posted 04-14-2009 11:02 PM            

Now the other shoe drops. One of the criminals is a registered sex offender since 2003.
He is a registered sex offender in the state of Florida. He is presently listed as residing at the Santa Rosa County Jail, soon to be transferred to a federal prison.

Name: Neville McGarity
DOB: 08/24/1967
POB: Bandera, TX???
Male
Cau.
Offense: Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child
Date of Offense: 03/27/2003
Jurisdiction: Medina, TX
Date of transfer from TX to FL unk.

My question is, was this registered SO in therapy, or a containment program? If so, has he been polygraphed in the last two years?

I hope no feathers have been ruffled, but comments from forum members (perhaps from Florida) are welcomed.

How can the present system be improved?

[This message has been edited by BrunswickT (edited 04-15-2009).]

posted 05-05-2009 06:06 PM            

I tested a guy who admitted that he was involved years ago in a Florida porn ring that triangled Canada and L.A. He was a camera man and a sometimes "fetcher" (a person who lures street kids into the "studio" with candy and toys.)He stated that the operations ceased in the early nineties. He admitted far worse to a previous examiner also. He died 2 yrs ago. A child killing roach, with 7 tons worth of sobs and apologies.

sigh,
I haven't ranted in while.

posted 05-06-2009 06:57 AM            

Stat I think the best course of action doesn't necessarily lie in better data collection tools or collecting different data but in improving our understanding and interpretation of the data we collect.
Just one man's opinion

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 05-06-2009 09:13 AM            

Just throwing everything away and starting over isn't the answer.

There is probably a lot about our present methods that we could improve on, and that will require that we at times challenge our past assumptions. This is not the same as abandoning everything for some new-fangled proprietary gizmo. The point of challenging our assumptions is to better understand our own work and better defend it against attack or criticism.

Some of our assumptions about QC need to be carefully examined.

Especially those pertaining to exposure and liability, and the effect these forces may have on pragmatic decisions.

PCSOT is a mostly a private practice arena. In an agency, it is the agency that holds the liability. The agency also holds the training requirements, certification, supervision, continuing education, and quality assurance. It is essentially there game and they call the shots. It reduces there exposure and liability to engage in QC, and they have both funding and an administrative mandate to engage in QC activities.

In private practice, liability rests with the practitioner. Responsiblity for CE belongs to the practitioner, profession, and trainer. Liablity for QC rests with the reviewer, who joins the examiner in attesting to the veracity of the examinee - or shifts all liability back to the examiner if the review does not support the exam.

The point of a QC review is to decrease exposure and liability.

Agency type QC programs do that for the agency.

Our challenge will be to create a model for QC that does what we want ===> reduces exposure and liability for both the examiner and and the profession.

Agency type QC approaches will not accomplish that.

The first task may be to find a conceptual model or example of how QC works in private practice professions.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)