Tests on the lie detector candidates for work in the police

This is one of the most common applications of the detector. All the arguments just given for using the detector in preliminary tests are applicable to this case as well. But I am discussing the issue of employment with the police separately, since there are some circumstances in this area, the very nature of which allows one more argument to be cited.
The title of the article by Richard Arter, a professional lie detector operator, conveys the essence of this new argument: “How many robbers, robbers and rapists has your ministry taken to work this year ??? (I hope not more than 10%!) ” ^[161] .
Arter's findings are based on a study of reports from 32 different law enforcement organizations. (Arter does not report what percentage makes this figure relative to those organizations from which he wanted to receive information.) He reports that in 1970, 6,524 preliminary detector tests were carried out at work for law enforcement organizations that responded to his research. “From 2119 candidates, information was discredited! This is a 32% disqualification! And the most important thing is that the overwhelming majority of these 6524 tests were conducted after the candidates had a preliminary interview. ” Arter reinforces his argument with countless examples of how important it is to use a lie detector to test for admission to the police. For example, Norman Lackey, the operator of the lie detector of the Cleveland Police Department in Ohio, reports: “The person in tenth place on the list of candidates was asked to take a lie detector test. And he admitted that he participated in an undisclosed armed robbery ” ^[162] .
Despite such impressive stories and astounding calculations, testifying to how many candidates for employment in the police turned out to be liars, one should not forget that there is still no scientific justification for the accuracy of the results of using the detector in preliminary tests work to the police. This may seem wrong, but only because precision is too often replaced by utility. Arter's data are only of practical importance. Let us now consider what he did not tell us.
How many of the candidates identified as lying did not admit their lies and did not admit any wrongdoings? What happened to them? This is also practical data, but most of the adherents of the lie detector bypass this issue.
How many of those who were lying, but denied this, actually spoke the truth and how many of them could be hired? In order to answer this question, that is, to determine how many errors of unbelief to truth have occurred, it is necessary to conduct special studies to evaluate the results.
How many of those who were identified as ineligible did not really lie? How many thieves, robbers, rapists, etc. have fooled the operators? To answer this question, that is, to determine how many errors of the faith of lies have occurred, special studies are also needed to evaluate the results.
And I am surprised that there is no reliable evidence on this score. Such studies, of course, are very complex and costly measures, but without them no practical conclusions can be quite satisfactory. The stakes are too high to neglect the errors of faith of lies, not to mention the mistakes of unbelief of truth.
However, it is possible to use the detector when applying for a job in the police without waiting for the results of new research, because it still allows you to identify a sufficient percentage of unwanted workers, even with a large number of errors. And if some people who are really capable of being good cops were not hired (that is, they were victims of the mistakes of disbelief of truth), then this is not a very high price.
This judgment applies only to the socio-political sphere. It is made with the full knowledge that there is still no scientific basis for the accuracy of the detector when it comes to employment with the police. But I hope that those who speak in favor of the use of the detector will still feel obliged to see the need for such studies to determine how often mistakes occur as a result of which employers refuse people worthy of being accepted.