Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Camron,...
|
There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:
- That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime
- I've provided an example that directly refutes those ideas...that the claim that officials don't get such access is false. They do...maybe not as much as teachers or coaches...but they do.
- That criminal convictions are private...for authorized personnel only
- They are public record as long as the person is not a minor
- Define unauthorized. Just who is not authorized to read the newspaper columns mentioning criminal convictions?
- To tell others about a person's criminal past that may be relevant is merely prudent. It not an invasion of privacy or an attempt to embarrass them. I can't impose my standards on anyone by telling others. It will be the others who make the choice to agree with the risk and take action or to ignore it. It is neither libelous nor slanderous to state provable fact.
- That officials will be harmed through leaked informatoin far more often that it will protect the kids
- No example of a "leak" of private information obtained from officials/coaches/teachers background checks has been cited
- No example of an official being harmed by an error or by an irrelevant conviction has been cited.
- The common system proposed doesn't communicate the details....only OK or not OK...not much to leak.
- That a background check wouldn't prevent the crime
- No claim has been made that it will prevent all crimes.
- Most people convicted or just about any crime have a hard time changing their behavior....why allow them (those who have a problem that could impact the kids) in a position that puts them closer to the kids than the general public.
Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.