again.  As a proven expert in finding sources that fit your view, you may want to expand your condemnation into the entire applicant process.  The ineffective background, flawed interviews, non existant supervision and corrupt psychological screen that allowed all these criminal cops to offend.  Would that be more complete than your self serving comments about one aspect of the hiring process?
Perhaps your new energy is due to the NAS report.  I have only read the summary, but I do not think my world will change a bit.  Lets see now:
Specific issue testing works (we know)
Counter Intelligence Screening tests are problematic (granted)
More resources need to be put into research (axiomatic)

You smell blood? thats your upper lip.

[beech trees]

BT
Been very active and zealous in bashing Law Enforcement (by association) again.

How is an accurate reporting of the facts 'bashing'? If you feel a law enforcement officer who is a convicted child-molester is above public notice then you and I will have to differ on that one.

In fact the purpose of these posts is to point out the ludicrous reliance law enforcement places on the polygraph as part of the applicant hiring process. Where were you when we discussed Ana Belen Montes? Aldrich Ames? Oh yes, I recall-- you were of the notion that polygraphers enjoyed anything except a 100% failure rate in detecting spies in our midst.

As a proven expert in finding sources that fit your view, you may want to expand your condemnation into the entire applicant process.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll stick to just polygraphy now. Meanwhile, if you would care to post any contradictory sources concerning this post or any other I have made, I invite you to do so.

The ineffective background, flawed interviews, non existant supervision and corrupt psychological screen that allowed all these criminal cops to offend.  Would that be more complete than your self serving comments about one aspect of the hiring process?

I dunno-- it would explain how you managed to get through the process though. If you would explain how posting about the harm caused to society by relying on polygraphs as part of the applicant screening process is 'self-serving', I'd be glad to read it.

I have only read the summary, but I do not think my world will change a bit.  Lets see now:
Specific issue testing works (we know)

Ah, no, that's not what the report indicated.

Quoting George on just this subject in another thread:

...careful reading of the NAS report's conclusions indicates that the panel members did not conclude that specific-incident polygraph examinations are reliable at levels much greater than chance, as you have asserted. What the NAS concluded was this:

"...we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection."

A population of examinees naive as to polygraph procedure and untrained in countermeasures is assumed. This is a very important caveat that you seem to ignore. In practice, a polygrapher cannot really know whether this condition applies with regard to any particular examinee. The panel apparently says nothing to support the notion that the results of specific-incident CQT or R/I polygraph results are "reliable" (or imbued with any predictive value) to any knowable extent under field conditions.

Back to quoting you now:

Counter Intelligence Screening tests are problematic (granted)

'Problematic'. I would label a 100% failure rate problematic, yes. The Titanic took on a little water, the Challenger experienced a minor malfunction, Andrew had some gusty winds.

More resources need to be put into research (axiomatic)

Yes, let's study the problem some more. Let's commission a blue ribbon panel-- oh wait, we just did that didn't we? I have the pleasure to remain,

At your service,

Dave