HS Ref/Convicted Sex Offender

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by JRutledge

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

I'm unclear what exactly it is that you are arguing for. Are you arguing that background checks should screen officials for other kinds of violations besides just sexual offenses and drugs? Are you arguing that background checks are just plain futile? Are you arguing that we're deluded if we think we can do anything to protect our children? I, for one, am curious just what your position is.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm unclear what exactly it is that you are arguing for. Are you arguing that background checks should screen officials for other kinds of violations besides just sexual offenses and drugs? Are you arguing that background checks are just plain futile? Are you arguing that we're deluded if we think we can do anything to protect our children? I, for one, am curious just what your position is.

Who said I was arguing for anything? I was making a statement and the folks who think everyone should think like them were offended. People just do not know how to handle other people that do not think like them.

Peace

[Ref-X]

JRUTLEDGE
This man was convicted of assault and battery and RAPE of a minor. Should he be allow to work with kids?! Your telling that this is ok with you?

Now I know that kids today face alot of dangers. But this is one of them. And this is a small thing to HELP keep them safe.

You say that just because a sex offender is in the same room with a child does not mean something will happen. There is no garntee that it won't. So why take the chance?
No we can not prevent everything, but don't you think we should try to do what we can?

I don't know if you have childern or not but wouldn't you want to TRY to keep then safe??

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Ref-X
JRUTLEDGE
This man was convicted of assault and battery and RAPE of a minor. Should he be allow to work with kids?! Your telling that this is ok with you?

Now I know that kids today face alot of dangers. But this is one of them. And this is a small thing to HELP keep them safe.

You say that just because a sex offender is in the same room with a child does not mean something will happen. There is no garntee that it won't. So why take the chance?
No we can not prevent everything, but don't you think we should try to do what we can?

I don't know if you have childern or not but wouldn't you want to TRY to keep then safe??

I did not realize we were talking about a specific person or situation. I know I was not talking about a specific person. Every situation is different. All I said (if you actually read what I said) was I feel that there is hypocrisy in these background checks that that only thing we seem to worry about is drug possession/conviction and sex offenders. I think a lot of other crimes should be considered as disqualifiers or at the very least having to give out that information. I would think anyone that has committed a felony should be suspect to officiate anything. Now if your state considers everything I stated that is great. My state considers only two types of convictions as disqualifiers. I know if I fill out a job application a common question is "Have you been convicted of a felony?" Then if the answer is yes you have to describe what kind of felony and the circumstances. All our state wants to know (according to the policy that is written) are sex offenses and drug offenses. I would think stealing, assaults and multiple and DUIs might be a concern too. I guess the only thing we can concern ourselves with are people that hurt children in a sexual way or with drugs. I guess violent people and thieves are OK to have around our children.

Peace

[rockyroad]

As hard as it is to believe I am about to do this, I have to agree with Jeff...kind of...sorta...anyway, he does make a valid point that background checks should not center on just one or two issues. I know that the background checks here in WA State check for any felony convictions, and they all disqualify a person from being a member of the WIAA... I do not want a convicted sex offender on the court or field with my kids,but that would also be true of a convicted murderer, arsonist, embezzler, etc...

[zebraman]

After 10 aimless posts by Rutledge in this thread, I'm still not sure what his point is. But that is par for the course.

Our state checks for all felonies. However, I don't fear my son being around an official with a DUI conviction because my son isn't going to get a ride home with him and I don't think that alcohol is served at the HS concession stand. I do have a problem with a sex offender being an official for obvious reasons.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
After 10 aimless posts by Rutledge in this thread, I'm still not sure what his point is. But that is par for the course.

Our state checks for all felonies. However, I don't fear my son being around an official with a DUI conviction because my son isn't going to get a ride home with him and I don't think that alcohol is served at the HS concession stand. I do have a problem with a sex offender being an official for obvious reasons.

Z

Most sex offenses are committed by people that know the victim well. You know, the uncle, boyfriend, step father, step mother, aunt, teacher, priest or family friend. Most sex offenses are not committed by strangers or people the victim does not know.

If you are worried about some unknown official that has never met your kid that is your right to feel that way.

I do not know about you, but many of the places I go I leave town the same way that the bus leaves. If someone is drinking and has a history of doing so, yes it is possible that they could come in contact with your kid's bus. Once again, this is not something I worry about but I found your point silly. I just think other factors should be considered to allow someone to officiate around kids. Sorry that offends you to say that. I guess it is par for the course that you actually think I care what you do out in your state or what you are worried about in your daily life. I am not moving there anytime soon or ever. So what I say should not affect you. I can only image what people will say to your face that will upset you if comments on a computer offend you so.

Peace

[zebraman]

Make that 11 aimless posts.

Z

[ChrisSportsFan]

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

Rut, I completly agree. You never know who's going to jump out of the weeds and be the "next new" offender. I do believe though that an ounce of prevention is valuable.

My wife and I directed the Children's Ministry for our church for several years. We went to a few seminars and at one of them they discussed this topic. Even "IF" this offender is rehabilitated, why put them in a situation where if someone made a claim against them they would NEVER EVER beat it in a court because of their history. We instituded an interview process, questionair and background check for teachers. We did lose a couple of teachers over the years which made our responsibility for that class tougher but it was better to be safe. Statistics show that a sexual offender will strike more than once.

[Ref-X]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I did not realize we were talking about a specific person or situation. I know I was not talking about a specific person. Every situation is different. All I said (if you actually read what I said) was I feel that there is hypocrisy in these background checks that that only thing we seem to worry about is drug possession/conviction and sex offenders. I think a lot of other crimes should be considered as disqualifiers or at the very least having to give out that information. I would think anyone that has committed a felony should be suspect to officiate anything. Now if your state considers everything I stated that is great. My state considers only two types of convictions as disqualifiers. I know if I fill out a job application a common question is "Have you been convicted of a felony?" Then if the answer is yes you have to describe what kind of felony and the circumstances. All our state wants to know (according to the policy that is written) are sex offenses and drug offenses. I would think stealing, assaults and multiple and DUIs might be a concern too. I guess the only thing we can concern ourselves with are people that hurt children in a sexual way or with drugs. I guess violent people and thieves are OK to have around our children.

Peace

As I was reading your earlier posts I was unsure of your stance. To me it came across that you had no problem with convicted child sex offenders being around children. Now I see your point a little better. And I agree that there are many other things to look for when doing background checks for officials. There are a lot of people that should not be around kids. This topic started with an official who is a convicted sex offender, and that is where much of my posted where directed. Here in my state we do not have a background check YET. But it is only a matter of time.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Ref-X


As I was reading your earlier posts I was unsure of your stance. To me it came across that you had no problem with convicted child sex offenders being around children. Now I see your point a little better. And I agree that there are many other things to look for when doing background checks for officials. There are a lot of people that should not be around kids. This topic started with an official who is a convicted sex offender, and that is where much of my posted where directed. Here in my state we do not have a background check YET. But it is only a matter of time.

If you go back and read where I commented on this topic, I was not addressing the original story that prompted this thread. I actually do not care of the circumstances of that post. I was commenting and agreeing with someone that the current systems of background checks are hypocritical. I never debated the reasons why we have them or I never said you should not have them. I simply said that we should check for more than a trying to find sex offenders. I think other actions are just as big of a problem as someone that has sex offenses in our society. To me worrying about sex offenders from strangers is like worrying about that the avian flu is going to kill you in the next few days. My state has had background checks for 8 or 9 years already, so I have no problem with them. I just think if I cannot work at the local fast food place because I was a thief, why should I be allowed to work as an official. I personally do not care if you can rehabilitate someone or not, I think either act has similar issues for someone that is going to be around this kind of participation. If you do not agree with that, is OK with me. I just do not recall that I was asking for approval of my position.

Originally posted by ChrisSportsFan


Rut, I completly agree. You never know who's going to jump out of the weeds and be the "next new" offender. I do believe though that an ounce of prevention is valuable.

My wife and I directed the Children's Ministry for our church for several years. We went to a few seminars and at one of them they discussed this topic. Even "IF" this offender is rehabilitated, why put them in a situation where if someone made a claim against them they would NEVER EVER beat it in a court because of their history. We instituded an interview process, questionair and background check for teachers. We did lose a couple of teachers over the years which made our responsibility for that class tougher but it was better to be safe. Statistics show that a sexual offender will strike more than once.

Great, we have established that sex offenders strike more than once. Thank you that valuable information. It is not what we were talking about, but thank you all the same.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Dec 6th, 2005 at 02:30 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
Make that 11 aimless posts.

Z

This will make about the 100th time I could give a damn what you think.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

This will make about the 100th time I could give a damn what you think.

Peace

Make that 13 aimless posts.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman

Make that 13 aimless posts.

Z

That will make 201 times I could give a damn. When are you going to ever learn you are nobody to me?

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

That will make 201 times I could give a damn. When are you going to ever learn you are nobody to me?

Peace

Is that math from Chicago public schools? Wah.

Z