# Polygraph



## tannerthehammer (31 Aug 2007)

I heard a rumour that MPAC is starting to use the Polygraph test....Any truth to this?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2007)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour that MPAC is starting to use the Polygraph test*....Any truth to this?*



Guess you'd need the polygraph to determine that! ;D


----------



## Greymatters (31 Aug 2007)

Haha, good one...


----------



## Pinto (4 Sep 2007)

I certainly hope this is nothing more than a false rumour, considering that polygraphs don't really work...

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

Polygraph tests have failed in the past at capturing (later to be) known spies; Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.

No scientific study has been published that offers convincing evidence of the validity of the polygraph test.

Meaningless pseudo-science that looks good in movies but has no real use, IMHO.

Cheers!


----------



## Spartan (4 Sep 2007)

Y





			
				Pinto said:
			
		

> I certainly hope this is nothing more than a false rumour, considering that polygraphs don't really work...
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.
> 
> ...


Which is why CSIS has been told for years by the oversight committee to get rid of this test for new applicants. 
CSIS still continues to use the polygraph, without a good explaination as to why they do.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Sep 2007)

At the end of the day, the only ones that should worry are the ones that have something to hide.

I know that many municipal police forces, such as the Regina Police use this device during the recruiting process, and I do believe the RCMP still do also (at least in 2004). 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the idea. The fear/threat of this machine keeps the undesirables out of the Police, and thats ok by me. This includes the ones that appear squeaky clean, but do in fact have something to hide.

Sure, it can't be used in court, but it is used in investigations with great success. Many businesses (some Armoured Car companies too) also use them. Ya, some people can fool it, but most, like you and I cannot. Thinking we can, and risking a job (or unearthing a dark secret that some may keep) on it is too big of gamble for most.

So, I am for the idea.


Wes


----------



## gate_guard (4 Sep 2007)

Wesley +1

I've taken a polygraph test and I found it quite interesting and could see its usefulness during an interview process. It is not a "lie detector" but it does detect deception. From my experience, when used by an experienced interviewer/interrogator, it can be a very useful interviewing tool. I've viewed footage of polygraph tests and you'd be surprised at what comes out whether it's the polygraph detecting deception, the test taker caving in under the pressure, the interviewer ripping apart the test takers story, or a combination thereof. I've heard one story of a police applicant admitting to certain *ahem* indiscretions with animals...

Is it 100% foolproof? No. Meaningless pseudoscience with no real use? Hardly.  IMO it is a very useful tool in the application process. And like Wes says, if you don't have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't want to take it, don't apply.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Sep 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Sure, it can't be used in court, but it is used in investigations with great success. Many businesses (some Armoured Car companies too) also use them. Ya, some people can fool it, but most, like you and I cannot. Thinking we can, and risking a job (or unearthing a dark secret that some may keep) on it is too big of gamble for most.



The machine has in the past been proven to not be effective against serial killers (based on evidence collected by the FBI), or against skilled con artists.  This has led some researchers to believe that it may be that those who lack guilt complexes are able to defeat the process.  

However, as Wesley points out, most people cant fool the machine, it is a great deterrent for law enforcement wannabe's with a shady past, and it weeds out those who fear their crimes will be 'detected'.


----------



## noneck (4 Sep 2007)

Wesley and gate_guard ++++++++1

Definitely has it's place as an investigative tool and that includes pre-employment testing!

Noneck


----------



## garb811 (5 Sep 2007)

Pinto said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.


If you're going to start throwing around Supreme Court rulings regarding something, you should at least have a knowledge as to what the reasoning for the ruling was.  This is a good place to start:  R vs Beland.

From that ruling, the following summarizes the Court's belief, you'll note it isn't, "...polygraphs don't really work..."



> The results of a polygraph examination are not admissible as evidence. The polygraph has no place in the judicial process where it is employed as a tool to determine or to test the credibility of witnesses. The admission of such evidence would offend well established rules of evidence, in particular, the rule against oath‑helping, which prohibits a party from presenting evidence solely for the purpose of bolstering a witness' credibility, the rule against the admission of past or out‑of‑court statements by a witness and the character evidence rule. The polygraph evidence is also inadmis‑ sible as expert evidence. The issue of credibility is an issue well within the experience of judges and juries and one in which no expert evidence is required.



If the Court believed that the use of the polygraph was something which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute they would rule that confessions obtained after someone was polygraphed would be automatically excluded as evidence, which they have not done.  Confessions obtained after a polygraph are as admissible as any other confession and subject to the same challenges, see R. v. Oickle.

Legal scholars and case law have also left open the possibility that one day the polygraph may be admissible however, most are loathe to have this happen due the probability that at that point the legal system would turn into "trial by machine" vice "trial by judge and jury."



			
				Pinto said:
			
		

> Polygraph tests have failed in the past at capturing (later to be) known spies; Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.



And one study (Evaluation of Pepper Spray) showed that OC spray was only effective against 90% of the targeted individuals, it doesn't mean we don't carry it.

As the others have pointed out, the polygraph is a tool and in the hands of a skilled operator who is a competent interrogator, it is an extremely effective tool which I have used several times to good effect.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> The machine...


Pssttt!  Don't say "machine" to a polygrapher, I found out the hard way that it's an instrument.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2007)

The question arises why there appear to be opponents to a system.  What arguments do they base their objections on?  The following link has a good write-up on the subject.  It may be a bit wordy for some.

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Canlegal.doc


----------



## MedCorps (5 Sep 2007)

This is an interesting read, albeit from one point of view.  

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

I showed it to a friend who was newly qualified as a polygraph tech.  She said that it is 70% good 30% BS but is worth a read.  Unless you are going to have a test, and then maybe reading it is not a good idea, and it might be seen as "studying to counter the machine".  

Enjoy... I found it interesting as I knew little about the topic.  

MC


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2007)

Very interesting in the bit I had time to read, will look forward to the whole thing later, thanks for the good link.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2007)

> *Xerox brand lie detector  *
> 
> 
> A judge admonished the police in Radnor, Pa., for pretending a
> ...




Oh, sorry. I thought the thread was "*Polygraph Humour*". My mistake. I'll leave now.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry. I thought the thread was "*Polygraph Humour*". My mistake. I'll leave now.



Thats a pretty good one!


----------



## Cardstonkid (5 Sep 2007)

http://antipolygraph.org/

This is a great link that outlines the dangers of a polygraph reliance. 


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. So IF there is reliance on this faulty technology there is a good chance that bad guys are having a good day.

There is a better chance that innocent people are being denied jobs or being scrutinized unfairly because a nervous person telling the truth will set off a "false" reading, whereas a cool manipulative liar will sail through the test.

The polygraph machine that has a future is the MRI. There is evidence to suggest that by watching the brain process information, the MRI can see a person is creating a story or remembering an event. IF this is verified and passes double blind studies (which I understand  the conventional polygraph has never done) science can actually provide a real lie detector that works. (Unless someone figures out how to spoof that test too.)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2007)

It takes two years to get an MRI for cancer, in this country : I doubt that Canada will be using an MRI for the cops anytime soon. Double blind test or not. JMHO of course.


----------



## garb811 (6 Sep 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> ...
> 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. So IF there is reliance on this faulty technology there is a good chance that bad guys are having a good day.
> ...


I don't think anyone is saying we should be "relying" on a polygraph for anything.  Just because someone is being polygraphed as part of an investigation or application process doesn't mean nothing else is done.  It's also already been established that most of us agree it's a tool with potential pitfalls.  Unlike "CSI: Hollywood" many of the tools we use are also imperfect but it doesn't mean they aren't useful in any given situation.

One does not simply wake up one day and decide they are going to be a polygrapher.  In Canada at least, all police polygraphers "...must have at least five years criminal investigation experience, and be a competent investigator with a natural aptitude and a proven ability to conduct criminal investigative interviews."  In addition to the polygraph specific topics, interrogation techniques are covered because the polygraph and subsequent interrogation go hat in hand, it's useless to have a polygrapher who isn't a skilled interrogator.  The best interrogator I've ever known was a polygrapher and many of his skills were gained via the course.

This is another of those issues where it is possible to find a ton of "evidence" on the internet to support whatever view it is you have, some of it legit and some of it tin-hattish.


----------



## Cardstonkid (6 Sep 2007)

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.


----------



## Rowshambow (6 Sep 2007)

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?

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


----------



## Greymatters (6 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Sep 2007)

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 (7 Sep 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (7 Sep 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Sep 2007)

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 (7 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> ...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 (8 Sep 2007)

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 (8 Sep 2007)

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 (8 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Sep 2007)

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 (12 Sep 2007)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> 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 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 (12 Sep 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



What?


----------



## Cheshire (13 Sep 2007)

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 (13 Sep 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Sep 2007)

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 (14 Sep 2007)

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 (14 Sep 2007)

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 (14 Sep 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## gate_guard (14 Sep 2007)

Sigh. FastEddy, no I don't believe a brand new 2Lt would ever command a platoon overseas in the Canadian Army. I believe you did refer to a new 2LT as a "90 day wonder". I took this to mean that they had only received 90 days of training and were suddenly deployable. I shouldn't need to tell you that new infantry officers complete much more training than that, a lot more. How about we forget about the Infantry platoon commander analogy. For one, we aren't debating whether they should be subject to a polygraph interview. The extensive training a new platoon commander receives often weeds out those who aren't fit for command, not always, but quite often. I highly doubt "Infanteers" would really care if their platoon commander had taken a polygraph or not. I know I don't. My only concern of my platoon commander overseas was whether he was capable of leading and he proved that more than once. Guess what, he never took a polygraph.

Back to the topic at hand, those who agree with using a polygraph as part of the interview process have put forward more than just the argument that the RCMP and various municipal departments use it. Why the polygraph is used has already been explained. If you look back at previous posts, proponents for the polygraph have pointed out that it is very useful in criminal investigations. Apparently you agree with this caveat since you have stated that I've wrongly accused you of saying that polygraphs are not useful. If polygraphs are useful in investigations, why should we not use them in the application process for a police force, including the Military Police? When an individual applies to a police force, numerous investigations are conducted in to his/her background. If a polygraph can be of ANY assistance into the investigation in to an applicants background, why not use it? Also, would you not agree that police officers, regardless of assignment, are held to a higher standard of integrity than those they police? And yes, this includes Military Police and those they police, the Canadian Forces.

With regards to my experience, I'll send you a pm.


----------



## Shamrock (14 Sep 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> 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).



Imbedded in here is a nugget of argument.  That statistically, the "common" (or as we prefer to be called, "mere") servicecretin will engage in nonlawful activity is a bit misleading as the statistics are derived from arrests and charges -- and the unnoticed (or ignored) activities do not factor into these statistics.  However, comparing the MP's to us mere servicecretins is a touch useless -- big P little m.  How do the MP's compare to other police services in terms of unlawful activity?  A brief review of several courts martial against MP's produce some real zingers.  Drug trafficking, assaulting a pizza delivery technician, fraud, and theft of photographic equipment (from a CFMPA instructor no less!) to name but a few.  Interestingly enough, one individual was given a significantly lesser punishment than individuals in similar cases because giving him an appropriate fine would cause ripples with the MP Code of Ethics and have career ramifications.

This leads to the question, who polices the police?  We all have the right to expect fair and lawful behaviour from our police, and where it is absent, we have the right to expect the law abiding police will crack down on the unlawful ones.  Us servicecretins, regardless of rank, are always subject to the police authority.  Police have a blurred distinction as they are subject to their own authority.  The lie detector test would serve to placate us undetected criminals; it would show those who inflict discipline by example upon us undergo more stringent BGI's than merely an ERC and CPIC.


----------



## garb811 (14 Sep 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> How do the MP's compare to other police services in terms of unlawful activity?  A brief review of several courts martial against MP's produce some real zingers.  Drug trafficking, assaulting a pizza delivery technician, fraud, and theft of photographic equipment (from a CFMPA instructor no less!) to name but a few...


I'm surprised that someone with your prowess at digging through Courts Martial transcripts missed the one which brings the most shame on the Branch.  

Ref: civie police and how they behave compared to us, here's a few off the top of my google-foo:

RCMP officer convicted of sexual assault
RCMP officer convicted of manslaughter
Four Vancouver police officers convicted of assault
Edmonton police officer convicted of assault with a weapon
Toronto police officer pleads guilty to the lesser charge of drug possession after being charged with trafficing  (From a DRUG SQUAD member no less!)
Two former Saskatoon police officers convicted of unlawful confinement in connection with "Starlight Tours"
Montreal police officer pleads guilty to a string of sexual assaults
Ottawa police officer convicted of theft, uttering threats and assault
Toronto police officer convicted of hit and run

...to name but a few, some of which are much worse than anything a MP has ever been convicted of.  That enough to show you that shit rats make it onto every force no matter what screening mechanisms are in place or do you want me to find some more?   :  

Besides, you should be happy that there are convictions registered against MPs as it shows that we aren't above the law and when we catch the bad apples, they are taken to task and not shielded.



> ...Interestingly enough, one individual was given a significantly lesser punishment than individuals in similar cases because giving him an appropriate fine would cause ripples with the MP Code of Ethics and have career ramifications...


MP Code of Ethics?  Would you be, perhaps, referring to the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct?  Mind providing the supporting quote from the Courts Martial transcript for your assertion?



> This leads to the question, who polices the police?


Since you seem to be good at the research on figuring out who the bad MPs are, you should have been able to figure this one out too.  I kinda think this is a rhetorical question for effect, but again since you asked, it's the Military Police Complaints Commission.  Although in most cases it is MP posted to Professional Standards (or NIS at times as well) who do the investigations of allegations of MP misconduct, these are reviewed by the MPCC.  When required there is also the ability to have an external force do the investigation, such as just happened with the CFPM.



> ...it would show those who inflict discipline by example upon us undergo more stringent BGI's than merely an ERC and CPIC.


Actually, we already do.  All MP background checks are done to the TS standard even though the working clearance level is Secret.  In case you're unaware of this as well, the checks for a TS clearance entail a bit more than running a name through CPIC and Equifax...


----------



## FastEddy (14 Sep 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> and he proved that more than once. Guess what, he never took a polygraph.




MY POINT EXACTLY, and why should he have or it be suggested he should.


----------



## Shamrock (14 Sep 2007)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that someone with your prowess at digging through Courts Martial transcripts missed the one which brings the most shame on the Branch.



My point was hardly to prowl through courts martial to dig up dirt on your Branch; my knowledge is a UFI remnant from EWAT long past.  However, I'd be interested in knowing where one can publicly view transcripts.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Ref: civie police and how they behave compared to us, here's a few off the top of my google-foo:
> ...
> ...to name but a few, some of which are much worse than anything a MP has ever been convicted of.  That enough to show you that shit rats make it onto every force no matter what screening mechanisms are in place or do you want me to find some more?...



This is what I was getting at, comparing bad apples to bad apples.  However, I'd be interested in knowing the statistics of convictions by size of forces.  VPD is of a nominally similar size, would we find a similar number of charges?



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Besides, you should be happy that there are convictions registered against MPs as it shows that we aren't above the law and when we catch the bad apples, they are taken to task and not shielded.



I should be?  Are you intimating something here?



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> MP Code of Ethics?  Would you be, perhaps, referring to the Military Police Professional Code of Conduct?



The very one.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Mind providing the supporting quote from the Courts Martial transcript for your assertion?



During the labourious slug through many a transcript, I came across a recurring of themes.  Senior officers and MP's.  I don't have the references at hand and am hardly willing to dig through more transcripts to satisfy your request.  All I can remember of one -- the pizza incident -- was North Bay.  



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Since you seem to be good at the research on figuring out who the bad MPs are, you should have been able to figure this one out too.  I kinda think this is a rhetorical question for effect, but again since you asked, it's the Military Police Complaints Commission.  Although in most cases it is MP posted to Professional Standards (or NIS at times as well) who do the investigations of allegations of MP misconduct, these are reviewed by the MPCC.  When required there is also the ability to have an external force do the investigation, such as just happened with the CFPM.



Yes and no.  I'm well aware of the MPCC but this was not what I was talking about.  As I understand, the MPCC requires complaints and will not actively seek out infringements.  I notice the Provost Martial is also a means of complaint.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Actually, we already do.  All MP background checks are done to the TS standard even though the working clearance level is Secret.  In case you're unaware of this as well, the checks for a TS clearance entail a bit more than running a name through CPIC and Equifax...



So, a junior MP will undergo the same indepth background investigation civilian police will, and will remain in the training system until their clearance is approved?  My Level III took almost a year and a half to go through; that's a long time to wait in PRETC.


----------



## gate_guard (14 Sep 2007)

FastEddy,
You are the one who suggested we should introduce polygraph examinations CF wide. My point is that we aren't talking about CF wide, we're talking about MPs. Please keep the focus of your argument to the MP trade only. MP's, and police officers everywhere, are held to a higher standard of conduct, both professionally and personally. This is why I advocate a more stringent application process with more checks and balances. If you want to debate whether we should have a polygraph as part of the application process for the CF, start another thread.


----------



## FastEddy (15 Sep 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> FastEddy,
> You are the one who suggested we should introduce polygraph examinations CF wide. My point is that we aren't talking about CF wide, we're talking about MPs. Please keep the focus of your argument to the MP trade only. MP's, and police officers everywhere, are held to a higher standard of conduct, both professionally and personally. This is why I advocate a more stringent application process with more checks and balances. If you want to debate whether we should have a polygraph as part of the application process for the CF, start another thread.




 I'll try to put this into the simplest terms as possible, that even you can grasp !. It is evident that you find it convenient to turn or use ones statements around to suit your own rhetoric.

My, what if's, or maybe's or why not's, were simply used as a parallel hypothetical comparison to the argument of Higher Standards. Never in any post did I state that the use of Polygraphs be mandatory for the CAF.

It is your prerogative to advocate the use of Polygraphs in the application process for the MP Branch, it is mine to say B... S... to the idea. And it is certainally not because I doubt the mechanical accuracy of the machines.

I trust that the above is quite clear and needs no reply.


----------



## gate_guard (15 Sep 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



Lose the condescending attitude. Above is your "parallel hypothetical comparison". You state "why not ALL the applicants of the CAF regardless of Branch, NCM or Officer Candidate. Here you are trying to introduce the notion that if the MPs should be subjected to it, why not apply it to the entire Canadian Forces as an argument against adopting the polygraph. Your words, not mine. I only pointed out that your "parallel hypothetical comparison" was completely groundless and irrelevant to the discussion. I won't bother addressing the comment about "Religious Sects".

And check your messages.


----------



## Shamrock (15 Sep 2007)

Far be it from me to try to recover from an inappropriate sideline.

I understand not all police forces will use the poly in their application processes; the rumor I've heard is that Ontario police forces cannot use it for various reasons.  While these comments seem odd to me, I also think it's odd we have no photo radar here.  So, my many parted question:

Are rumors that civilian police forces eschew the poly for reasons beyond uselessness or is it a case such as Ontario not being permitted?  Why wouldn't it be permitted?

Next Q: if it provides information rendering applicants ineligible that would otherwise proceed through the recruiting process, would that not render it a valuable recruiting aid?  Certainly, it won't account for "shit rats" who become so later during their careers, but will it not weed out more bad seeds in advance?  There's bound to be a reason why police forces brought it into service and continue to do so despite their own boneheads.

I've read Garb811's comments about poly operators will already by highly skilled interrogators before learning the device. Recceguy's Xerox detector does prove a certain point, that people will believe what they want to believe.  The presence of the lie detector could serve as a deterrant -- those who know they won't pass will be less likely to apply and will thus make recruiting easier for candidates and less costly for the Forces.  And I for one would feel more confident knowing the Branch is doing more to prevent the morally bankrupt from entering service.

Second point: given the presence of lateral transfers available to members of the Branch, including the RCMP, would it not make sense for the MP recruiting process to be as compatible with police services to ease transition their post CF careers?


----------



## FastEddy (15 Sep 2007)

gate_guard said:
			
		

> Lose the condescending attitude. Above is your "parallel hypothetical comparison". You state "why not ALL the applicants of the CAF regardless of Branch, NCM or Officer Candidate. Here you are trying to introduce the notion that if the MPs should be subjected to it, why not apply it to the entire Canadian Forces as an argument against adopting the polygraph. Your words, not mine. I only pointed out that your "parallel hypothetical comparison" was completely groundless and irrelevant to the discussion. I won't bother addressing the comment about "Religious Sects".
> 
> And check your messages.




Its nice to see when you get the bit in your mouth you run with it. But I found that sometimes you can end up running up your own, well I'll let you use your own imagination.

I have only two points to make, which you'll probally misconstrue. 1. I still find it odd why you would not wish to reveal your occupation or affiliation , I find it most admirable , you see I do check my PM's, as for replying, I have nothing else than I have already made public.

2. I will admit this is very snide, but if you are a result of this process, then I humbly admit we do need far more stringent measures of selection in recruitment of certain occupations or Trades.

Have a nice day Code 4


----------



## battleaxe (15 Sep 2007)

I have absolutely no background in policing/law enforcement...but I'm curious about something nonetheless...because leadership is leadership no matter what trade or profession one chooses.

If polygraphs are made part of the application process, will it be only the new recruits that will have to complete testing?  Will the leaders/higher ranks (leading by example?), and all other current MP personnel be expected to eventually take one?

I realize it is not a done deal, so I can ask in another way because the procedures will likely be the same for MPs as for RCMP if it ever comes to be- What happened when the tests were implemented as part of the selection process for RCMP personnel? Were people already hired into the organization expected to have one? 

If the answer to this is yes, I'll certainly have more questions.  Just curious,

Bren


----------



## FastEddy (15 Sep 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no background in policing/law enforcement...but I'm curious about something nonetheless...because leadership is leadership no matter what trade or profession one chooses.
> 
> If polygraphs are made part of the application process, will it be only the new recruits that will have to complete testing?  Will the leaders/higher ranks (leading by example?), and all other current MP personnel be expected to eventually take one?
> 
> ...




That's a very good question, I never even considered that, good show.

Cheers.


----------



## Scott (15 Sep 2007)

Keep it civil in here please.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

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



To answer your question - Yes. Go to this link (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/air_reserve/recruiting/milpolice_e.asp) and scroll down and you find this:

*Military Police - Polygraph Services (MP-POLY)
MOC: M811 K
Background:
MP - POLY are responsible for the provision of polygraph support to investigations. The function of this occupation is to carry out polygraph examinations and to 
provide expertise to investigators in support of criminal, service and security investigations.*

Here is another link that takes you to the CFNIS 2006 Annual report:

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/cfpm/00native/pdfs/cfnis-annualrep2006_e.pdf

At the bottom of page 5 there is pie chart that breaks down the percentage of polygraph tests; that the CFNIS polygraph experts are trained at the Canadian Police College
and the name (with photo) of the guy in charge.

Here is another link to the Directorate of Defence Counsel Services who are responsible for providing "the legal services prescribed at QR&O art. 101.20(2) to persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline charged or liable to be charged under that Code."

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/ddcs/default_e.asp?format=print

Scroll down and you find this little tidbit:

*You may be asked by the police to take a polygraph, commonly known as a "lie detector" test. Remember that you are not obliged to submit to this test, and that the results are not admissible in court to prove either your guilt or your innocence. However, the polygraph procedure includes interviews before and after the test itself. What you say to the examiner during these interviews may be used as evidence against you at the trial.[/b] (My emphasis).


*


----------



## Shamrock (15 Sep 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> If polygraphs are made part of the application process, will it be only the new recruits that will have to complete testing?  Will the leaders/higher ranks (leading by example?), and all other current MP personnel be expected to eventually take one?



I'll attempt to answer this.

Polygraphs can be fairly time intensive -- it's not simply a case of lining the regiment up, sitting everyone down, ask a few questions, done by lunch.  Second problem is cost.  To train enough operators and get enough devices to test the entire CF, we're looking at quite a few dollars.  Even reducing the scope to the Branch is impractical -- 1200 members is still a lot to go through.  I can't speak for the feasibility of it for all applicants, but I don't think many police forces deal with the volume of applicants the CF does.

A second problem is... what happens if the poly does turn something up?  Most likely, the information would provide sufficient grounds to initiate an investigation, there still exists the question of lawful application of the poly.  Laywers being lawyers and all...  Until we're able to initiate Forces wide piss tests, I don't think the poly will be a viable option.


----------



## gate_guard (15 Sep 2007)

Alright, back to the topic at hand. I don't think it's prudent to begin testing the entire MP nominal roll. Implementing the polygraph as part of the application process from here on out would make the most sense. As well, it would not be necessary to train CF personnel in the polygraph as there are many contractors across the country who would be able to conduct the interviews at all major recruiting centers across the country.


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 Oct 2007)

While I think the polygraph can be a useful tool, I think it is a slap in the face to the investigative skills of the people doing the MPAC or investigations if they can not ellicit the information they need...Any good investigator should be able to get a confession 9/10 times...It's all knowing the right things to say to activate the compulsion to confess and being an active listener and knowing what to listen for...

(edited for spelling mistake)


----------



## Shamrock (23 Oct 2007)

And what are we listening for in your steadfast assertion that lie detectors have no purpose in MPAC?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Oct 2007)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> While I think the polygraph can be a useful tool, I think it is a slap in the face to the investigative skills of the people doing the MPAC or investigations if they can not illicit the information they need...Any good investigator should be able to get a confession 9/10 times...It's all knowing the right things to say to activate the compulsion to confess and being an active listener and knowing what to listen for...



My question to you would be why are you using a flag officer insignia as your avatar?


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> And what are we listening for in your steadfast assertion that lie detectors have no purpose in MPAC?



Well if you read the post more carefully you would see that I did not say the polygraph tests have no purpose in MPAC...I am just pointing out the fact if the person relies on a machine to do a job that (for the most part) they should be capable of doing, then I would question their investigative skills...

I am not going to go into all the endless ways to detect deception (via live interview) in someone or how to activate the compulsion to confess but if you genuinely want to know I would suggest getting some literature on it (or speaking with someone who is qualified and willing to) and I would be happy to point you in the right direction...


----------



## Shamrock (23 Oct 2007)

So, you're conflating the use of a tool with dependance upon a tool?


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> So, you're conflating the use of a tool with dependance upon a tool?



Well what I am saying is that it is expected that someone in one of the aforementioned situations or positions, should be capable of getting the information they need through the use of their skills rather than relying on a machine that has no scientific or legal value with regard to "detecting lies"....

Therefore, if the investigator feels that their own investigative skills are lacking so much that they could not ellicit the information they need without a polygraph, I would (as I said before) question their abilities as an investigator...Some people may think that being able to get people to confess 9/10 times is unrealistic but from the people that I have talked to who are considered experts (authors/researchers/former detectives etc..) in the field of interrogation, once you master the skill of interrogation those same techniques can be applied over and over again regardless of the person or crime...

One of my former professors actually writes some of the books the military police use...His name is Gino Arcaro...He is an author, scholar, former detective and recognized expert in interrogation as he has written many law enforcement books and created interrogation teaching modules that are employed by various law enforcement agencies and organizations...I would highly recommend his stuff...

This is no joke but at one point he had 52 consecutive confessions during his policing career...I won't go into details why he didn't get number 53 because it is not important....It just goes to show that a skilled interrogater can get almost anyone to tell them what they need to hear if they have the ability to extract the information from them...Confessions work in court, polygraphs don't...It's just that simple...

Right or wrong, I believe that law enforcement agencies and the like should follow the example of the Canadian court and legal system... 

Interrogation is a science....Learn it, live it and love it!


----------



## Shamrock (23 Oct 2007)

The polygraph is a tool, plain and simple and that is used by skilled interrogators.  At no point has anyone -- except you -- inferred, implied, or even nodded their head in the general direction of dependancy upon it.  An effictive tool used by an effective interrogator will only serve to be of benefit to the interrogator; the device is more than capable of picking up exceptionally subtle responses I doubt even your professor could.  This could allow the interrogator to track down the information he needs faster and more effictively.

Lie detectors do more than detect liars, they produce expectancy.  If an individual enters into an interview or interrogation with the expectancy he will get caught lying -- or the belief he has to cover up his lies -- he's going to produce signs and symptoms that will allow the interrogator to catch him.  This is how the Xerox worked.  The process interrogators do before and during the poly also invite more opportunity for the guilty to express their guilt.

A poly may be inadmissable in court, but it is still a valuable tool for interrogators and interviewers.  Calling into question the skills of interrogators who use poly is absurd -- these individuals already have very well developed interrogative skills.  That's why they were chosen as interrogators.

Modelling police hiring processes after our legal system is equally absurd. Lawyers and judges have created an absolute morass of the judicial system; criminals escape conviction because of technicalities, legal loopholes, or legal dreamteams.  Imagine getting a ticket lessened or even removed because a hired agency floods the court with paperwork and bogs the system down even more.  Is this the hiring process you advocate? That police should hire individuals unfit for existence simply because they can hire a legal-employment dreamteam or find a technicality in the hiring process that allows them to bypass certain elements, including being of good character?


----------



## FastEddy (24 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Hire people unfit for existence based on a "technicality" or a legal-employment dream team?




Weak comeback, "tannerthehammer" has you hands down.


----------



## gate_guard (24 Oct 2007)

tannerthehammer,
The actual polygraph test results are inadmissible in court but any admission or confession that may come about as a result of a polygraph IS admissible. It's misleading to say a polygraph is inadmissible. The only reason the RESULTS (ie a "pass" or "fail") of a polygraph are inadmissible is because the Court believes it is their place to determine the credibility of a witness/suspect. To admit the results of a polygraph would be, in the view of the Court, to take the power to determine credibility away from the Court. Any statement made throughout a polygraph interview IS admissible.

In the field of interrogating, no one technique works 100% of the time. If it did then there would only be one style of interrogating. A good interrogator knows this and knows when to use various techniques. A polygraph is just another method of interrogation and, in my opinion, why exclude a tool that has been used many times with great success from an interrogators tool belt?

At any rate, I don't foresee police departments discontinuing the use of the polygraph, on the contrary, many are adopting it as part of the application process.


----------



## Stetson and Spurs (6 Nov 2007)

The RCMP only recently introduced the use of the Polygraph as part of the applicant screening process in late 2005 early 2006. While the test is actually conducted, the big plus factor is proving to be the pre-screening questionnaire that applicants must complete. This identifies areas of interest/concern that they are later questioned on. Speaking with colleagues who work in this area, drug useage seems to be one of the biggest eliminating factors and we're not talking about someone smoking a joint when they were 16 years old either.


----------



## kia4ever (25 Jun 2010)

Hi I just wanted to know if there is a polygraph requirement for the MPs such as the one for the RCMP. Thanks. Also I have been in the reserves for 4 years now and I regularly attend, is there a good chance I can skip BMQ when I finish my CT?


----------



## brandon_ (25 Jun 2010)

I was told on my BMQ-L (reserve) That if we were above Cpl. (with resonable experince) Or had a tour in.   But i'm not 100% sure.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2012)

The link to the original article is here.



> There is also the polygraph, or lie detector. There are major doubts in the scientific community about their efficacy. In a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case (United States vs Scheffer) the majority commented, “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.”  Aldrich Ames passed two polygraphs whilst spying for the Russians, and, from his prison cell, described it as “junk science”.


Well, the guy here who wanted every CF member and every recruit polygraphed is going to be miffed.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The link to the original article is here.



Thanks for providing the link. In to much of a hurry to get down to the LCBO. ;D


----------



## JorgSlice (16 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The link to the original article is here.
> Well, the guy here who wanted every CF member and every recruit polygraphed is going to be miffed.



I know a pretty well-established and highly commended RCMP officer and we were discussing the use of polygraphs. He said that fact that he is one of 5 Investigative Polygraph Specialists available in the country is ass-backwards as the ruling that declared their results inadmissible as evidence in the court of law came in many years before he completed his training for the Polygraph Division. They still use it as an investigative tool to this day.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> They still use it as an investigative tool to this day.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Unlike what you see on crime TV shows, polygraphs are far from simple, 100% accurate procedures. Often, their utility lay more in cuing investigators to dig deeper in a particular direction  based on the operator's interpretation of the data.....


Yes, I believe I said it can be used as an investigative tool, and not as some all-predictive magical touchstone (like on TV).





			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> ...he is one of 5 Investigative Polygraph Specialists available in the country


I guess him and his four cohorts would be pretty busy polygraphing everone in the CF and all recruits.   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I know a pretty well-established and highly commended RCMP officer and we were discussing the use of polygraphs. He said that fact that he is one of 5 Investigative Polygraph Specialists available in the country is ass-backwards as the ruling that declared their results inadmissible as evidence in the court of law came in many years before he completed his training for the Polygraph Division. They still use it as an investigative tool to this day.



Biased and self serving are two phrases that come to mind. Good cop or not.


----------



## JorgSlice (16 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Biased and self serving are two phrases that come to mind. Good cop or not.



What makes you think that? Are you a police officer?

He simply believes that if the polygraph evidence is not only inaccurate, but inadmissible that it shouldn't be used as any good investigator knows the signs of an individual who's lying.

I think your statement is biased and self-serving. He follows orders, just as you do. He was told to take his training for it, and he did. He was told to perform the investigation using it, and he did.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> What makes you think that? Are you a police officer?
> 
> He simply believes that if the polygraph evidence is not only inaccurate, but inadmissible that it shouldn't be used as any good investigator knows the signs of an individual who's lying.
> 
> I think your statement is biased and self-serving. He follows orders, just as you do. He was told to take his training for it, and he did. He was told to perform the investigation using it, and he did.



Settle down and distance yourself.

He is one of five top operators in the country............so you say.

He's making a biased statement that the equipment is better than the judgement of every court in the land and should be allowed admissable.

He's protecting his job.

Being a police officer has nothing to do with it.

A Lada salesman will stand by the product he's selling.


----------



## JorgSlice (17 Oct 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Settle down and distance yourself.
> 
> He is one of five top operators in the country............so you say.
> 
> ...



Actually, if you go back and read it, I said that he DOES NOT LIKE the use of polygraphs because of the fact that they're easily given false readings and are inadmissible. He said that ANY GOOD INVESTIGATOR can read an individual for signs of lying just as well if not better than the machine and has complete faith in the training investigators receive, the courts, and wishes that they'd do away with the machines.

That is why in the initial post I said he mentioned that it's "ass-backwards that they are still using them when it has no footing in a court."

Next time, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Actually, if you go back and read it, I said that he DOES NOT LIKE the use of polygraphs because ....


I _actually_ read it quite a few times, and was going to ask whether it meant you were pro-/anti-polygraph because it is confusing. 

You never _actually_ said "... he DOES NOT LIKE...". You said "He simply believes that *if* the polygraph evidence is not only inaccurate, but inadmissible that it shouldn't be used...."


For those who actually read and think about what is written, that qualifier "*if*" makes a world of difference. That's another side of the 'conclusion-jumping' coin I guess.


----------



## JorgSlice (17 Oct 2012)

I'll stop it here, but I will just say that I think you're just taking the "if" too literal. It wasn't that hard for me to understand, and I wasn't that great of an English student


----------



## Journeyman (17 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> ....and I wasn't that great of an English student


Apparently.


----------



## JorgSlice (17 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Apparently.



Actually, let's roll back a second... I never said "if" at all in my first statement:



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I know a pretty well-established and highly commended RCMP officer and we were discussing the use of polygraphs. He said that fact that he is one of 5 Investigative Polygraph Specialists available in the country is ***-backwards as the ruling that declared their results inadmissible as evidence in the court of law came in many years before he completed his training for the Polygraph Division. They still use it as an investigative tool to this day.



Therefore:



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Actually, if you go back and read it, I said that he DOES NOT LIKE the use of polygraphs because of the fact that they're easily given false readings and are inadmissible. He said that ANY GOOD INVESTIGATOR can read an individual for signs of lying just as well if not better than the machine and has complete faith in the training investigators receive, the courts, and wishes that they'd do away with the machines.
> 
> That is why in the initial post I said he mentioned that it's "***-backwards that they are still using them when it has no footing in a court."
> 
> Next time, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.



Is still valid and true.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Actually, let's roll back a second... *I never said "if" at all * in my first statement:


If you're going to cut & paste your own posts.....  :


			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> He simply believes that if the polygraph evidence is not only inaccurate, but inadmissible that it shouldn't be used as any good investigator knows the signs of an individual who's lying.



Readers can only assess what you mean by what you post -- internet sucks that way. Sorry.


And for some people.....Col Kurtz for example....."if" is a significant modifier. I'm sorry your English teacher missed that point.


----------



## JorgSlice (17 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If you're going to cut & paste your own posts.....  :
> Readers can only assess what you mean by what you post -- internet sucks that way. Sorry.
> 
> 
> And for some people.....Col Kurtz for example....."if" is a significant modifier. I'm sorry your English teacher missed that point.



That wasn't from my original statement, that was in reply to _someone_ believing his statement is biased and self-serving, which if the orignal statement was read properly, that conclusion would not have been made. Please refer to the original statement which is displayed in very clear, easy to read and proper English for you. 



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> ... He said that fact that he is one of 5 Investigative Polygraph Specialists available in the country is arse-backwards as the ruling that declared their results inadmissible as evidence in the court of law came in many years before he completed his training for the Polygraph Division. They still use it as an investigative tool to this day.



With this statement, I don't understand why you have to pick apart a secondary because of an "if". Once again, proved that it was indeed my initial, first statement that did not include an "if". Try harder.

This is petty and trivial, is it really that hard to understand because of an "if"? If so... pretty sad.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> If so... pretty sad.


 :nod:


I'm done. Feel free to come back with a suitable "oh...oh _ya_!" retort if you feel the need.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2012)

Any good investigator can also make up false "leads".

Yea you looked up and to the left when you answered that question meaning you're accessing the creative part of your brain clearly you're lying.


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Oct 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Any good investigator can also make up false "leads".
> 
> Yea you looked up and to the left when you answered that question meaning you're accessing the creative part of your brain clearly you're lying.



That is why we are required to investigate our "false lead" before determining whether it is indeed false or not. Can't just act on a false lead or even true lead, without investigating to verify the validity.


----------



## J.J (19 Oct 2012)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> What makes you think that? Are you a police officer?
> 
> He simply believes that if the polygraph evidence is not only inaccurate, but inadmissible that it shouldn't be used as any good investigator knows the signs of an individual who's lying.
> 
> I think your statement is biased and self-serving. He follows orders, just as you do. He was told to take his training for it, and he did. He was told to perform the investigation using it, and he did.



I don't really know what to say about your "operator", I have the RCMP Forensics Interrogation and Interview course, I am a qualified instructor in the Reid technique. You cannot do the job of an interrogator/interviewer if you don't believe in the process. Is the polygraph perfect, no, but in my opinion it is close, if the administrator is decent, they can be damn close to perfect. The polygraph is an investigative tool that assists an investigation pointing them (hopefully) in the right direction. Any good investigator doesn't believe only one form of forensic evidence, they look for a multiplicity of indicators/evidence.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Oct 2012)

How do you stand on academic studies that show that polygraph tests are less than 65% accurate?

Or on statements by credible persons that polygraphs don't work?  For example:

_For example in 1978 Richard Helms, the 8th Director of Central Intelligence, stated that: "We discovered there were some Eastern Europeans who could defeat the polygraph at any time. Americans are not very good at it, because we are raised to tell the truth and when we lie it is easy to tell we are lying. But we find a lot of Europeans and Asiatics [who] can handle that polygraph without a blip, and you know they are lying and you have evidence that they are lying." _


----------

