Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post.
)
But, just in case you are still reading, my opposition never mentioned #1 or #4, and you've mis-represented my oppostion in points #2 and #3. But, I'll give it a shot:
#1 - Since "access to kids" is the standard, do you agree there should be required background checks on all realtives of all kids? (Silly, of course.) But I was not one who advocated not having background checks solely because of access issues. I don't believe I brought it up at all.
#2 - Snaqs makes my point on private vs. public information. If it is all totally public information, why can I not get a background check on you without your permission? I also don't have a problem with allowing what is "relative" information. My objection, which you continue to pass over or ignore, is the issue of who decides what is "relative"? My definition of "relative information" is past convictions based on what the appropriate governing body decides. If they decide all traffic tickets count, then so be it. You have said you would tell others information that the governing body doesn't deem relevent, but that in your opinion should be relevent. That is effectively passing out non-relative information for the purpose of attempting to keep someone from doing something they would be able to do under the current rules as set up. That is one of my 2 main objections. That didn't appear on your list.
#3 - See #2. You've already given me the example of what happens when someone has non-relevent information -
you would be happy to leak information that the governing body does not deem relevent to officiating. Are you saying you are the only person that feels that way?
#4 - Background checks will
never prevent first-time offenders, or offenders that have avoided prosecution. Was the specific official that you know convicted of any previous crimes that a background check would have detected? Since it is public information, can you find out for us and let us know? Not details, obviously, but I would be willing to reconsider if a background check would've prevented that particular crime.
In the meantime, you still have not shown there is a problem that needs correcting - do sports officials have an equal or greater-than-average percentage of these types of convictions than the general public? (If this is all public information, then someone should have these statistics available.) If so, then fine, background checks should be required for those types of convictions, and those who show those convictions should not be allowed to officiate. I believe I've said that from the beginning. But if there is not a problem to address, than the issue, as mentioned by others, is simply an expense that provides no real benefit.
If we cannot see eye-to-eye on this one, I guess I'm done. I've got burgers to defrost for this weekend.