Polygraph

[gate_guard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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

The very one.

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. 

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

Cheers.

 

[Scott]

Keep it civil in here please.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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]

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...