Issue of polygraph tests

In a government-commissioned survey done by Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) earlier this year, 55 percent of persons polled said they did not trust police officers to tell the truth. That percentage can only rise now that the Police Second Division Association (PSDA), as reported in the Sunday Newsday, has instructed its members not to take polygraph tests. The natural reaction of the public will be to ask, “What do these officers have to hide?” Admittedly, this may not be a fair reaction. The Secretary of the PSDA, Sergeant Noel Chase, has asserted that the polygraph testing is not being used for what it was designed for. He did not elaborate but, if this is so, then the matter needs looking into. The purpose of such tests can only be to determine if officers have been involved in illegal activities or are likely to abuse their positions as police officers. If, however, the questions are being used to, say, find out an officer’s sexual proclivities, that is quite unacceptable (although a lawyer might argue that this country has an Equal Opportunities Act which specifically excludes homosexuals from its legal protection).

At the same time, our view is that polygraph tests, properly administered, would be a good measure to introduce into the Service. The same MORI poll found that the Police Service ranked fourth from bottom of institutions that the public has confidence in, with only trade unions, Parliament, and political parties running lower. This lack of confidence has surely been a significant factor in the runaway crime rate, since 69 percent of citizens now don’t even bother to report anti-social behaviour, such as public drunkenness or creating a disturbance, while 47 percent don’t report minor crimes. This has almost certainly contributed to the criminals’ increasing boldness, as has the low detection rate even on those crimes which are reported.

If, however, the various police divisions accede to mandatory testing of officers, this could help rebuild confidence in the Service. It would send a signal, first of all, that the leading officers are serious about getting corrupt individuals out of their organisation. Second, and even more importantly, it could actually help ensure that corrupt officers are shifted to positions where they cannot do much harm (since legislation allowing them to be fired for failing a polygraph does not exist and, in any case, is a far more complex issue). The polygraph requirement could also help discourage new officers from starting down the path of corruption and abuse of power.

Perhaps the PSDA does not fully appreciate how far the stocks of the Service have fallen. But it would be quite impolitic to try and hide behind the letter of the law on this matter. The Association needs to make it clear whether it agrees in principle with the use of a polygraph. If it does not, it must give cogent reasons for its disagreement. If it does agree, however, then the various parties can have discussions and negotiations to come up with a formula that will serve the best interests of the Police Service and the nation.