Failed polygraph

[insanediplomat]

This is why polygraphs and cvsa are inadmissable in courts. I have never done any illegal drugs in my life. Yet the administrator said that my drug usage questions were inconclusive. She gave me the test three different times and all three times the stress level was high.
Now, I was raised in NYC and weed was abound while growing up. Last time I visited my childhood friends in 1999, they had moved from Ganja to coke and it was the last time I hung out with them. Other than being around them during my teenage years, (I did not inhale, Joke) I never put any joints or blunts in my mouth or did I ever take anything to alter my mental state, yet I failed the drug usage questions of the polygraph. Yes, I did disclose all of the aforementioned.

[acreature]

But they are still admissable for LE Employment. I think they weed out more than they wrongfully disqualify.

Collateral damage if you story holds the water you claim it does.

[Valor55]

Like anything else polygraphs are just a tool and only as good as the operator. Don't give up!

[SERENAs UNIT]

My husband took a p'graph & the operator was friends w/his ex(psycho)wife. (That was before she hung around her too terribly long).

She asked him the drug questions, he answered, but she insisted that he was lying. Actually, got in his face about it....like a little kid.

He was livid...and, it takes a lot to get him that way.

PS: I never have known ANYone who didn't at least TRY marijuana, till I met him. He IS a different person, I'll give him that. I admire the heck outa' him

[paul56]

which department whats this insanediplomat?

[insanediplomat]

Seminole County Sheriff's.

[retdetsgt]

I think they weed out more than they wrongfully disqualify.

Collateral damage if you story holds the water you claim it does.

I disagree. A decent sociopath can pass a polygraph hands down. And the box itself can be daunting enough to some people to get an inconclusive or even untruthful.

That's exactly why I would never work for a dept that puts its own employees or prospective employees on the polygraph. I've used it hundreds of times in criminal investigations and it has a place there. I've gotten a lot of confessions behind one. But it's not reliable enough to DQ somebody for a job. A good BI will turn up any bad stuff.

[mcsap]

It should be used in conjunction with a good BI. In this day and age I guess some depts would rather use any means available to weed out anyone they THINK may have some background issues.

I suggest that you keep applying and try again.

[wontBslow]

That sucks.

I, like you, have never EVER taken any illegal drugs, and I know it will be a problem when I'm asked about it during the hiring process. My friend who used to be a PO was like me and had never smoked weed, and during the hiring process they grilled her like there was no tomorrow. They kept calling her a liar because of where she went to school (Eugene, OR) and said no one who went to school there could not have smoked pot. She was eventually hired, but they never truly believed her story. When her husband found out I had never smoked pot either, he jokingly said, "just lie and say you did. It will make life easier." HA!

[acreature]

I disagree. A decent sociopath can pass a polygraph hands down. And the box itself can be daunting enough to some people to get an inconclusive or even untruthful.

That's exactly why I would never work for a dept that puts its own employees or prospective employees on the polygraph. I've used it hundreds of times in criminal investigations and it has a place there. I've gotten a lot of confessions behind one. But it's not reliable enough to DQ somebody for a job. A good BI will turn up any bad stuff.

I am not saying it doesn't wrongfully disqualify. But, as mscap stated; with a good BI, it weeds out more bad then good.

BIs don't get everything.... and as was stated earlier, it's a tool. Like me :D

[retdetsgt]

It should be used in conjunction with a good BI. In this day and age I guess some depts would rather use any means available to weed out anyone they THINK may have some background issues.

I suggest that you keep applying and try again.

We've never used a polygraph in hiring and we don't have any more problem officers than any other agency of our size.

To me, it's like requiring a 4 year degree, it DQ's qualified applicants and still lets in some losers. I've had too many guilty people pass the polygraph and others fail it that I found in further investigation to be innocent to believe that it's nearly accurate enough for employment purposes.

It's not entirely junk science, but it's close. There's a very valid reason it's not allowed in court. Again, I like it for criminal investigations because the person has nothing to lose if they take it and it opens up avenues to discuss. That's the key advantage to it, to couple it with a good investigative interview. But to lose a job over the results only sucks. Who knows what triggers a response that's interpreted as inconclusive or false? It doesn't always have to be a lie, it can be a feeling of guilt over something related or even not related. The process of taking the test can be stressful enough for someone to fail. I love it for criminal investigations and I've broke a number of cases with it, but some depts trust it way too much.

[retdetsgt]

My friend who used to be a PO was like me and had never smoked weed, and during the hiring process they grilled her like there was no tomorrow. They kept calling her a liar because of where she went to school (Eugene, OR) and said no one who went to school there could not have smoked pot.

At that point, I would have told them to kiss my *** and walk out. I would think if they treated applicants like that, they probably don't treat their employees all that well either.

The only time I was "grilled" about drugs was during the pysch. The shrink started hammering me about that after I told him I'd never done drugs. He used the excuse that I must have because I served in Vietnam. I did finally tell him that if I had, I'd have told him so forget it and move on, I was tired of listening to that ****. Kinda stunned him, but that was the end of that topic. I think he was looking for a reaction more than anything and he got it. I wasn't going to beg for the damn job.

[Kimble]

Again, I love it for criminal investigations and I've broke a number of cases with it, but some depts trust it way too much.

Maybe so, but just like breathing oxygen, polygraphs used in LE hiring are just a part of life. It's been around for quite some time, and is likely not to depart anytime soon. If the applicant wants to become a LEO, they will likely have to deal with a poly/voice-stress/"lie detector" of some sort. Like it or hate it, it's simply the nature of the beast.

[cecilVA]

The way I see it is the polygraph is just as imperfect as all other parts of the hiring process. Yes someone can fail a poly even though they were telling the truth, but they can also flunk the background investigation because of a disgruntled former employer or ex-boy/girlfriend, or because they missed passing the written by one question by filling in the bubble wrong or not erasing enough. Or they may have tripped on their shoelaces on the track and failed the 1.5 mile run by 10 seconds.

None of the steps are perfect and qualified people get knocked out all the time for trivial reasons. Sure failing a polygraph may brand DQ you but its not like you are convicted of a felony and can't work anywhere. Other agencies will do a new polygraph and you can get a fresh start.

[retdetsgt]

Other agencies will do a new polygraph and you can get a fresh start.

And that says loads about their reliability. None of the agencies around here use the polygraph for hiring.