HS Ref/Convicted Sex Offender

[lucky1313]

So a convicted drunk driver that hits and kiils someone will lose there driving rights for a while, but not the rest of there lives. But a convicted sex offender will be labeled for the rest of his life???

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by lucky1313
So a convicted drunk driver that hits and kiils someone will lose there driving rights for a while, but not the rest of there lives. But a convicted sex offender will be labeled for the rest of his life???

BINGO!!!!

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by lucky1313
So a convicted drunk driver that hits and kiils someone will lose there driving rights for a while, but not the rest of there lives. But a convicted sex offender will be labeled for the rest of his life???

A person convicted of vehicular mansluaghter will always be "that guy/gal who killed Phil" (or whoever), so they will be "labeled" for the rest of their life also... you do something wrong, that label will stick with you forever. But to try to compare a DUI (your first post) with raping a 15 year old boy is sick...I'm glad the guy has been "clean" for 17 years, but do I want him reffing my son's games - nope...

Btw: good old Washington State has had criminal background checks for about 10 years...and when they were first introduced, our local association lost 3 members (out of about 60)- all because they had sex abuse records involving minors...

[Ref-X]

Originally posted by Forksref

I, too, have a problem believing that sex offenders ever get "cured." Background checks are coming to officiating I am sure.

Once you commit certain crimes, you should expect that doors will be closed to certain things.

I have to agree with you Chuck. A sex crime against minors is nothing like a DUI or speeding tickets. They are not in the same league. The big difference between “Sex crimes against minors” and most other crimes is the victim’s never recover. So how long should this guy pay for destroying some poor kids life “4-EVER”.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by lucky1313
So a convicted drunk driver that hits and kiils someone will lose there driving rights for a while, but not the rest of there lives. But a convicted sex offender will be labeled for the rest of his life???

If you think that drunk driving laws should be more strictly enforced, by all means work on that issue. However, just because you think that drunk driving is underpenalized, that is a really poor argument for saying that convicted child offenders should be allowed to officate.

It is not worth the risk. In Washington State, we have background checks and convicted child offenders can not officiate. I support that completely.

Z

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by lucky1313
We let officials with speeding tickets and DUI's officiate. It has been 17 years, how long does he have to "pay for his crimes?"

Ah yes, the classic appeal to emotion, recasting the reprehensible offender as the vulnerable, innocent victim.

Apparently you missed a vital class period of 10th grade civics. So let me see if I can spell this out very clearly for you.

We, as a compassionate, caring and enlightened society have come to realize that certain kinds of offenders have a demonstrated history of repeating their crimes. And that those crimes are often perpetrated on the most vulernable members of our society. Government, being in the business of securing freedom and liberty to all its citizens -- not just those who so wilfully violate our laws -- has a basic responsibility to instate reasonable measures to protect its citizens. Sometimes that means from each other. Sometimes that means forever.

Yes, the person in question has served his prison sentence. But it would be grossly irresponsible for us as a society to simply turn a blind eye to the potential danger violators like this man still pose. And since we can't know who will commit further crimes, we must err on the side of caution.

It is therefore not an unreasonable precaution or gross violation of this "citizen's" rights to impose restrictions on his ability to freely associate with potential future victims. It is, in fact, right and responsible to do so. You don't put a drink in front of a recovering alcholic, you don't put a vial of crack in easy reach of a junkie in rehab, so why the hell would you expect to give a convicted sex offender ready access to children? Ever?

Some behaviors really do merit losing some of the rights and privleges of full participation in a cooperative and civilized society. That's a fact of life.

Like I teach my children, you are free to choose your actions. You are not free, however, to choose the consequences of those actions.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rockyroad


A person convicted of vehicular mansluaghter will always be "that guy/gal who killed Phil" (or whoever), so they will be "labeled" for the rest of their life also... you do something wrong, that label will stick with you forever. But to try to compare a DUI (your first post) with raping a 15 year old boy is sick...I'm glad the guy has been "clean" for 17 years, but do I want him reffing my son's games - nope...

Not sure I agree with that. Maybe the guy will always be known as the guy that killed Phil, but that would be the case if everyone knows who fill is. If you move from one state to another that might not be known. For example the only question the IHSA asks about felony convictions have to do with sexual assaults (especially with minors) and drug possession/distributions convictions. They do not ask about murder, stealing or any other possible felony. So if someone had a DUI/hit and run homicide in their past from another state, I might not get checked for that kind of felony in trying to get an officiating license. Now there is a background check, but nothing in the by laws that disqualifies anyone from other types of criminal convictions for some reason. Oh well, that is the country we live in.

Peace

[Ref-X]

To be very honest I am not the biggest advocate of the background check. But IÂ’m a parent and if checking my background and everyone else in my association helps keep our kids safe from those who prey on children then sign me up.

Guy like this can always officiate adult rec. But keep him away from the kids. Please!!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Ref-X
To be very honest I am not the biggest advocate of the background check. But IÂ’m a parent and if checking my background and everyone else in my association helps keep our kids safe from those who prey on children then sign me up.

Guy like this can always officiate adult rec. But keep him away from the kids. Please!!

What are you going to do about the guys or gals that have never been caught? Are you telling me that a background check is going prevent a child from being abducted or violated in any way?

There was a guy recently in my county that was convicted of sexual assault of minors while running a gymnastics academy and had been accused of about 10 girls and was accused of about 20 more. He was not a sex offender by law until many girls were violated.

Then I have known of situations where a teacher (coaches) was released from a job because the teacher carried on affair or relationship with a student. In a couple of cases the schools found out about the relationships and let the teacher go from their job, but no charges were brought up by the police or any record of the activity. Then the coaches/teachers go to another school and hang around a bunch of children.

I personally do not have a problem with background checks, but to assume that is going to prevent those to commit crimes against children is rather naive if you ask me.

Peace

[Ref-X]

Originally posted by JRutledge

What are you going to do about the guys or gals that have never been caught? Are you telling me that a background check is going prevent a child from being abducted or violated in any way?

We can not do any thing about Criminals that have not been caught.

There was a guy recently in my county that was convicted of sexual assault of minors while running a gymnastics academy and had been accused of about 10 girls and was accused of about 20 more. He was not a sex offender by law until many girls were violated.

When he get out, if no one ever checks his background he could do the same thing over again. The background is not going to stop those who have never been caught. it is to keep those who have from having the oppertunity to do it again.



Then I have known of situations where a teacher (coaches) was released from a job because the teacher carried on affair or relationship with a student. In a couple of cases the schools found out about the relationships and let the teacher go from their job, but no charges were brought up by the police or any record of the activity. Then the coaches/teachers go to another school and hang around a bunch of children.

I personally do not have a problem with background checks, but to assume that is going to prevent those to commit crimes against children is rather naive if you ask me.

Peace

You must be kidding. If that is the case sex offenders should not have to report at all. They should be allow to run unchecked and lets just hope they donÂ’t assault any other children in there travels. I know you can not do anything about those who have never been caught but it is our responsibility as parents and adults to try protect our children form those who have a history of this type of crime. I donÂ’t know about you but I would not want my children in the same room with a child sex offender. And if I can prevent I will.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Ref-X


You must be kidding. If that is the case sex offenders should not have to report at all. They should be allow to run unchecked and lets just hope they donÂ’t assault any other children in there travels. I know you can not do anything about those who have never been caught but it is our responsibility as parents and adults to try protect our children form those who have a history of this type of crime. I donÂ’t know about you but I would not want my children in the same room with a child sex offender. And if I can prevent I will.

Having a sex offender in a room or not is not going to guarantee that your kid or any will not be violated or killed for that matter. I think sometimes we get hysterical about things that really are a concern. I can think of a couple of cases where children were taken directly out of their homes (with their parents at home) and both cases the parasites that abducted the children were not previously convicted of anything. If someone wants to violate your children you might not know who they are or where they come from.

Peace

[tmp44]

In PA (PIAA), I know that if you have been arrested for any felony, you are automatically suspended from officiating in any contest until its disposition. Now, what I do not know is, if you are convicted, if you can officiate again, period. But I'll find out....

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge


Having a sex offender in a room or not is not going to guarantee that your kid or any will not be violated or killed for that matter. I think sometimes we get hysterical about things that really are a concern. I can think of a couple of cases where children were taken directly out of their homes (with their parents at home) and both cases the parasites that abducted the children were not previously convicted of anything. If someone wants to violate your children you might not know who they are or where they come from.

Peace

Shouldn't we do all we can to try to protect our kids? We'll never be able to prevent everything, but isn't it kind of stupid to allow sex offenders to officiate and be around kids? I hardly think it's hysterical for parents to want to prevent their kids from being around convicted child offenders. You have had tried to make many ridiculous points on this board, but this might be in your top ten.

With your logic, we shouldn't even bother to jail convicted murderers because murders might still happen.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Shouldn't we do all we can to try to protect our kids? We'll never be able to prevent everything, but isn't it kind of stupid to allow sex offenders to officiate and be around kids? I hardly think it's hysterical for parents to want to prevent their kids from being around convicted child offenders. You have had tried to make many ridiculous points on this board, but this might be in your top ten.

I personally do not care what you think. If you do not like what I said, sue me. You always overreact to things I say when first of all they are not directed at you or about you personally. If you feel a background check is going to protect your kids any more than other actions and what you teach your kids not to do, then so be it. I just find it funny we worry about these issues when there are other things that I would be concerned about when it comes to people being around kids. I know I would not want other criminals around children, but we only worry about the child molester as if they only way kids can be hurt are by a child molester. Not a gang member or a person with a violent history, just sex offenders and people with drug possessions. Not gun dealers or drunks, just sex offenders and people that had a dime bag of marijuana.

Originally posted by zebraman
With your logic, we shouldn't even bother to jail convicted murderers because murders might still happen.

Z

Typical Z always exaggerating the issues that I decide to talk about on this discussion board. I know you will not find any post where I said we should not jail people. But that does not stop you from saying it. I just said we have hypocrisy in this policy, nothing more and nothing less.

Peace

[refnrev]

Should a convicted offender be allowed to officiate. No! How long? Forever. A predator will find a way to offend again. I don't buy the "they're never alone with kids" argument. I also know that the success rate of recovery for offenders is minscule. The kids and their safety is the overiding concern here. Not how long it's been or whether or not one has "paid his/her debt to society."