It's not? The potential for sex offenders to repeat their crimes against minors is not what were talking about? Why the heck else would we screen for this then? Morbid curiosity? Of course we're talking about the fact that sex offenders repeat their crimes. That is exactly the point of the discussion. Why else would the newspaper run a story about a sex offender officiating high school games? To praise him for rehabilitating himself?

I think I understand the point that you were trying to make as well. But to say that we were not discussing the potential for a sex offender to repeat his crimes simply ignores the whole basis of the thread.

I would not know I did not attend a Chicago Public School. I guess that just goes to show how little you know about anything.

Peace

Good comeback Potsie. :rolleyes:

Z

[ [/B][/QUOTE] Why the heck else would we screen for this then? Morbid curiosity?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Great line. I laughed out loud in the middle of the office.

The problem is you are focused on one topic, I was commenting on another topic. If that is what you were talking about, do not project that on what I was saying. I never addressed the original topic but to only say that what kinds of background checks are done in my state. I made a throw away statement about hypocrisy and just as predicted a few of you bit on the comments. If that bothers you that I made my statement, I guess you will just have to be upset. I still was not referring to the story of the official caught that was a sex offender. You cannot make me refer to something because that is what you are concerned with.

Peace

That's not a "problem", b/c as I stated in my post, I think I actually understand the point that you were making. Believe it or not, I'm intelligent enough to follow two lines of thought at once.

But you were the one who was "projecting" by saying that we weren't talking about the offender's likelihood of repeating his crime; when in fact, that's exactly what we were talking about. Your point was a different topic. I got that. But you weren't correct in the comment that I quoted.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. If anyone was responding to me, they could not be talking about the story that prompted this thread. I never addressed the issue with the official getting busted for being a sex offender. Show me the line where I said anything about that. I answered a question about background checks. That is what I was talking about. If you want to get into what was in the story that is your right to do so. That is not what I commented on or why I responded. So yes, I was correct because all my comments were about background checks, not the issues dealing with why this guy got caught. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

Peace

Wonder what the response would be if they were to institute a mandatory background check along with mandatory drug, and/or even random, testing?

If there was drug testing. For get about it... We would lose a lot of officials.

Do not go there. Remember this is about protecting the helpless children. You know the only thing children need protection from is some official that they will never know (and is not the typical violator of these children to begin with) and has been “convicted” of a very specific crime.

Peace

Actually what this was about and what you turned it in to, are two different things.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[B]I don't know of any state that only checks for certain felonies. Our state checks for ALL felonies. I am in the education business and all of our teachers require a background check in order to be licensed. I have seen the background checks that are done because we do them on our non-certified employees too. I know that all felonies are listed.