LEO's , are you in favor of polygraphs ?

[mcsap]

OK, LEO's. Those of you who do or have worn the badge under any Federal, State, Local or Military authority...

With what you know about a polygraph, should they be used for LEO hiring ?

I would use it in conjunction with the BI.

NOTE______ THE POLL IS OPEN FOR ALL TO SEE WHO HAS VOTED. Click on the number of voters to the right of the poll to view them.

[sgtbear111]

It's like oysters, chopped liver, or old Lucas wired English sports cars; love it, hate it, not too many in the middle.

Polygraph is a great tool in criminal cases i.e. child molestation cases, thefts. assaults, etc. It is an excellent tool to sort out the "whodunit" in a homicide, or other case where the principal players compound lies upon lies. Some criminal defense attorneys use them to determine if the clients are lying to their lawyer.

For employment purposes, some of the applicants do not show up. Reviewing those no-show apps very often shows they had a DQ issue waiting but spared the dept the time and expense. Many depts offer a re-exam to an applicant, some show up, some do not.

As any investigative tool, the poly has its limits. There is some 20-30 year old history of abuse of the poly, that is why the EPPA (Employee Polygraoh Protection Act) was passed into law by the US Congress.

It is an intrusive experience, but many things come out that are critical to the nature of LEO work. Considering the accountability required of a police dept in hiring a qualified person, the poly is another tool in finding the best qualified, but is no substitute for a thorough BI. Polygraph is the best tool available right now, lets see where this new brain fingerprinting goes.

[oscarmitre]

Just an aside here in Australia police don't use them either for investigation or recruitment. To the best of my knowledge I don't think it has even been suggested that they be tried for either purpose.

[gijoeyl33]

it is a great piece of investigative equipment, but is not accurate enough for pre employment purposes. if still in pre employment it should be used as posted before in CONJUCTION with the BI. not used for the sole purpose of hiring.

NOTE: the only fact the governemtn has that they work is "they must work because we use them".

[gijoeyl33]

and what does a non LEO stated facts about poly have anything to do with it. i worked for an LE organization very closely with the polygraph. and it is fair to say i prolly have at minimum equal training in the test, if not more.
Facts say they arent accurate enough for pre employment. facts say anyone can minipulate the test. facts say thousands a year are DQ for a false positive. now....cops are all about law right? and law is all about facts right? so pu two and two together
QUOTE=DC Law]I could really care less, but then I passed mine.
I do think they have merit as an investigatory tool and I have no problem with them being used to verify the BI questionnaire. I think that they're adequate for the job.

The only thing that I've ever really objected to is the steady parade of non-LEOs who come here to denounce them.[/QUOTE]

[cecilVA]

Nice facts you have there that don't prove anything. mcsap asked for LEO opinion and like you said, you aren't one so have the courtesy to not hijack his thread with your usual anti-polygraph comments. We all know you don't like it.

[gijoeyl33]

how do facts not prove anything. hmm now thats contradictory. my comments were towards DC not you. And most LEO's are uneducated in how the test works. so i worked for an LE agency. so deal with it

Nice facts you have there that don't prove anything. mcsap asked for LEO opinion and like you said, you aren't one so have the courtesy to not hijack his thread with your usual anti-polygraph comments. We all know you don't like it.

[cecilVA]

Your "facts" aren't supported by anything!! Ever heard of citing a legitimate source? Don't care who your comments were toward, I decided to respond to them. Most LEO's are uneducated on how it works? "Most" is a whole lot of cops and I'm pretty sure "most" of them will disagree with you. Because BTW, "most" of them took a polygraph to become a cop and they passed it. Congrats you worked for an LE agency, so do janitors, does that make them experts?

[gijoeyl33]

so they took a polygraph. woah great. i bet you drive a car. are you a mechanic now?

Your "facts" aren't supported by anything!! Ever heard of citing a legitimate source? Don't care who your comments were toward, I decided to respond to them. Most LEO's are uneducated on how it works? "Most" is a whole lot of cops and I'm pretty sure "most" of them will disagree with you. Because BTW, "most" of them took a polygraph to become a cop and they passed it. Congrats you worked for an LE agency, so do janitors, does that make them experts?

[gijoeyl33]

National Academy of Sciences report says polygraph testing too flawed for security screening. (News and Comment).
Skeptical Inquirer, Jan-Feb, 2003, by Kendrick Frazier

A long-awaited report on polygraphs from the National Academy of Sciences says the U.S. Government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening employees to identify spies or other national security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way.

Much of the evidence assessing the validity of polygraphs, popularly called "lie detectors," is based on their use in the investigation of specific, known events such as crimes. In these cases, said the NAS committee, lie-detector tests can differentiate lying from telling the truth at rates well above chance, but they are far from perfect.

The report, issued at a news conference at the Academy's headquarters in Washington October 8, 2002 (www.nas.edu), concludes that the polygraph's accuracy is not good enough for security screening for two reasons. First, accuracy is almost certainly lower when the tests are used this way rather than in the investigation of specific incidents. Second, the large groups of people being checked include only a tiny percentage of individuals who are guilty of the targeted offenses; tests that are sensitive enough to spot most violators will also mistakenly mark large numbers of innocent test takers as guilty. Tests that produce few of these types of errors, such as those currently used by several federal agencies, will not catch most major security violators--and still will incorrectly flag truthful people as deceptive.

"National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument," said Stephen E. Fienberg, chair of the committee that wrote the report and professor of statistics and computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. "The belief in its accuracy goes beyond what the evidence suggests.

Concerned about potential security violations at its national laboratories and criticized about congressionally mandated plans to expand its polygraph program, the U.S. Department of Energy asked the Academy to conduct a study of the scientific validity and reliability of polygraph testing to identify personnel who may jeopardize national security. Employees who work in sensitive positions at DOE labs and similar federal sites are subject to testing by law. However, the new report says that when polygraph exams are used this way, the drawbacks of current polygraph exams are abundantly clear.

The proposed wider use of polygraphs as a screening tool at the national labs became intensely controversial among many labs scientists. They criticized the idea as highly damaging to morale due to the large false-positive rates in polygraph exams, the lack of any serious scientific underpinning to polygraphy, and history showing that convicted spies had passed polygraph rests while they had been engaged in espionage. (See "Polygraphs and the National Labs: Dangerous Ruse Undermines National Security," Commentary by Alan P. Zelicoff, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, July/August 2001.)

The NAS committee said polygraph testing rests on weak scientific underpinnings. And much of the available evidence for judging its validity lacks scientific rigor. "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy," says the report.

[gijoeyl33]

Using these tests in pre-employment screening is even more complicated because examiners make inferences about individuals' future behavior based on information about previous deeds, which may differ widely from the offenses authorities hope to prevent. The committee concluded that polygraph testing is less accurate for employee screening than for investigating specific incidents.

On a more basic level, theories about how deception is linked to the physiological responses being measured have not been verified, the report says. A variety of mental and physical factors, such as anxiety about being tested, can affect polygraph results--making the technique susceptible to error. Also, people can learn ways to mimic some physiological responses of truthful test takers. This is a particular concern when dealing with deceptive individuals who have strong incentives to perfect certain "countermeasures" or ploys to appear honest and avoid detection. Available research sheds little light on how well examiners can systematically expose such people.

Despite its weak science base, polygraph testing is commonly believed to be a highly valid procedure for detecting lies. The report notes that popular culture and the mass media often portray lie detectors as magical mind-reading machines. The mystique surrounding the exams--instead of a solid scientific foundation--may account for much of their usefulness to authorities, the committee noted. Examiners' field reports and indirect scientific evidence indicate that testing programs may deter potential security violators or elicit confessions from some offenders who, unaware of the tests' weaknesses, believe that a lie detector would surely catch them.

The federal government relies heavily on polygraph testing to identify people who have committed or might commit espionage and sabotage. However, the report warns that overconfidence in this method may endanger national security objectives by creating a false sense of security among lawmakers, government employees in sensitive jobs, and the general public. As a result, other ways to ensure safety could be neglected, creating situations that might increase the risk of security lapses. Also, retention of highly skilled and valuable government workers could suffer because employees might fear being falsely identified as dishonest.

The report says some potential alternatives to polygraphs show promise, but none has led to scientific breakthroughs in lie detection. Moreover, the federal government has not seriously developed the science base of any method to detect deception through the analysis of individuals' psychological and physiological reactions.

The study was sponsored by the Department of Energy, whose National Nuclear Security Administration said the agencies would "carefully review" the report and consider the findings in developing a new polygraph program over the ensuing several months. U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico sponsored legislation in 2001 requiring DOE to overhaul its polygraph program based on the findings in the NAS report, which Bingaman had requested. It now has six months to do so. Two of the nation's three national laboratories with responsibilities for nuclear weapons are located in New Mexico.

[gijoeyl33]

Bingaman and Domenici issued a joint statement after the report was released calling on DOE to "abolish its current policy of using extensive polygraph testing as a screening tool" for DOE and national defense labs employees. Added Bingaman, Chairman of the Energy and Natural, Resources Committee, "From a practical standpoint, this policy never made sense to me. Now we have scientific evidence that it doesn't work. It's time to change this flawed policy."

Kendrick Frazier is Editor of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group

[gijoeyl33]

cited

[cecilVA]

have you taken one? have you been certified to administer one? what makes you such an expert? Again, the thread was asking LEOs for their opinion.

[gijoeyl33]

no no. you told me to cite a legitamate source. opinions are one thing. those were my facts that werent supposed to be proving anything. remember. to answer your questions. yes, no, and through alot of research, aditionally im a psychology student. find me a psychologist that says they have scientific validity.

have you taken one? have you been certified to administer one? what makes you such an expert? Again, the thread was asking LEOs for their opinion.