Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by rockyroad
A person convicted of vehicular mansluaghter will always be "that guy/gal who killed Phil" (or whoever), so they will be "labeled" for the rest of their life also... you do something wrong, that label will stick with you forever. But to try to compare a DUI (your first post) with raping a 15 year old boy is sick...I'm glad the guy has been "clean" for 17 years, but do I want him reffing my son's games - nope...
|
Not sure I agree with that. Maybe the guy will always be known as the guy that killed Phil, but that would be the case if everyone knows who fill is. If you move from one state to another that might not be known. For example the only question the IHSA asks about felony convictions have to do with sexual assaults (especially with minors) and drug possession/distributions convictions. They do not ask about murder, stealing or any other possible felony. So if someone had a DUI/hit and run homicide in their past from another state, I might not get checked for that kind of felony in trying to get an officiating license. Now there is a background check, but nothing in the by laws that disqualifies anyone from other types of criminal convictions for some reason. Oh well, that is the country we live in.
Peace
|
I'm unclear what exactly it is that you are arguing for. Are you arguing that background checks should screen officials for other kinds of violations besides just sexual offenses and drugs? Are you arguing that background checks are just plain futile? Are you arguing that we're deluded if we think we can do anything to protect our children? I, for one, am curious just what your position is.