The only people I know of who swear to the accuracy of polygraphs are the ones who administer polygraph tests. Polygraph results are not adminisable in a court of law for nothing. Other than lie detectors being unreliable, I think it's a great idea.

A lie detector isn't the answer. The answer is not hiring someone named Edgard Luis Nava who conspires with the homeboys to steal from his employer. Who is doing the hiring, one of Nava's never-ending "familia" who just hasn't been caught yet?

One solution: Hire someone with a high school diploma (no GEDs) who has normal friends instead of "homeboys."

Maybe johnburnssucks can give us a list of acceptable family names. We'll just have to figure out a way to make it seem like it's not discrimination, right. Oh, we'll also need a list of what constitutes a "normal" friend. 

Just because someone earned their GED doesn't mean they aren't smart or honest. I have a friend that got his because he hated high school, but I guarantee you that he's a hell of a lot smarter than most people, and quite honest as well. There goes your theory. Oh, but his name is probably on your acceptable list.

it might help scare away someone who is not a good liar but they have been proven to not be the most accurate devices.

Pete, there are exceptions to every rule. Your friend sounds like one.

I guess we should take a survey of all of the people with GED's to see if they pass your litmus test. First, we'll eliminate the people who's names we've decided are not "acceptable names", then we can weed out some of the GED people, and then we can look at who their friends are. After that, it should be an easy pick.

It depends on the individuals with those names. Names are only one of the qualify/disqualify aspects of the selective process. Tattoos are another.

All new Law enforcement new hires should have to take this test, including the cops that are employed now. That would never happen,because Bakersfield would lose 75-80% of their officers.

Sorry Soltini - a polygraph is a required part of the background investigation of all new hires, they started that years ago.  I took one when I got hired 12 years ago.

bakersfield, where do you work? It's not for BPD.

And soltini, the reason polygraphs aren't given to current police officers is it's prohibited in the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. But you are to ignorant to know what that is.

Here it is:

3307-Polygraph examination; right to refuse; effect

(a) No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to a lie detector test against his or her will. No disciplinary action or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer refusing to submit to a lie detector test, nor shall any comment be entered anywhere in the investigator's notes or anywhere else that the public safety officer refused to take, or did not take, a lie detector test, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a subsequent hearing, trial, or proceeding, judicial or administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused to take, or was subjected to, a lie detector test.

Hmmm....In other words, if one refuses to take a lie detector test, he's got something to hide--the fact that the machine is unreliable and some polygraph "expert" can interpret the readings any way he wants has nothing to do with the refusal.

Not a blue belly, OB, you're right. I'm a County man.

It's good to see how many people are aware of the junk science behind polygraphs. These "lie detectors" have repeatedly been shown to be of limited use during specific investigations and useless for screening purposes.

Why on Earth do we have a public official even talking about wasting public money on using these things for screening applicants? I'll bet divining rods or crystals would be cheaper.

You're not off the hook, either, Jorge Barrientos. As a reporter, why don't you ask the official proposing this nonsense if he's aware of the useless nature of the "test" instead of posting it on a blog? Or would that require critical thinking by TBC (speaking of urban legends)?

Audrey - I originally got hired in another county and lateraled in.  Kern County had a hiring freeze back then and it was about the only way to get on.  I guess they don't do it every where. It was ridiculous even then. I know they do it for DO's - a friend of mine's daughter had to have one during the background check. Maybe it's random, I guess it never occured to me to ask.

bakersfield, I seriously doubt it's "random". That could leave the county open to a lawsuit. For someone who says they work for "the county" you sure seem to be uninformed about this. Perhaps you are a DO and not a deputy.

Thought I'd let more come out about this to expand on my point before responding.  Apparantly, KCSO has been using polygraph for about 2 years, I just didn't care enough to ask people about their own hiring experiences.  Tulare County was using it 12 years ago when I got on. It wouldn't have held much water if I had jumped back saying that I think that most of the DO's in this county are mean spirited bullies who are drunk on the power of their jobs.  I think DO's give the deputies a bad name because not only are we lumped in with them when anything goes wrong, but they insisted on being called "detention deputies" rather than "detention officers" just to further confuse things.  I have been told by county attorneys that DO's make up about 70% of all the county lawsuit payouts.  I think they are more trouble than they are worth.  Either send them all back to the academy and make them deputies, if they can cut it, or fire the lot.