continual polygraphs?

['Guest']

Great site, I check it often, but my comment is that I was at a recruiting info session where an officer said all applicants must take a polygraph.  He suggested that the only people who don't like polygraphs are lawyers, however, if that is the case, and LE agencies are confident in using them for hiring purposes then why not have regular members submit to polys every couple of years.  From what I understand, the CIA does this.  I do not think this idea would fly, because I'm sure most of you who know police officers, understand that breaking the law is really not that uncommon.  I'm not suggesting wide spread corruption or drug dealing, but, I'm sure many officers out there are aware in inappropriate conduct commited by fellow officers.  I would like to see this recruiting officer "put his money where his mouth is."  What do you guys out there think?

[George Maschke]

ross,

Perhaps the officer who suggested that the only people who don't like polygraphs are lawyers ought to be given a drug test? Just about everyone dislikes being polygraphed. It's no fun having your honesty and integrity questioned under any circumstances, much less so when pseudoscientific procedures like polygraphy (or CVSA) are used as the basis for forming judgments.

Increasingly, the debate over polygraphy is not one between "bleeding heart liberals" and "law-and-order conservatives," but one between the growing numbers of people who know that polygraph testing is a fraud and those who don't (yet).