By C1 Staff
Maryland recently gave the OK to use polygraphs on new hires, which is the result of a major contraband scandal at the Baltimore City Detention Center. The scandal resulted in the indictments of 44 people, including 27 correctional officers.
But is character measurable in such a fashion? We took to Facebook to ask our readers their opinion about polygraph tests. Here’s what they had to say.
Fritz Stephey: Polygraphs are ancient in my mind, and in many cases they aren’t admissible in court...so why are they still used as a requirement in hiring?
I mean seriously...if you’re nervous taking one (or have hypertension), boom, false reading. If you have done even minimal research you now know how to beat them.
Psych evals? All for ‘em. Polygraph? Eh, waste.
Brandan Taylor: No. They aren’t admitted in a court of law because of their inaccuracies. A fairly large percentage of people will appear to be deceitful even when telling the complete truth. They are obviously ineffective at removing unwanted applicants.
Ryan Burress: The problem is that a polygraph would be a great tool in a choosing potential candidates for a job if the department was willing to pay more. The department really doesn’t care enough to put that kind of time and money into hiring an employee. Warm bodies with no criminal record can get a job. That’s why the turnover in corrections is so high; good officers are constantly leave for better pay and better working conditions.
Thomas Carter: No. I took two of them for two different police departments; took them at the same place one week apart with the same test giver, and the same questions. I gave the same answers. I failed one. I passed one. I told the truth on both. A nonscientific test could have cost me my job in corrections. Now in my state they do, and we still get dirty officers. I wonder how many great candidates we have lost out on by a bad test.
Janet Saby Richards: No. A background check and in-person interview is enough. I am applying for a correctional job in Oregon and feel more like an inmate than an applicant due to their ridiculous process. I have worked corrections for years, in many locations and have never had to go through this. I have almost called it quits because of their requirements. I have nothing to hide but a polygraph is going too far.
Jose L Camacho: I believe false positives can cause potential candidates to lose a great opportunity. A good friend of mine was on her way to finish the process for customs border patrol officer. She scored high on the test, got through PT tests, scenarios, amongst everything else and passed with flying colors. The last thing she needed to get by was the lie detector test. This girl didn’t know what marijuana smelled like prior to getting involved with law enforcement. She was a fellow auxiliary police officer. Needless to say she failed four times. They believed she was telling the truth and rescheduled her one more time but she got discouraged and turned down the job.
I agree with increasing the pay and full coverage of benefits. The inmates get free medical so why can’t we? Instead of a polygraph, a thorough investigation, interview, and scenarios (role play) to see where your IPC skills levels are, and a prison visit prior to academy would help weed out some of those who do not really want the job.
Chris Welker: Whatever happened to a good background check and medical evaluation? Are hiring officials losing faith in investigating agencies? Perhaps that should be looked into instead of trying to bring a dead horse back to life.
Jan Reece: It’s hard enough to find and retain good correctional officers, so stop with this nonsense. Pay them what they’re worth. They risk their lives every single day and you should respect that instead of policing, or trying to criminalize them.
What do you think about polygraphs – helpful, or harmful? Add your own thoughts in the comments.