Thought this was interesting and people may have different views depending upon how accurate they think the "lie detector" tests are, the scope of questions that are asked, whether the treatment of all applicants is fair and consistent, etc. MSN The Drug Enforcement Administration has allowed dozens of job applicants to become special agents and perform other work despite failing a lie detector test during the hiring process, according to a new federal watchdog report, which describes the agency’s polygraph unit as facing pressure to pass “legacy” candidates related to senior officials. Details of the report, issued Wednesday by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, were independently verified by The Times based on court documents obtained from a whistleblower case filed by a former member of the DEA polygraph unit. Beyond special treatment to friends and family members of DEA officials, the whistleblower has said agency bosses ignored admissions of criminal behavior that should have been reported for further investigation, including a case in which a job applicant “admitted to pedophiliac tendencies” during a polygraph exam. **** Polygraph exams are typically not admissible in court proceedings, but they are a standard hiring practice among federal law enforcement agencies and for national security clearances. The tests rely on background information provided by the applicant and interrogation by the examiner, who monitors the subject’s physiological responses and behavior.
Odd in that it runs counter to the image they like to project as a no-nonsense, hard nose, kick down doors, and take names agency. I had a DEA license to purchase certain drugs and their surprise random audit is nothing I would want to relive.
Not a fan of lie detector tests. They are about as accurate as flipping a coin. But the nepotism implied here is more problematic.
Years ago I volunteered as a subject during a lie detector demonstration. The guy was demonstrating how easy it was for an operator to get the results he wants. He started asking me calmly a bunch of questions then quickly asked me "Have you ever pissed in the shower". The needle went off the chart and everybody in the class laughed except for me.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if an operator can dictate an outcome if that's the goal - like cops can probably make the K-9 signal for supposed drugs if they want to. But does that mean the test is inherently bogus? The ones I've watched in criminal investigations usually start with various instructions, getting the baselines, and the person being questioned knows what's going to be asked to take out the element of surprise. I talked to one person that used them while in the military and working with the CIA. He seemed credible and told me he's very confident they work. He said they even practiced on each other. I think lie detector tests are used for various security clearance checks and updates, but they're not admissible in court I suppose because they're not considered sufficiently reliable. But I'm not sure what that's compared against either. They say, for example, that eye witness testimony and human memories are often very unreliable as well. I'm open minded about whether and to what extent we should be using these sorts of machines for anything. I also suspect they're going to get more and more advanced and accurate the more we learn about the brain. Various legal and ethical issues involved even assuming the technology and reliability improve.
