This is starting to become a big story in the Boston area. Does you association have a policy regarding criminal background checks?

First reported in The Salem News last week.
From : http://www.thebostonchannel.com/heal...83/detail.html

SALEM, Mass. -- A convicted sex offender is working as a referee at high school basketball games on the North Shore.

Framingham, Mass., resident Philip Paul was convicted in the late 1980s of indecent assault and battery and rape of a minor.

Paul told the Salem News both convictions involved the same 15-year-old boy in New Hampshire. He served two years in prison.

A supervisor of referees, Paul Halloran, said the local board voted to let Paul continue working because of his clean record since his crimes.

Halloran noted referees have no unsupervised contact with athletes.

Paul is a Level Two sex offender, meaning he has a moderate risk of re-offending.

Paul said that he takes responsibility for what he did, but he's paid his debt to society.

He said in 17 years no one's complained about his conduct or ethics.

Illinois has a criminal background check.

Would Illinois let a guy with a record like that officiate though?

Also in Illinois we have to give information to the IHSA about a conviction dealing with sex offenses or drug offenses and the reasons why we were convicted (if that applies to us) of a crime in order maintain a license. Getting an official's license in our state is like applying for any other license where ethics and responsibility are at the heart of having the license. You have to apply to a state organization and that state organization is responsible for qualifying you to work. It sounds like the problem that might happen in other states is local official’s associations are too involved in giving games and do not have the resources to check up on things like a criminal background of a potential official.

Peace

Nope

I used to have this mindset as well. "It's not like he's gonna have the chance to molest a kid during the game, or even in a locker room after the game."

But somebody on this forum (maybe Juulie) noted that nobody can supervise this ref away from the court after he's built up some trust and/or respect with the players. The players come to have a certain level of trust in the officials if they see them regularly (or at least the officials are no longer "strangers"). So what might happen if the ref just "happens" to run into one of these kids at the mall or somewhere else where they're away from the parents?

While this particular official may have paid for his past crimes, I don't think we can allow him to have that much contact with the kids. JMO.

I suspect this will lead to a host of changes. For now, the high school ruling body, the Mass. Interscholastic Athtletic Assn., is saying that since officials are not school employees -- and since they do not have unsupervised contact with students -- no background checks are required.

The local officials associations in Mass. do not assign officials. They only test them, train them and "certify" that they are properly trained as basketball officials. We are assigned by independent commissioners, who are hired by the leagues (high school athletic directors, for H.S. games) and who can use any official they want.

I suspect the pressure will be great on the MIAA to demand that all officials in all sports submit to a criminal background check. The question -- in part -- is at what point does a criminal background disqualify you from officiating? Is it only sex crimes? What about assault? What about larceny? And I also think the pressure will mount on individual associations to perform their own background checks. But.... I know a lot of officials who do not want the responsibility to decide on their own what should "disqualify" an official from working a game.

I find this topic very uncomfortable. This guy was convicted 18 years ago. He has not been in trouble since. He does not have unsupervised time with the players. Yet I understand why so many people think he should be barred for life from officiating. Of course, that does not stop him from working in a mall, a pizza joint or anywhere else kids hang out.

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?"

Here is Jersey there is no background check. But I hear in NYC they are pushing for it. So it may only be a matter of time before we start feeling the heat to do it here.

The problem is we have convinced ourselves that we need to be afraid of everything. When I was growing up we would be exposed to all kinds of things and no one was up in arms. Now we think a background check is going to prevent kids from being violated any more than the guy that has never been caught. I agree we all should know things about people's criminal background, but why is a DUI much better than crimes with drugs or sexual offenses? Just goes to show this country has much hypocrisy that will never be admitted to.

Peace

VA currently doesnt do background checks, at least not VHSL.

Fine and/or prison are not the only way certain crimes are punished. Felons in most states lose voting rights. DUI offenders lose driving privileges. Sex offenders lose the privilege of being around kids.

It's very consistent.

When they are sexual crimes against minors, the answer to your question is "forever". Sex offenders do not get rehabilitated, in my layman's opinion.

Speeding tickets and drunk driving have nothing to do with officiating. You're talking apples and oranges. You want tougher sanctions against drunk drivers? I'm right with you on that, brother. But those issues are separate from allowing sex offenders to interact with children. I don't see the hypocrisy that Rut mentions, at least in this particular case.

OK, whatever you say Dan. ;)

Peace

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.

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

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...

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”.

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

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.

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

To be very honest I am not the biggest advocate of the background check. But I’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

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 don’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 don’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

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....

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

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.

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

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."

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

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

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...

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. :confused:

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. :rolleyes: 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

Make that 11 aimless posts. :rolleyes:

Z

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.

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.


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]

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

Peace

Make that 13 aimless posts. :rolleyes:

Z

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

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.