Police Department Applicants to take Polygraphs

[LSN80]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/10/us/tennessee-police-polygraphs/index.html
"I felt that it would help me to select people with good moral character to be police officers," Chief Shane Sullivan told CNN on Saturday. "The town's had enough bad happen to it, and I want to rebuild the department and give them professional law enforcement."

The polygraph test asks whether the person has ever viewed child pornography or committed a racially motivated crime. It also asks about criminal history, work history or possible drug or alcohol abuse, said Sullivan, who recently took over as police chief in Coopertown, a town of about 4,000 people just north of Nashville.

It does not ask candidates whether they are racist.

Chief Sullivan has said that all applicants have successfully passed the polygraph thus far, but several applicants were denied the chance to apply for a position because they've declined to take the polygraph. The decision to have all applicants take a polygraph was made after a Coopertown cop was overheard using a racial slur and subsequently fired after it.

I'm of two minds about this. I understand the rationale of having applicants taking polygraphs, and with the questions being asked. Yes, law enforcement officers have to undergo psychological testing in order to ensure their sound state of mind, and none of the questions are ones that are especially invasive. Further, all federal law enforcement officers have to take a polygraph prior to employment, and police departments are exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, so legality here isn't in question.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/employee-polygraph-protection-act-eppa
What is EPPA?
On December 27, 1988, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) became law. This federal law established guidelines for polygraph testing and imposed restriction on most private employers. The following is a brief summary of the essential elements of the law.

Who is affected by EPPA?
This legislation only affects commercial businesses. Local, State and Federal governmental agencies (such as police departments) are not affected by the law, nor are public agencies, such as a school system or correctional institution. In addition, there are exemptions in EPPA for some commercial businesses. These are:

1.Businesses under contract with the Federal Government involving specified activities (e.g., counterintelligence work).
2. Businesses whose primary purpose consists of providing armored car personnel, personnel involved in the design, or security personnel in facilities which have a significant impact on the health or safety of any state. Examples of these facilities would be a nuclear or electric power plant, public water works, or toxic waste disposal.
3. Companies which manufacturer, distribute or dispense controlled substances.

The problem I have with them is this: Polygraphs are in-admissable in court for a reason, and that's because they're only considered to be 95% accurate. Essentially, 1 in 20 read improperly. People prone to anxiety are more likely to fail a polygraph, due to displaying nervous behavior because of the test itself, not the questions being asked, leading to readings of deceit when none exist. So unfortunately, there will always be those who are screwed by the test.


Should police officers have to take polygraphs regarding their moral and possibly past criminal behavior before being accepted as officers?

Officers already on the force already in Coopertown will not be required to take the polygraph, only incoming applicants. If applicants are being required to, should current officers have to as well?

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[H33LTurn]

It would only be fair to extend polygraph testing to those who are currently police officers as well. If its racism and misconduct that they're trying to curve it would make sense to start with those who might have already been involved in such activities.

I'm on the fence when it comes to polygraph testing. Unlike in the movies, polygraphs arent fool proof and even when it comes to a courtroom battle, polygraph testing doesnt count as evidence unless both the prosecution and the defense sign off to it. Of course I'm glad that they're tackling misconduct and furthermore if you're going to give a gun and a badge to someone so that they can enforce the law it only makes sense to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that the person wont take liberties with their newfound power but a polygraph tests seems too unstable for me.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Polygraphs are in-admissable in court for a reason, and that's because they're only considered to be 95% accurate.

Someday, there will be an ironclad, sure-fire test to determine whether a person is lying. When the prosecutor asked O.J. Simpson: "Did you kill those people?" the answer will be yes or no.....there will be no in-between and nothing subject to interpretation or legal "games."

In the meantime, the problem with polygraph tests lies more in what is inferred by them. Back to the O.J. trial: when Detective Mark Fuhrman was asked: "Have you used the word '******' in the past 10 years"....and Fuhrman told the court he didn't, the defense supplied witnesses and a tape recording indicating that Fuhrman lied.

Okay, fair enough: chalk one up for the Juice. The problem came afterward, when the defense used that lie to infer that Fuhrman must be a racist because: (1) he has used the term, and (2) he lied about it.

From there, it got worse, when the defense successfully established reasonable doubt by saying that Fuhrman is unquestionably a racist, that he "sprinkled" O.J.'s blood around the crime scene in an effort to make it seem as if O.J. had been there. (where he obtained samples of O.J.'s blood to do all this apparently didn't trouble the jury)

Yes, this was a case in which no polygraph was used, but it still illustrates that everything is not black and white when the technique is utilized. When hiring police officers, I hate to think a person would be disqualified for something that came out of a polygraph, especially since the answers to all questions have to be "yes or no"......when life is seldom as simple and direct as that. Sure, some questions in the test could be validly applied, but their wording could allow no ambiguity.

To put the question and example together: If the prospective police officer was asked if he used the derogatory term for African-Americans in the past ten years ....he says he didn't....and the polygraph calls him a liar, does that make him/her ineligible to be a cop? If so, a lot of people are gonna fail that test, no?

You can probably come up with other "yes or no" questions whose true answer would be "Yes, but" or "No, but." However, the polygraph would interpret everything only at face value and the department wouldn't be getting the true picture, causing them to disqualify a lot of able candidates.

The psychological profiles that have always been used to determine good candidates is still the best method.