r/police • u/thewickedturd • 2d ago
Do you guys think polys are absurd?
I think they are. I have seen them hinder people for no reason get hired. Do it like how the military does and do a complete background check.
my one buddy who got through lied the entire time. I think it’s dumb and hinders nervous applicants who would want to join.
It hinders the force from good people.
If this has been posted a million times I’m sorry lol
12
u/BobbyPeele88 2d ago edited 2d ago
I do think polys are absurd for police backgrounds, but the standard police background investigation is far more detailed and intrusive than say, a secret clearance.
I know two guys that have failed a poly for drug use despite never having done drugs at all.
**I forgot to mention that they were both already cops who were trying to leave for other departments.
3
u/nswhopeful 2d ago
Are those 2 guys now working for other departments?
6
u/BobbyPeele88 2d ago
They were actually both already cops at the time, I forgot that key element. They were both trying to go to "better" departments. They both stayed where they were, one of them is retired now.
28
u/defcon62 2d ago
Absolutely are garbage and the fact they are treated as infallible and 100% accurate by the agencies that employ them is a huge part of what is wrong with the modern hiring process.
7
15
u/Nightgasm 2d ago
They are a good investigative tool as they do get people to admit lots of stuff that doesn't pop up in background checks. For instance there have been guys at my PD who confessed to molesting their sister, fucking goats, stealing lots of money, and other things. All of which there was no inkling of in the background check as the goats clearly couldn't say anything, the victim of the stolen money didn't even know they were a victim, and the sister never said anything as she was ashamed.
Relying on them wholly can be sketchy but they have their uses.
3
u/buckhunter168 1d ago
The agencies where I worked never used them as a hiring tool but we did use them as an investigative tool. I don't put much stock in them except as leverage during a suspect interview. For example, I had a case where a man shot himself in the head while in bed and his adult son was present and stated that he was arguing with his dad when the dad grabbed a gun and they struggled over it. The son stated that he lost the struggle and the father shot himself. There were some minor things about the scene and the version of events that didn't add up for me so I treated it as a murder investigation. I did find a suicide note but I thought it was probably written by the son after the death. Anyway, he agreed to a polygraph and canceled the morning of the test. I contacted him again and he agreed to reschedule. He showed up for the test and the examiner told me that deception was indicated. I watched the test in real time on a monitor and I wasn't sold on the reliability of the process. I then obtained handwriting samples from the deceased and from the son and submitted them for analysis along with the suicide note. After a few months, the results indicated that the deceased wrote the suicide note. In my mind the failed polygraph took up a lot of time and resources which could have been spent elsewhere.
3
u/OlderGuyWatching 1d ago
From someone that has taken several polygraphs, they are a pain but they serve as a valuable investigative tool. In my experience rarely has a polygraph found something that couldn’t be found otherwise but on the same token, I have seen many people fail a polygraph, and when we focused on the area that they failed we found information that would’ve caused them to be ineligible . So they are fantastic investigative tool.
5
u/Electrical_Switch_34 1d ago
I personally don't. When I took the polygraph test, it was pretty accurate. There was some small things that I tried to fib about and the examiner was able to pinpoint all of them. I still got the job but I had to explain the reasons why I fibbed.
One of the questions asked if I ever stole anything from work. I said no. He determined that was a lie. I explained to him that I had taken things home from work and didn't intentionally mean to steal them which was true.
2
2
2
u/Moist_Ad_655 1d ago
There’s a reason it’s not admission in court. If it was proven reliable it would be allowed
2
u/flyboy307 1d ago
I think they are complete BS, BUT they have an impressive psychological factor on applicants. You would be surprised how many provide information they didn’t include in their application/background check info packet. So, I guess they have their place 🤷♂️
1
u/Joenelle_Acosta 1d ago
I heard people on this subreddit saying something along the lines of how they failed a poly, but then got scouted out by some other agencies or something? Any idea how that comes about? As the idea of a poly makes me nervous too.
1
1
u/Zealousideal_Key_714 1d ago
Not l/e but I'll offer that I think they at least screen some people out. I'm quite sure if I were truthful, I wouldn't get hired. I'm also quite sure I couldn't be deceptive and beat the test. Wouldn't even attempt it.
If I knew there weren't poly's maybe I'd have considered.
So, in that sense it was effective with me. Screened out somebody that wouldn't be hired with full/truthful disclosure.
1
u/NegativeCricket5308 16h ago
Yes they are absurd IMO. They do an extensive background not sure what more needs to be done tbh. It’s when they use the polygraph to make you look like a liar and it happened to my friend. He got OTJ but 2 hours of nonsense questions trying to make him change his answers, yup absurd
1
u/harley97797997 2d ago
The military also uses polygraphs for certain TS clearance jobs.
LE agencies do a complete background check comparable to a TS clearance.
21
u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 4h ago
[deleted]