Polygraph

[Greymatters]

I think the poly is a good deterent, but at the same time, I think alot of forces (Police) put too much weight in its merit. Look at all the problems Edmonton Pilice is having, there are officers in the news daily doing something, so the poly hasn't really restricted the "bad seeds" that it can get, if anything I think it sends some applicants to Ontario, where most forces don't use it. Why would they want to jump through that hoop when they could apply to a force without it?

The polygraph is supposed to detect lies/concealment of past criminal or unethical acts, or current acts, it cannot predict future criminal/unethical acts.   

 

[garb811]

so back to the original question, are the MP's thinking about using it?

Not a clue, and even if the Branch was, this wouldn't be the place it'd be announced.

 

[captjtq]

This would be the first I've heard of it... not that we don't get cubicle-itis at MPHQ...  :brickwall: Something to ask about in the morning, I guess.

 

[gate_guard]

There is no doubt that the internet is not a credible source of information. A link to it does not preclude a person doing their own homework and checking their sources. That being said when some of the world's best known skeptics and authorities on the subject of flim flammery are of the opinion that the polygraph machine is bunkum (James Randi, Skeptics Society) then it is worth considering that the machine is questionable.

I understand that in the FBI and CIA's worst cases of betrayal andespionage the polygraph passed traitorous members of these agencies with flying colors.

Consider this. IF it is possible to reliably spoof a polygraph then why use it at all? It is well established that the machine cannot detect a trained liar and or a natural liar. (sociopath) Since a polygraph operator cannot know who is lying it is not a reliable device even if it catches some people, because ultimately one can never know if the guilty are in fact guilty or if the innocent are innocent.

Our safety is too important to rely on equipment is provably unreliable.

Your logic seems flawed. You're essentially saying if a part of application testing isn't proven reliable, it shouldn't be used. Aside from the polygraph, trained investigators/interrogators conduct intake and background interviews with police applicants etc on a daily basis.  Are they 100% successful in obtaining the entire truth and weeding out the liars? No. Some liars/non suitable candidates make it through, but they generally weed out most of the poor applicants/liars at that stage before the polygraph. Should we get rid of the intake/background interview stage in the process as well because they aren't 100% successful? Of course not.

The debate as to whether the polygraph is 100% reliable is moot, it isn't 100% reliable. But it has already been explained in this thread by police officers and others who have experience in the field that it is one useful tool in the application process. Because so much is at stake, in your words "our safety", this is all the more reason to take every precaution possible to weed out the liars/poor candidates. As well, the polygraph isn't the end all and be all of the application process, just because someone "passes" does not mean they are through. It is one stage of the process of weeding out those who are unsuitable for policing. Many agencies/departments are introducing psychological testing as well which, in my opinion, only increases the chances of preventing unsuitable candidates from making it through the process, maybe even catch a few sociopathic spies in the process. :

Anyways, why are people so worried about it? If you've got something to hide or you don't believe in the polygraph and don't want to take the test, don't bother applying.

 

[rw4th]

The CIA and the FBI and many regional Canadian police forces rely on polygraphs. This is a very serious mistake. Sociopaths / psychopath's, and trained evaders will not be caught by this machine, BUT trained interrogation officers have a real chance of success.

I just took a polygraph as part of my application process with the RCMP and I actually asked the interviewer about this. The machine is just a tool, it's really all about the interviewer. The part about sociopaths, while technically true is a non issue since a sociopath would not make past the pre-interview. Being "nervous" will not show up as lying and "trained evaders" would just get caught trying to evade.

Think of it like this: it's a trained interrogation officer who using the polygraph as a tool. 

 

[Rowshambow]

Greymatter... Obvioulsy...but that is also kinda my point... It can't predict future offenses, no one can, but should it be used on all applicants? If I have 2 files in front of me and one is blank (never done anything wrong) and 1 that has done some bad things but admits to it, I would put the one with nothing wrong in the poly! The other person has at least owning up..well prob to most of it!
Like I was saying.. I think it is a good deterent as some people (clean or not) just don't want to go through the hassle when they can apply to other forces that don't use it, but if you look at some of the forces that do use it, it hasn't really saved them from some bad seeds.

 

[Greymatters]

Greymatter... Obvioulsy...but that is also kinda my point... It can't predict future offenses, no one can, but should it be used on all applicants? If I have 2 files in front of me and one is blank (never done anything wrong) and 1 that has done some bad things but admits to it, I would put the one with nothing wrong in the poly! The other person has at least owning up..well prob to most of it!  Like I was saying.. I think it is a good deterent as some people (clean or not) just don't want to go through the hassle when they can apply to other forces that don't use it, but if you look at some of the forces that do use it, it hasn't really saved them from some bad seeds.

There's never such a thing as a 'blank' dossier.  The age and background would also be big indicators (i.e. a 21 year old who graduated high school and university and then volunteered at an old age home in their spare time may be expected to have a 'clean' record) but they would put both persons under the poly anyway to avoid being accused of disrciminatory practices.  Those doing the screening also look at other factors other than just criminal convictons to determine your character (i.e. where you grew up, community service, credit card use, etc.).   

 

[gate_guard]

...but if you look at some of the forces that do use it, it hasn't really saved them from some bad seeds.

You're making the assumption that an applicant process with a polygraph doesn't weed out any more poor applicants than an applicant process that doesn't utilize a polygraph. Or rather, departments who don't use the polygraph have just as many "bad seeds" as those who do. Where did you get your information from? Is it based on any scientific studies? What is your definition of a "bad seed"? Or are you formulating this opinion on hearsay and only going by what you hear in the media or word of mouth? No applicant process will be perfect as humans are not perfect and, guess what, police officers are humans! No process can 100% predict future behavior.

Have you considered that the polygraph is quite expensive to administer? Some departments have the luxury of having full time detectives trained at the Canadian Police College (http://www.cpc.gc.ca/courses/descript/pec_e.htm) in a 13+ week course (this is in addition to years of experience as a detective plus numerous investigative and interrogation courses). Others have to contract out their polygraph interviews, usually to former police detectives trained in the polygraph, which is not cheap (anywhere from $500-$2000 by some accounts).

 

[Rowshambow]

All I was saying is that the poly while prob detering some applicants,who have bad backgrounds, it also deters others that don't want to junp through more hoops, like the Military, police recruiting can be a long process!
As for the scientific info, many people (and you can google it) can teach you how to "beat" the poly! There are pros and cons of each!
Also I  know a fair amount in ref to police recruiting, as I have stated in prev threads, my Father in law is a Sgt in recruiting for a major police force, and yes they use the poly, and have 2 Dets that are poly qualified.
As for my last statement about "blank" cmon, you seem like a smart guy greymatter I know nothing is blank and yes they look at all the things you mentioned, but I was saying that if I was looking at the file I would think to poly the guy that hasn't "done anything", beleive it or not they do get files that are pretty much blank (look at the EPS website and read the questionairre, something like 40 pages and some people answer it with "no" to alot of the questions) now yes once again I know if you apply to a force that uses the poly they poly everyone, not just certain ones.
Look at recruiting of all forces, ones with the poly and without, which ones don't have problem children? None, so does spending the money on the poly help or hinder? Why not use those resources on other avenues!?

 

[gate_guard]

1)Submit initial application.
-Accepted or rejected

2)Intake Exam
-Pass or Fail

3)Intake Interview (1st interview)
-Pass or Fail

4)Submit Background Questionnaire
-Pass or Fail

5)Assessment Center
-Pass or Fail

5)Polygraph Interview
-Pass or Fail

6)Psychological Testing
-Pass or Fail

7)Background Investigation
-pass or fail

8)Sergeants Interview
-Pass or Fail

9)Signoff by Deputy Chief

rowshambow, these are the "hoops" one has to jump through to join my department, ditching the polygraph doesn't really make things any quicker. And I'm confused, I thought you said we should take every step possible to ensure no "bad seeds" make it in? If it deters people who don't want to "jump through more hoops" all the better, obviously they don't have the necessary drive and motivation to be a police officer if something like a polygraph will deter them.

 

[1feral1]

All I was saying is that the poly while prob detering some applicants,who have bad backgrounds, it also deters others that don't want to junp through more hoops, like the Military, police recruiting can be a long process!

BS- the determined and those serious won't care. I wouldn't.I can't see it delaying anything, and again as I said before those who refuse have something to hide.

As for me, well at 47, I have done some stupid things over the years (mainly pre 25 yrs old, ha), and things I regretted, we all have, but never anything I would be actually ashamed of, or not admit to on a 'lie box'. I have nothing to hide.

The polygraph will be around for a long time, and if its introduced CF wise for speficic trades makes do difference to me.

Regards,

Wes

 

[Cheshire]

Hello,

I am new to the boards. Caught this thread as it appears to be of interest to me, as I am pursuing a career in policing, a the age of 33.

I think the Poly is used to reduce the margin of error during a candidate's potential viability as a Police Officer. I think all forces should use one. It is only another tool that can be used that is no different than the background checks, credit checks, and interviews. They are tools used that each on their own provide information, but when combind with the poly, can paint a much clearer, accurate picture as to ones suitability. If the CF are using it, it shouldn't need to be a state secret. But then again, maybe it should be. You do get a better picture of ones suitability from the MPAC when the candidates are unawares as to the process.

I think peoples biggest fear about them is not "what they are hiding," it's "not hiding anything", but maybe the poly says you are! That's my fear, small as it may be.

As for the original question, they probably are. If the RCMP are, why not the CF?

 

[FastEddy]

Hello,

I am new to the boards. Caught this thread as it appears to be of interest to me, as I am pursuing a career in policing, a the age of 33.

I think the Poly is used to reduce the margin of error during a candidate's potential viability as a Police Officer. I think all forces should use one. It is only another tool that can be used that is no different than the background checks, credit checks, and interviews. They are tools used that each on their own provide information, but when combind with the poly, can paint a much clearer, accurate picture as to ones suitability. If the CF are using it, it shouldn't need to be a state secret. But then again, maybe it should be. You do get a better picture of ones suitability from the MPAC when the candidates are unawares as to the process.

I think peoples biggest fear about them is not "what they are hiding," it's "not hiding anything", but maybe the poly says you are! That's my fear, small as it may be.

As for the original question, they probably are. If the RCMP are, why not the CF?

I will try to be a brief as possible in replying to your opinion/suggestions.

In that why should it be exclusively be applied to CF applicants applying for the Military Police Branch. Considering the great support as to the merits of this procedure and if this is the case, then why not ALL the applicants of the CAF regardless of Branch, NCM or Officer Candiates.

Its just what the CF's Recruitment Centers would need to Speed up their already Lumbering procedures.

In passing, it could also be applicable for applicants of Religious Sects, that might prove interesting if the merits of this procedure are correct.

Cheers.

 

[Shamrock]

I will try to be a brief as possible in replying to your opinion/suggestions.

In that why should it be exclusively be applied to CF applicants applying for the Military Police Branch. Considering the great support as to the merits of this procedure and if this is the case, then why not ALL the applicants of the CAF regardless of Branch, NCM or Officer Candiates.

Its just what the CF's Recruitment Centers would need to Speed up their already Lumbering procedures.

In passing, it could also be applicable for applicants of Religious Sects, that might prove interesting if the merits of this procedure are correct.

Cheers.

What?

 

[Cheshire]

Why should it be applied to MP candidates?

Same reason the RCMP apply it to theirs I guess. Just another tool they use to enhance, or increase candidate reliability. To weed out all none hackers who pack the gear to serve........you get my drift.

 

[FastEddy]

What?

Well as "Cheshire" so colorfully pointed out, why then shouldn't we have as much concern about those who are placed in Command Positions and the Rank and File who are given and use Weapons of incredible Death and Destruction.

Or do you subscribe to the opinion that all of the above are  squeaky clean and none are harboring dark secrets or traits. Therefore the administrating of such tests are definitely unnecessary.(not that I'm suggesting they should) But if one argument is so acceptable, why not the expansion of it ?.

I also find it suspect that all those in total agreement that MP Applicants should exclusively undergo such tests (not withstanding that "Well the RCMP do it", might just be harboring some dark thoughts of their own, and to quote *Cheshire" "you get my drift". Whats next Sodium Pentothal.










'

 

[Cheshire]

IMHO I think it has to do with the fact that they are held to a higher level of accountability than everyone else. And, the fact that Police Officers go from being Joe citizen, to being given the authority to take away a persons freedom, the authority to search and seize and the authority to use deadly force force by virtue of being appointed a Constable, with less than a year of actual Police Service training. The same cannot be said of Judges, Teachers, Doctors, Airline Pilots. Who yes, are held to a higher level of accountability in our society, but do not go through such a short period of training, and essentially have the power to immediately utilize their powers in less than a year of training.

And no process is perfect, like I said earlier, it reduces the margin of error. It is not exacting. But, it does work. The way in which a poly is administered, as I was told by a person who just passed their RCMP polygraph, is kinda eerie, how it does what it does. First off, It involves using a deck of cards, and not showing the tester which one you pick. You then say no to every single card he asks you, even when he says the one you pick, you still say no. Basically, telling a lie, and he will tell you that is the card. Then they run through a series of I don;t know how many questions on your background. And it is discussed, post and pre poly. And each candidates results will vary. So while it is not exacting, it does paint a clearer picture on a candidates reliability.


Edited to add:

Here is how they work, If I can post the link: http://www.polygraph-test.net/howitworks.htm

 

[FastEddy]

How long do you think the average Police College course is, before they are turned loose on the General Public in environments far more critical and demanding on a daily bases. That being said and not to under play the role and activities of the Military Police, who maybe will never encounter such incidents in their entire career.

I think statistics would prove that the common Serviceman/woman is more likely to commit  Criminal acts or  of Indiscretion per ratio than MP Personal (that being said, is not to exclude the MP, lets face it, there are always exceptions to the rule).

You have mentioned Doctors, Judges, Priests and Teachers, well if you have been keeping up to date, longevity doesn't have seem to have made a big difference and maybe we should include them in our list of candidates for testing.

While we are on the subject of longevity,I've noticed that we have skirted around my example and mention of Command Personal and Combat Personal, in that why is a 90 Day Wonder (with all due respect to 2nd Lieutenants everywhere) i/c of a Platoon of Infantry who is deployed within a year of his Commission charged with the lives and welfare of some 30  persons in a Life or Death situation any different than your Military Policeman with less than a year Training in his Branch.

I don't know who said it "But be carefull what you wish for, it just might come around and bite you in the A.."





 

 

[gate_guard]

FastEddy,
I don't know where you get the notion of a "90 day wonder" commanding a platoon of infantry overseas. Ask Infanteer, I'm pretty sure his combined training adds up to a lot more than 90 days. In addition to years of training, last I heard and I'm open to correction, new 2LT's do not command platoons but serve alongside experienced platoon commanders for on the job training prior to receiving their own platoon.

At any rate, you haven't provided a viable rebuttal to any of the previous arguments put forth by proponents of using the polygraph for policing so you've resorted to deflecting the issue at hand by turning this into a "If the polygraph is so great, why don't we just polygraph everyone?" debate.

 

[FastEddy]

FastEddy,
I don't know where you get the notion of a "90 day wonder" commanding a platoon of infantry overseas. Ask Infanteer, I'm pretty sure his combined training adds up to a lot more than 90 days. In addition to years of training, last I heard and I'm open to correction, new 2LT's do not command platoons but serve alongside experienced platoon commanders for on the job training prior to receiving their own platoon.

At any rate, you haven't provided a viable rebuttal to any of the previous arguments put forth by proponents of using the polygraph for policing so you've resorted to deflecting the issue at hand by turning this into a "If the polygraph is so great, why don't we just polygraph everyone?" debate.

Yes "Gate-Guard", your quite right, but "Infanteers" service and records were never in question or refered to.  Although it might not be a standing practice in the CAF's, so you are saying that a 2/Lt with a years experience has never or couldn't command a Platoon especially in these times of Personnel shortages and deployments. The point of contention with this example is as an "Infanteer" might be better served or reassured knowing his Platoon Officer is not a "Nutter" rather than concerns that a MP was rude or unfairly ticketed him. If you find this absurd so is demanding that the MP Branch be Polygraphed on selection.

Also I gather you are misreading or interpreting my quotes as I have never mentioned that the use of Polygraphs in Policing or Investigations is not useful or should not be used.

With regard to your comment that I'm of the opinion that  "why don't we just Polygraph everyone" I have only sarcastically pointed out where it might be better used rather than the MP Selection process.

As for the proponents of its employment in the Recruiting Process, the only arguments put forward are the RCMP use it and various other PD's, so if its good enough for them Well  why not, the very best I can say about this procedure is that its a very very Grey Area.

Also I would feel much more comfortable if your profile was filled out and maybe indicating that you have some experience or knowledge in the Policing or Legal Field.