![]() |
|
|||
![]()
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???
__________________
That's all i got to say bout that |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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... |
|
|||
Quote:
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”.
__________________
IT's up!! It's GOOOD !!! ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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!!
__________________
IT's up!! It's GOOOD !!! ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
IT's up!! It's GOOOD !!! ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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....
__________________
I know God would never give me more than I could handle, I just wish he wouldn't trust me so much. |
|
|||
Quote:
With your logic, we shouldn't even bother to jail convicted murderers because murders might still happen. Z |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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."
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|