Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.
Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.
|
Maybe, but what happens when some enterprising reporter decides an official's fraud conviction is worthy of plastering all over the region? Oh, wait, background checks aren't required for that information to happen, but they sure as hell would make it easier.
Look, personally, if I thought it would prevent abuse, I'd be for it. I just don't see it. And no, "even one" might not be enough.
Again, let me ask this question. What exactly would be found in criminal background check that can't be found in a sex offender registry that is relevant to officiating?