polygraph test question

[mummer43]

Originally posted by jeff92k7
I'll put in a few words backing TX too. He's been here a lot longer than I have and in the time that I have been here, never once has he said anything that could be called inappropriate. He has very strong principles and beliefs, many of which I share, and quite often, the only reason people argue with him and not me is because he posts exactly what I would have said before I get the chance.

If you review his posts, you would see not only what he feels about most things but also where he gets those beliefs and on what he bases them.

I have never met him personally, but on here, he has earned great respect even from people that don't always agree with him.

I know I don't need to post this stuff about him, as most of it has already been said, but like him, I have a problem with new members coming on here and bashing the people that have been here forever just because their views don't match. I wish people would realize that they need to get to know people better before they start "bashing".

I also thought I might mention that I view TX's catchline of "forcing my views on you" as quite humorous seeing as how he always is one of the first to offer his opinion when someone is asking for input and yet is constantly accused of starting arguments and trying to force people to agree with him.

Oh...Texas is a great state. I have visited many others and have not yet found one that I like better :D

Keep in mind, people, that the whole purpose of this board is to share ideas. If everyone always agreed, this board would die.

I hope you don't think I was bashing him.

[jeff92k7]

Originally posted by mummer43
I hope you don't think I was bashing him.

Quite the contrary...the people posting in this thread have actually been much more civilized than people in other threads have been...but I do see the potential for the same kind of thing. I wasn't referring to any one, specific person when I wrote that. I was just making a generalized statement in hopes that if a new member (or an old member for that matter) reads it, they might rethink their decision to post something rude and inappropriate.

[George Maschke]

Originally posted by txinvestigator1
*****Waiting for some whiny a$$ to come along and tell us we are too harsh, we should not judge, just because he "made some mistakes in the past" does not mean he should be able to do whatever he wants now, blah, blah.****

Sorry Keller, rant not directed at you.

txinvestigator,

Keller's post raises a question that I think deserves more consideration, that is, the wisdom of having unenforceable hiring standards.

Typically, the only way a department can learn of an applicant's past drug use (unless it's very recent and detectable by urinalysis) is by an admission from the applicant. When a department sets a policy that excludes anyone who has ever used a drug such as LSD or cocaine, then those candidates honest enough to admit their past drug use will be disqualified, while those who lie about such past drug use will perhaps end up being hired. Thus, the situation arises where those most willing to admit derogatory information about themselves are systematically eliminated, while liars pass through.

[txinvestigator1]

George

I stand by my principles. I will also say this. If 5 people are rejected for a polygraph test showing previous LSD use, but only one of those actually used LSD, then I say THANK GOODNESS. We cannot afford to have people being cops with such low moral character that they would use LSD. I accept that lousy accuracy rate to keep dirt bags from being cops.

Smoke that!

[George Maschke]

txinvestigator1,

My point was not about polygraphs (which in any event have no scientific basis and are easily fooled), but rather that unenforceable hiring standards have the unintended effect of screening out the honest while rewarding those who lie.

[txinvestigator1]

I think I answered that.

[George Maschke]

You made it abundantly clear that you care little whether honest, law abiding citizens who seek to become law enforcement officers are treated fairly. But you have ignored my argument that unenforceable hiring standards tend to screen out the honest while rewarding the dishonest.

For example, a department with the (essentially unenforceable) policy that no one who has ever used cocaine is eligible for hire will reject those otherwise qualified candidates who are honest enough to admit their past cocaine use, but will end up hiring less honest candidates who falsely deny such use.

[txinvestigator1]

I disagree with your interpretations of the facts George. I knew what you meant from your first question to me.

I don't believe the standards are unenforceable nor do the honest get screen out.

[George Maschke]

Suppose an applicant tried cocaine in the past. If he is honest about it, he gets eliminated. But if he lies about it, how is the department going to find out? (A background investigation is unlikely to uncover this.)

[txinvestigator1]

I disagree with you George. Would you prefer I write it in a different language so you can understand it better?

[George Maschke]

You disagree, but you seem unwilling or unable to explain the basis for your disagreement with a rational argument. That being the case, I'll not waste my time any further trying to reason with you.

[txinvestigator1]

I don't need to explain my reasoning to you Georgey. I am; however, glad you are going to give it a rest.