polygraph qustions

[gijoeyl33]

how is it you dont see the unethical part on the governments side. why do they get to use unethical means in their process? they know damn well false positives are common, and they dont care. is this ethical>????

But what about the people that would otherwise have been caught by the polygraph, but were able to pass using counter-measures? Of course, you will probably say they wouldn't necessarily have been caught...

I guess my problem with you is not that you think the polygraph is "junk science", but rather you methods. I totally disagree with you offering counter-measures, as you know, to anyone who accesses your website. I wish that you would focus your time on getting the polygraph removed from hiring processes rather than allowing information to be readily available on your website on how to use counter measures. That to me, would at least be ethical.

[metallicat]

So you want to loop people that use a polygraph as a hiring process tool, in with those that cheat the exam in order to get hired? Yeah that makes sense.

[allusivewolf]

I have my reservations about the polygraph myself. however the fact of the matter is that you have to take the polygraph so just be honest about it.

you are not going to be able to take the polygraph and then go in there and start siteing facts about this guy who is blah blah blah and say that it shouldnt be a valid test, they are going to throw you out faster than you came in, just take the test tell the truth and let the chips fall were they may and go from there.

sure you might be able to sting the poly, but why would you want to. if you are caught using counter measures your going to be dq'd anyways, and if you lie you may be dq'd as well, I am an individual that goes with reasonable chances. seems to me the best chance is to tell the truth.

[nunzio]

I think anyone who insults George and his website should at least take the time to check out his credentials. He has an extremely impressive resume. He has served his country in a most respectable manner, not to mention he is a very qualified and intelligent individual who offers constructive criticism and verifiable facts. I don't understand why some people simply cannot, or will not accept the fact that polygraph testing is not a reliable means of detecting dishonesty. I would venture to say that a very large percentage of law enforcement officers know of at least one fellow officer who lied about disqualifying issues during his/her polygraph exam. It's not like the people who lied and passed are going to brag about it. I think George's reason for exposing polygraphy for the nonsense that it is, is a good thing. Many people have beaten polygraph exams without the use of so called countermeasures. I don't think it takes a genius to figure this out. When a very qualified applicant is rejected a position because of a faulty polygraph reading, it can have life altering effects on him/her. I really get sick when I hear some degenerate come back with the statement about anybody who can't handle a polygraph isn't qualified to be a police officer.
Give me a damn break!

[mcsap]

Are you a LEO Nunzio ?

[gijoeyl33]

absolutly well put

I think anyone who insults George and his website should at least take the time to check out his credentials. He has an extremely impressive resume. He has served his country in a most respectable manner, not to mention he is a very qualified and intelligent individual who offers constructive criticism and verifiable facts. I don't understand why some people simply cannot, or will not accept the fact that polygraph testing is not a reliable means of detecting dishonesty. I would venture to say that a very large percentage of law enforcement officers know of at least one fellow officer who lied about disqualifying issues during his/her polygraph exam. It's not like the people who lied and passed are going to brag about it. I think George's reason for exposing polygraphy for the nonsense that it is, is a good thing. Many people have beaten polygraph exams without the use of so called countermeasures. I don't think it takes a genius to figure this out. When a very qualified applicant is rejected a position because of a faulty polygraph reading, it can have life altering effects on him/her. I really get sick when I hear some degenerate come back with the statement about anybody who can't handle a polygraph isn't qualified to be a police officer.
Give me a damn break!

[USArmy83mi]

[QUOTE=mcsap]Our job is based on ethics, committment and belief in the laws we are hired to enforce. Not our individual interpretations of what we THINK it should be.QUOTE]

Isn't there police discretion?

[mcsap]

There is NO ( or shouldn't be ) ANY discretion when it comes to lying about ones background to obtain employment as a police officer. Do I want someone in my dept who has something to hide which probably would have kept them from getting hired working with me ?

Being an officer is about ethics, trust, doing the right thing, upholding laws etc.

Enforcing the laws does require discretion but that does not involve deception and lying.

If you can't differentiate between the two, you don't belong in Law ENforcement.

[USArmy83mi]

There is NO ( or shouldn't be ) ANY discretion when it comes to lying about ones background to obtain employment as a police officer. Do I want someone in my dept who has something to hide which probably would have kept them from getting hired working with me ?

Being an officer is about ethics, trust, doing the right thing, upholding laws etc.

Enforcing the laws does require discretion but that does not involve deception and lying.

If you can't differentiate between the two, you don't belong in Law ENforcement.

Luckily I was referring to the enforcement of those laws.

**I can see why you would think I was talking about lying and deception but the post was meant to be looked at individually and not in context to the rest of the thread.

[K9 Police]

...and any person that insists on doing so will be banned from this forum.

K9

[razdaz]

Want to know when this thread started to go awry?

It started when someone asserted that an agency can tell when you lie, implying that the polygraph is such a device that will detect lies, which the don't and can't. Things went down hill soon after because, logically enough, the assertion was challenged.

Polygraphs never, ever indicate if you are lying or not. The one administering the polygraph is the one who DECIDES based on his experience and the tester's biodata if one is deceiving or not. Matter of fact, the administrator should tell you this before the test.

Should you lie on the test? No, but that doesn't mean you will pass or get a non-indication or whatever it is called when they can't tell if you are deceiving or not.

The polygraph should be just one tool in the hiring process and a failure on it, in my opinon, in and of itself shouldn't be grounds for disqualifying, just grounds for further investigation.

By the way, absolutely never assume processes, laws, statutes, customs, norms, etc are put into place by people who are smarter than you because if enough people thought that way, we would't be in a Republic anymore.

[mcsap]

Those who so voraciously detest the polygraph must accept the fact that a fair number of departments and agencies still use them. It is like going in the military, you have to go through basic training to get in. If you don't pass, you are gone. Like it or not, that is a fact.

I believe that any indication of deception on a poly should be followed up by a thorough BI on that area.