Every large group of people, no matter how well vetted, will have people that will commit crimes. What's important is how the group, and its leadership, reacts to these crimes. It's like LEO misconduct and lawbreaking in general; what's really outrageous is not that it happens, but that the offenders are all too often protected by others in the group.

That being said...

It's amazing (scratch that; it's depressing) how ignorant people are. From the survey in the article, 62% of respondents think a "lie detector test" should be required to become a FAM. What a fantastic way to disqualify qualified candidates.

Unless a "lie detector" is used to investigate a specific incident (e.g. "Who poured the last cup of coffee?), it's not much better than chance. Even if it were 99% accurate, it would flag many innocent people as guilty (thus not employable) for every guilty person detected.

This is the conclusion of US government studies:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10420#toc
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/poly...ota/index.html

What's REALLY depressing is that many in government still respond to perceived threats with calls for more screening with "lie detectors".