I read the article about Lihi Darnell (Gluzman), the state's witness in the Asaf Steierman murder case, who is now undergoing training in clinical psychology. Beyond the legal and public debate, this case raises in my eyes a far broader professional question:
How deeply do organizations vet the people in whose hands they place power, influence and trust?
In this case it's a therapeutic profession. In other settings it's a CFO, a security officer, a procurement manager, an IT person with broad permissions, or an employee exposed to sensitive information.
One of the central lessons from the world of insider threats is that not every risk is measured by a criminal record or a conviction. Sometimes it's precisely behavioral patterns, decision-making under pressure, moral judgment and reactions to extreme events that should set off warning lights.
Many organizations focus on the question "Does this employee have a criminal record?", but often the more important question is: "Is there material information about their past conduct that would make us think twice before granting them a sensitive role?"
In this specific case, it isn't a legal question but a question of risk management.
When a person is set to hold a position of trust, to influence other people or to gain access to sensitive resources, it's worth examining several layers: a history of decision-making in extreme situations; involvement in events of public or moral significance; gaps between their current image and material past events; an up-to-date rather than one-off risk assessment; and oversight and control mechanisms over time.
It's also important to remember that insider threats don't arise solely from malicious intent. Sometimes they stem from poor judgment, from withholding information, from a lack of accountability, or from value conflicts that weren't identified in time.
Ultimately, every organization has to decide where the line lies between personal rehabilitation and professional responsibility. It's a complex decision, but it must be made out of informed risk management and not out of the assumption that if there's no legal impediment, there's no risk either.