I have not been asked, and I will not do so.  I've asked my attorney several times if that's a condition of the deal, and have never gotten a straight answer.  I'll be absolutely sure of it before I go (if I go at all) and will just refuse to sign and walk out if necessary.

I've also suggested to my attorney at least to do an independent polygraph first.  He said they won't honor the deal if I do.  When asked why, he said because the police polygraph examiner believes I can prep for the test with it.  To me, that speaks to the reliability of these tests right there.

I have downloaded the e-book and printed it, by the way.  It's been INCREDIBLY informative thus far.

Have you signed (or been asked to sign) an agreement stipulating that the polygraph results will be admissible as evidence at trial?

I apologize for the misunderstanding.  My current case has nothing to do with the robbery of my house.  I was simply stating two scenarios in which I had some personal knowledge of polygraph testing. 

In my current situation, I have been charged with a crime already.  My lawyer said, "This is a perfect polygraph case."  He has arranged for me to take the polygraph with the arrangement that if I pass the polygraph the charges against me will be dropped.  However, given what I've read about polygraphs and my experience with the police on this case so far, they have very little reason, if any, to suddenly come to my defense via a polygraph test.

cga1974 wrote on Yesterday at 9:41pm:


First off, you don't "have" to take a polygraph. You cannot be compelled to submit to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation. And that's what polygraph "testing" actually is: an excuse to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer present. It is apparent that you are suspected of the crime of filing a false police report. You would be wise to refuse the polygraph, retain legal counsel, and not speak with the police in the absence of counsel.

Quote:


The fact that the girl has passed a polygraph will certainly prejudice the outcome of any polygraph "test" to which you might agree.

Quote:


This is not so surprising. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and is strongly biased against truth-tellers. A statistical analysis (PDF) of the best published field studies of polygraphy suggests that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data."

Quote:


To the best of my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research into the question you raise.

Quote:


Yes, it's precisely the same kind of thing. Polygraphy is all about interrogation. See law professor James Duane's lecture on why, even if you're telling the truth, you should avoid talking to the police:



See also police interrogator George Bruch's follow-up talk:



Quote:


See our e-book book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF). It will help you reach an informed decision regarding polygraphy and how best to proceed in your current situation.

I have to take a polygraph next week to clear myself of some charges. I have some concerns about false positives and would like to ask for opinions from both sides of the fence.

Once my house was broken into by the neighborhood kids. One of the neighborhood girls came to my house, confessed to driving the other kids to sell my things. I agreed that I would ask that charges not be pressed against her if she turned in the others. She refused.

I gave the police her information and they gave her a polygraph. Not only did she pass the polygraph regarding her involvement, but passed the question they asked her about having confessed to my wife and I.

Also, another friend of mine was subjected to a polygraph in which he and his ex-wife both failed opposite questions. He said he didn't hit her, and failed. She said he did hit her, and failed.

Needless to say, these experiences leave a bad taste in my mouth about these things, and leaves me skeptical.

I fear false positives mostly because of TV I guess. The perception is that a person will remain calm if they're telling the truth, and not if they aren't. Because of the nature of the questions I'll be asked, I will not remain calm. The subject itself causes me anxiety and physically want to be ill. Some skeptics claim the reaction to the question itself can cause a "deceptive" reaction. If that's true however, it seems that if the response is a reaction to the question, then the answer wouldn't matter. Have there been studies where one answers "yes" falsely to such a question, and truthfully answers "no" and both illicit a "deceptive" answer due to the nature of the question?

Also, I'd be much more agreeable to having an independent polygraph done. The police want to conduct their own, and it just seems to me that the police are the "other team" and would be bias both in the way the questions are asked and the interpretation. Never talk to the police without an attorney, right? Isn't this kinda the same thing?

Anyway, would love responses from both sides. I've read examiners on here post about how skeptics have an agenda, but I would think BOTH would have an agenda. I just want both opinions to weigh for myself.

Thanks

It means that you didn't pass. You've been branded as a liar. Worse still, the polygraph operator believed you employed countermeasures, and may have indicated such in his/her report. This could have a serious negative impact on your ability to find employment with other federal agencies.

What exactly does it mean in a DQ letter from DEA that you did not successfully complete the polygraph? I was nervous but have nothing to hide. Was even told by polygrapher that I had been coached. This was very untrue.

Go through your congressman, they can request your file on your behalf, and it gets done super quick that way.  Also I suggest you read the DoDPI (dept of defense polygraph institute) handbook.  It provides the guidelines for how all federal polygraph sessions are to be conducted.  You'll notice that most everything your polygrapher told you (including the drinking thing) is all BS.

I expect that there will be a push from polygraph proponents within the Department of Defense for expanded polygraph screening. Especially if PFC Bradley Manning, the intelligence analyst suspected of providing the documents to WikiLeaks, was not subject to periodic polygraph screening.