Welcome

Dennis Jones is a Jamaican-born international economist, who has lived most of the time in the UK and USA, and latterly in Guinea, west Africa. He moved back to the Caribbean in 2007. This blog contains his observations on life on this small eastern Caribbean island, as well as views on life and issues on a broader landscape, especially the Caribbean and Africa.

*NEW!!! LISTEN TO BLOG POSTS FEATURE ADDED!!!*

*PLEASE READ COMMENTS POLICY--NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS, PLEASE*

*REFERENCES TO NEWSPAPER OR MEDIA REPORTS ARE USUALLY FOLLOWED BY LINKS TO ACTUAL REPORTS*

*IMAGES MAY BE ENLARGED BY CLICKING ON THEM*

*SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG BY E-MAIL (SEE BOX IN SIDE BAR)*


______________________________________

**You may contact me by e-mail at livinginbarbados[at]gmail[dot]com**

Saturday, June 05, 2010

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.

4 comments:

Carson C. Cadogan said...

You posed some very good questions.

I am wondering why the reporter at the Nation did not ask the AG or the Commissioner of Police the very same questions?

acox said...

Based on the nature of the questions shouldn't be a bad idea?
Nothing wrong with asking if a person has sells drugs. One would be quick to answer the negative in writing but when confronted with a lie detector a person would prefer not to apply for the position at all. That would help to weed out the bad apples.

Dennis Jones said...

@acox,

I would not dispute the appropriateness of the questions, but it's how one establishes if the answers are true or false that is at issue. Polygraphs are not highly regarded amongst scientists, and apparently can be fooled, and give false 'lies'; amongst the reasons they are not admissable in evidence in many places.

As I indicate, there needs to be some symmetry. If you want to use it for recruiting then use it for the whole staff and then also in investigations. If lie detectors are to be believed using them partially makes no sense.

acox said...

"Polygraphs are not highly regarded
amongst scientist" However the do give a quick insight as to what a person is thinking without giving
them time to perfect their answers.