Polygraph

[Shamrock]

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

 

[tannerthehammer]

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]

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]

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

Weak comeback, "tannerthehammer" has you hands down.

 

[gate_guard]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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).

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Apparently.

 

[JorgSlice]

Apparently.

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

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:

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.