|
Author
|
Topic: PCSOT Warning Signs??
|
BrunswickT
Member
|
posted 07-13-2008 07:12 PM
  
Some may have read about the tragedy that happened in Panama City Florida last Thursday 10 July 08.A 13yr old girl was found murdered in a hotel room rented to a registered sex offender from Georgia. The SO confessed to the crime, yet this raises some questions about a state's risk assessment method, and whether or not PCSOT played a part in missing some signal the SO was sending either during therapy or PCSOT. In checking the SO registry of GA. it reflected that the SO was incarcerated as of
07/10/2008. GA. DOC had the SO's last day of incarceration at 09/07/2007. So I'm not sure if the state SO registry was immediately updated upon his arrest or what? GA. DOC has his Child Molesting offense in 02/21/2001 and a failure to register in 01/14/2003. He is listed in McDonough GA. in Henry county. I know we have some of the nation's preminent examiners working out of GA. I am hoping to gain some insight to what may have indicated this SO might cross that ultimate boundary.
I apologize for not having all the facts of this case, but I know if this guy was one of my examinees it might keep me up at night.
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 07-14-2008 11:21 AM
BrunswickT,One of my examinee's, who I interviewed 2 months ago, confessed to every possible parole violation (short of reoffending) during the pre-test to such a significant point, the P/O decided not to test and just arrest him. After 2 weeks, the judge let him out on O/R bond (otherwise, he never could afford to get out). He was arrested last week in AZ after brutally raping a young teenager. Point: It is not always the parole/prob process or PCSOT, but the judicial system. No-one has connected the dots YET! I can't wait for the fall out on this one... Jim IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 07-14-2008 12:41 PM
You can't catch them all, and if you think you can, you're setting yourself up for mental torment when these things happen. Essentially, the system has created a model to try to catch offenders; however, there's no such thing as a perfect model. There will always be some portion of error, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's good to try to learn if you could improve and reduce error, but don't think you're superman. Look at this story I read in today's paper:Associated Press / July 14, 2008
MONTPELIER - When Michael Jacques came up for early release from probation, a prosecutor didn't think it was a good idea, telling a judge that as a twice-convicted sex offender, Jacques shouldn't go without supervision.
In the 2004 court proceeding, Deputy Orange County State's Attorney Robert DiBartolo told Judge Amy Davenport that Jacques's actions in a 1992 kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault were too brutal to allow him unbridled freedom.
"The only reasons I can glean from Mr. Jacques wanting to be off probation is because it's embarrassing and it's inconvenient to be on probation and he wants closure," DiBartolo said, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained Friday by the Associated Press.
"Those are all understandable, but the fact of the matter is he's a twice-convicted sex offender and I think society has the right to have him on probation and to have somebody checking up on him at least once in a while, even if it's just a monthly meeting with a probation officer to find out where he is, what he's doing, to make sure that his life is still stable and is going - going the way it should go," according to DiBartolo, who alluded to a lewd-and-lascivious conduct charge against Jacques from 1987.
The hearing, which ultimately led to Jacques's release from probation in 2006, has received new attention since his arrest last week in the case of Brooke Bennett, 12, of Braintree.
Brooke disappeared June 25 and was found dead a week later. She had been killed. Authorities haven't said how. Jacques, 42, of Randolph, is charged with kidnapping the girl, who was his niece.
In the Oct. 18, 2004, hearing in Orange District Court, which was on a motion by Jacques's lawyer to release him from probation, Department of Corrections representative Richard Kearney - who had supervised Jacques - vouched for him, calling him a rehabilitation success.
Jacques, who had served more than four years for the 1992 conviction, completed sex offender treatment and the other requirements imposed on him as part of probation, Kearney told the judge.
"When I make comments about successes in sex offender treatment, I have three names, of which Michael Jacques is one," Kearney said, according to the transcript.
"At this point in time, Mr. Jacques has met all the requirements that the court has imposed upon him. He's done that - just hasn't met them, he's far exceeded them. If what we're looking to do is make significant life changes so that this doesn't happen again, Mr. Jacques has made those significant life changes," Kearney said.
But it did happen again, according to authorities.
On June 29, before he was charged in Brooke's disappearance, Jacques was charged with aggravated sexual assault in an unrelated case that police learned about while investigating Brooke's case. Investigators said he molested a girl over a five-year period, beginning when she was 9.
If true, that would mean he was molesting the girl during the period of the probation hearing.
The aggravated sexual assault charge filed by state prosecutors has since been dropped, with federal authorities taking over Jacques's prosecution on the kidnapping count.
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 07-14-2008 04:08 PM
This is disgusting.Kearney sounds like a f-ing cheerleader, not a PO. A responsible PO would make the court aware of any remaining non-compliance, and ongoing risk issues. If none, they say NOTHING. They leave the chearleading to the chearleaders, and the defense lawyering to the defense lawyers. When Kearney says that Jacques "far exceeded" all the requirements imposed on him, he's basically saying that he got duped by a psychopath (which is, of course, the psychopath's job). What part of "NO CURE" don't people understand? The only reason professionals use words like "rehabilitation success" is that they somehow believe they have the power or ability to turn bad people, who hurt others, into non-bad people who are now somehow incapable of hurting others. That belief has mostly to do with professional ego-gratification needs, and professional self-worth needs - that we can do something - or managing professional shame - that we cannot do something - through the mechanism of denial, because we have to live with the fact that we are letting offenders go. That denial, and our own needs, means we are vulnerable to being played and manipulated by the con-artists and psychopaths - they want out, and they'll get out, if they give us what we want - which is the peace of mind that comes from increased deniability (= success in treatment and supervision) around the offenders ongoing risk. We have a system of professionals, propelled by ATSA, that is interested in holding our ability to deny sex offender risk as a goal or objective of sex offender treatment and supervision. At ATSA 2007 conference Bill Marshall addressed the conference and said essentially "rehabilitation is primary, and community safety can wrap itself around that." Try to imagine living with five years of abuse - that's 1800 some-odd days of wondering when your most feared, loathsome, or despicable acquaintance will paw at your private parts, and 1800 some-odd nights of going to sleep wondering whether it will happen again tomorrow. Offenders will not self-report when they begin to re-experience deviant thoughts and urges - and we are fools to think they will never again experience deviant thoughts and urges. It is a basic principle of relapse prevention to teach people that they should be prepared not to be surprised on the day they begin to have deviant thoughts. Instead, remembering the rigorous treatment they receive during their previous trip through the system, they'll go to greater lengths to avoid getting caught when they begin to offend again - and that will mean more dead victims. As adults, we have a lot of choice about remaining in abusive relationships, Brooke Bennett was 12. Children don't have as much choice in who they are exposed to. It is up to families to protect them. Unfortunately families, want so badly to be "normal" that they will be motivated to pretend things are normal when they are not. Children simply cannot tell what is normal because they lack experience and perspective - they often consider to be normal whatever they live with That's partly why abuse is so bad for them - it damages there ability to discern normal from non-normal. Another problem with abuse, is that even if children become aware that being abused is not a normal way to live, they tend to take things personally, because they don't know that they are not the center of the universe, and they begin to conclude that its happening to them because something is wrong with them. That becomes what we call a self-esteem problem, and is correlated with all manner of dysfunctional problems later in life. Brooke Bennett won't have to worry about later in life problems, because she's dead now. Barry, this case isn't an example of the inability to catch them all. Its an example of our lack of commitment to keeping the one's we have caught - and our desire to let them go.
.02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 07-14-2008 04:23 PM
No, Ray. You missed my point. THAT is the type of stuff you beat yourself up over - not that you did all you could correctly and still missed one.IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 07-14-2008 05:40 PM
#1 I don't know of a single sex offender who abuses children who does not at least consider that murdering his victim might keep his crime from being discovered.
Dead victims can't testify. #2 We as examiners should never forget that S.O.s bear sole responsiblity for their behavior. #3 Even the most cleverly designed polygraph is incapable of predicting a specific future crime. So far they only seem capable of assessing truthfulness regarding the past. Mourn for the victim? Sure Cry foul at a society that determines these people belong in a free society? Sure.
Rededicate ourselves and our profession on a regular basis to do the best job we can with the tools we are given? Absolutely. But blame ourselves for failure to prevent a criminal act committed by an evil person while they are not under our control? Never Don't be silly. ------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 07-14-2008 05:43 PM
Dead kid. 2 of the most dreaded words to be paired in our language. What pcsot'er hasn't gotten chills at the thought of one of their examinees doing such atrocities while on papers---all the while they are passing recovering-addict-focused Maintenance poly's on drugs, alcohol, porn while bleeding out so many "incidental contacts with kids" they (contact questions) are simply removed from the test---all the while they are being the most "bothered" by the controls like "SYLP, have you lied to your group or therapist about anything that if known, could cause problems in treatment?" Granted, the stars have to allign just right (or wrong) for such slippage. I imagine the most deadly parolee is one with a host of targeted behaviors---soo many that some either new ones, or unexpected ones slip past the "target" list and end up as fodder for controls.I'm just paranoid enough to imagine the loopholes---as are many of you too. Such outside issues drives the camp of "Zone guys" who insist upon symptomatics (black zone questions.) Ebvan's right. No panaceas exist for the very useful but jolopilous (my term) entity called the multi-issue test.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 07-14-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 07-14-2008).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 07-15-2008 04:52 PM
Barry,I don't imagine this was a polygraph failure. Its a systemic failure. The guy was a repeat offender. He sticks out enough there is no excuse for letting him go. Yet, we have some nit-wit cheerleader of a PO who fell in love with the perp. In the words of Greig "Darth" Veeder, "Catch-and-release is for TROUT, not sex offenders." r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 07-15-2008 06:05 PM
I doubt it was a polygraph failure either, but it was a failure of those involved to do their jobs correctly. One man should be able to sleep at night; the others, they need to be questioning themselves and ask how to improve.My point was that this prosecutor tried, and the system, "model," or whatever failed because some involved didn't do things right. He did, and he fought hard to protect the public. He could keep himself up at night asking if he could have made a better argument and won the judge to see things his way, but that didn't happen, and it's not his fault. My caution is simply not to beat yourself up if you do all you can and do it correctly. IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 07-16-2008 09:58 AM
You know for all these reasons and more I have seriously thought about getting out of PCSOT arena w/adults. There is also the other aspect when the offender fails and then throws out the bone and the PO/TX do not make the offender retake the poly to assure that was the only issue that caused him to fail. Then if he has reoffended or reoffends they paint us like the jackass. We cannot make the offender retake the polygraph.BTW, a couple of months ago a therapist hired me to do their testing and I found they were just like this PO - I quit doing business with them.
IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
