Dear Editor,
Many courts in countries across the world do not allow polygraph tests as evidence. The reason is the results of all polygraph tests are subject to interpretation, by the person administering the tests. Herein lies the problem, how one test administrator may interpret a particular test another may not interpret the test the same way. The tests are based upon the questions asked and the reactions to questions asked. There are good scientific bases for the tests, but even scientists say, people can practice to fool the tests. The results of polygraph tests are not regarded as objective in courts in many countries. I am not a lawyer or detective, but I know this from the private work I did for many years. Many investigative agencies do use polygraph tests, but only as investigative tools. I do not know of any who use the polygraph as the sole basis upon which to make a final decision. Granted they can be powerful and many times almost indispensable investigative tools, but they are mainly used as investigative tools. One should not rely only on the advice of a polygraph examiner to make a decision to hire or fire anyone. There should be good solid investigation backing any such decision.
I have never been a private detective, and I have never functioned as such, nor have I ever been a polygraph expert, but I have been the CEO for many years of a security firm which has employed hundreds of persons for many years protecting billions of dollars in corporate, municipal, state and federal assets, here in the United States of America. I have worked with all kinds of police personnel. In fact, one of my top lieutenants was once the police chief of the city of Manila – a city with a huge population. When huge assets had to be secured, I had to get qualified people to do the job. He never used a polygraph test as a qualifier or a disqualifier of any staff. I had to know about polygraphs and how they can be used and not used and for what. I also had the legal mandate to investigate certain matters whenever they may affect me or my clients or my firm or staff in the protection of our clients. Oftentimes the total value of assets under protection was in the billions of dollars. I had to be very careful to avoid insurance claims. A staff member would have brought huge claims against my firm, in any case of the indiscriminate use of a polygraph test.
I never tried to polygraph anyone. I used simple background investigations. Who their friends were, who and where they frequented. What their habits were, etc. For example, if a man makes $400 per week, but it is clear that he spends $4,000 per week, I would be suspicious as to how he could do that. I used only solid investigative techniques, which would stand in most courts of law.
I am Guyanese, but after being away from home for so long, it is difficult for me to understand how things are now done in Guyana. I would expect that when it comes to firing a law enforcement agent, the authority should have more to go on than just the result of one polygraph test.
Yours faithfully,
Lennox Wellington
