Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I doubt that anyone has been harmed by being asked to submit to a basic background check....not a full investigation into your full life including what books you checked out from the library 20 years ago.
Anyone that is denied officiating because of what is revealed on the backgorund check can only blame themselves. Bad choices have consequences. Just because they'd like them to be forgotten about doesn't mean they should. When certain lines are crossed, there are opportunities that should no longer exist for that person...ever.
|
Sorry, Camron, I wasn't clear. First, let me address this point, then I'll clarify what I actually meant. A basic background check will likely pull up any arrests during adulthood, and will definitely pull any convictions that haven't been stricken from the record.
Do you really think a marijuana possession charge (personal quantities) from 15 years ago is relevant? What about an assault charge from a bar fight 12 years ago? Or maybe the guy who was convicted of blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic or a Marine Recruiting Office when he was in college. There's a lot of information about someone that can be gleened from a background check that should remain private.
There's nothing that can be accomplished with this that couldn't be done with a sex registry check.
Now, back to what I meant that post. I didn't really mean anything with regard to harm to the officials submitting background checks. I am more concerned with Mrs. Basketball Mom thinking all is well because everyone who works in that school has had their background checked. There's a false sense of security stemming from an action that has no benefit.
"It's a warm fuzzy" means simply that it makes people feel better without any real benefit.
"Does more harm" refers to the false sense of security. They're just rearranging the deck chairs, IMO.