Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Wow, I thought I was hard core. I disagree that there doesn't have to be an explanation. I agree that there are some crimes that carry permanent penalties, but in those cases there are compelling reasons for those. They can be explained. If someone who gets charged and convicted of murder for what happened in a bar fight when he was 19 loses his right to drink alcohol for the rest of his life, that can be fairly argued. Tim Donaghy has likely lost his right to ever officiate again, and it makes sense. Pete Rose, same thing with baseball.
If we're going to exclude a long-ago murderer from officiating, I think they deserve the right to an explanation. The connection is lost on me. I'm not above reason on this, though.
|
He/she IS a murderer...not was....will always be. That IS the explanation. They've proven they can't be trusted in society. Such a person just simply shouldn't work around kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Back to M&M's question though. Is this really a problem?
|
Is there really a problem with doing them? I've yet to see anything more than paranoia about someone knowing about a past conviction.
Note that as mentioned above, these checks are not required ONLY for officials in the places that do them. The requirements that officials get them come from much broader requirements for background checks on all contractors/employees working in the school. To exclude officials or any other group would just create a mess.
Maybe officials aren't the largest problem. Perhaps it is the plumbers or the fundraising repsj or the booster club parents. But they're treating everyone the same.