Pants On Fire

I was intrigued to read today's Nation report that the Attorney General (AG) is concerned that new applicants to the Royal Barbados Police Force are balking at taking a lie detector test (see report). I'm not sure if the AG has really thought through his concerns and the reporter does not appear to have asked any questions about that concern. But, applicants could have a lot of reasons for objection, including hiding a prior criminal history. Not least, is the test for those interested in joining also being applied to those already in the force? Lying is not a crime, and it's clear that people lie for a range of reasons, feeling that this offers better protection than telling the truth. But, if such a step is being taken are we to see it as the norm for job applications into the public service? Should political candidates be subjected to the same? Don't laugh.

Given that lie detector evidence is not admissible as evidence in many courts of law, why would one want to base an employment policy on it? You'd deny someone, accused of nothing, a job based on it, but would not use it to help establish the innocence or guilt of an accused? It is not clear to me that being asked to take a lie detector test for a job application is a 'reasonable request'. Why not an HIV/AIDS test, given the contact with public and risks of being able to transmit a disease? Does the force also have a test for drug use? I would have thought that the country's top lawyer and the police commissioner would want to pursue the logic of this polygraph policy as far as employment criteria are concerned a bit further.