Polygraphs for all

Don’t remove lie tests for all state police recruits

The Pennsylvania State Police have discontinued the use of lie-detector tests for trooper recruits, saying it bogs down the screening process and results in losing qualified applicants to other law-enforcement agencies. This represents a dumbing down of the vetting process at a time law-enforcement agencies nationwide are under a microscope because of concerns about overzealous policing. If state police Commissioner Tyree C. Blocker won’t reverse his decision to eliminate polygraphs from the screening process, Gov. Tom Wolf should step in and order the tests reinstated.

While they are not admissible in court, lie-detector tests serve a useful purpose in helping investigators weed out suspects in criminal cases. They serve a similar purpose in the recruitment of police officers; the probing questions enable examiners to identify trooper candidates who don’t have what it takes or have something troubling in their pasts. Joe Kovel, president of the union representing troopers, said polygraphs on occasion have disclosed information that triggered criminal investigations and charges against applicants.

The state police wouldn’t say how many applicants fail polygraphs or whether the tests had indeed turned up criminal activity by job seekers. Perhaps that’s because the answers to those questions would underscore the folly of diluting the screening process. At any rate, it’s disingenuous for Commissioner Blocker, whose agency uses polygraphs in criminal investigations, to say they’re not all that important for trooper screening.

This is the same commissioner who, less than a year ago, acknowledged concerns about cheating at his training academy. In a number of stories last year, Pennlive.com reported that more than two dozen cadets had been dismissed for misconduct and that the use of old tests and other questionable practices at the academy fostered a climate where cheating was possible.

Does this sound like an agency that needs reduced screening of recruits?

State police spokesman Ryan Tarkowski cited a need to streamline the recruitment process because of a wave of trooper retirements and noted that the agency still has various tools, including in-depth background checks, to flag undesirable applicants. But the cheating scandal shows they’re not doing enough as it is. It makes no sense to give up any screening tool, let alone one that so many agencies — including federal agencies, the Allegheny County sheriff and the county and city police police departments — still find valuable.

It especially makes no sense to give up that screening tool when police-community relations are at a low ebb in so many places. As Mr. Kovel noted, “Right now, people in society want to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the men and women we hire are of the utmost integrity.”

Sad to say, police departments in some parts of the country have begun to lower their standards in various ways because of problems attracting recruits. The job is a tough one, and the profession has an image problem now. Some police officials believe that more liberal recruitment standards will yield a better mix of officers and improved policecommunity ties. But lower standards only lead to corruption and discipline problems.

The Pennsylvania State Police, the largest and most respected law enforcement agency in the state, shouldn’t have to cut corners to field a robust complement of troopers. If the agency is losing recruits to other departments, it should step up its marketing, not scale back its vetting process.