I've been a law enforcement officer for 16 years; the past 10 as a detective/investigator handling primarily crimes against children. I'm not trying to be snotty, but you obviously are not informed regarding who is a "risk", and what the levels of risk are.

Although I completely agree that officials should not have to foot the bill, or all of it; I'm still, never-the-less very surprised that as a three sport official I've not been required to go through at least a basic background check.

It wouldn't be the first time I spouted off without knowing what I was talking about.

That said, tell me how officials present a risk for committing crimes against children and how that risk is enhanced by the nature of our work as officials. Inform me.

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official. To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

We had an official convicted a major crime a few years ago for getting into a relationship with an underaged player he initially met at games (he was probably around 30, she was about 15-16). I think it was statutory rape??? It may have been some other charge but he did real prison time.

Would the check have prevented it (it was before Oregon did checks)??? I don't know, but it will make sure he doesn't get another chance.

I have no problem with background checks at all. I just hope people are still realistic about what they are going to find or prevent. And if someone does not have a record, you are not going to prevent them any more than before if that person's intentions are not pure or legal. And that is why you see a coach that might have a history of violating the law, but it only comes to light after the 10 person they have violated reports the events. If anything there is fans that attend games that schools need to be more worried about and they are not given background checks before they enter games.

Peace

The issue with regard to child molesters is access .. and the potential for future, unsupervised access, sometimes well into the future. Here is a scenario that's not to far fetched in my experience:

"Hi there, I'm sorry I had to call you for all those [insert violation, foul]. You know, I like to help out kids who are having trouble with their game. Your coach probably doesn't have the time to spend with you as an individual to improve your game. I'll be hosting a clinic with just a few girls/boys on [insert date & time] @ [insert location, probably a public access playground or similar]. Come on buy, it's free." So she/he shows up and, behold, she/he is the only kid there.

You asked: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oc...r-life-prison/

Unfortunately, thats not quantifiable. If there was something in his background, would it have disqualified him from being an official. What is the standard for that association, local or state? Regardless, assuming there was not a background check on this official, if there had been and there was something there, at least you would know.

I'm sure it's clear that I think background checks are important, and that the benefits far outweigh the cost (regardless of who is paying), Background checks can (but now always) weed out potential problem people.

BUT, regardless of whether or not someone is in favor of mandated background checks, the reality is that they only alert you to those that have already been caught .. we should be equally concerned about those that have yet to be caught.

I know of two officials locally (not basketball) who used their position as a referee to get to know young athletes which then led to inappropriate interaction. Those officials were terminated. I have also read a couple newspaper stories in our state in the past couple of years where officials were sent to prison for using their officiating as a way to get to know young athletes and then abusing them sexually. Background checks won't stop everything, but they could help keep previous abusers from joining our ranks.

When an official enters the school, s/he basically has free roam of the place. The threat is not necessarily on the court, but possibly at other times and in other places around the school. As a parent of school-aged children, an official, and a member of Law Enforcement, I have no problems with background checks. I think anyone (maintenance, contractors, catering, repairmen, etc) who has unescorted access to schools should undergo some kind of check.

Saved me typing, anytime you enter a school, you're going to be under scrutiny. It's the times we live in.

Well, this isn't the first time I've changed my mind about something after further research and logical points.

That said, I'm not sure a complete background check would be required. We're getting further and further with technology, and something like a fingerprint check against all 50 states' sex offenders databases would suffice. Using fingerprints (or even DNA) would prevent people from slipping through by changing their names.

Annually would probably be too often, but I can see requiring it initially and every 3 years (an arbitrary figure) thereafter.

The problem with the 50 state databases, the information is not always updated the same or accurate. Even if you did that, there would be some holes in the system.

I just hope people think this is not going to solve all the problems. You need to watch more people than those that officiate. You also need to give background checks to the booster club members and other people that are not officials if you really want to keep kids safe as you people would like them to be.

Peace

In Virginia (VHSL), they have us sign a form stating that we have not been convicted of a Felony...bla..bla..bla. I dont know if they actually do the check.

I think the penalty would be a charge of "falsifying a document" here in VA.

[quote=BigTex]When an official enters the school, s/he basically has free roam of the place.

JMO, if you are entering a school and not informing administration (i.e. sec; principal; AD; coach) or someone that works there of your presence. You are WRONG!!!

I'm not against all background checks, and would willingly take one if necessary to officiate games. However, I do have reservations about including officials in with coaches, teachers, ect, with regards to access to students. Considering the very minimal times I actually speak to a player- all related to that game, then wouldnt it only be fair/safe to have background checks on, say, those that sell candy/popcorn at theatres, those that work at putt-putts, or bowling alleys? Every single employee thats works at a mall? What about gas stations attendants? And on and on....
Jmaellis, as one in law enforcement, where is your line? Who needs it, and who doesnt? I'm guessing that you say EVERYONE.....

Agreed. If it's not treated or advertised as a panacea, then I can see how the benefits outweigh the costs. If, however, it is advertised as a panacea, it could cause more harm than good by offering a false sense of security.

I'd be willing to bet the majority of sex crimes (against children and adults)happen after of a false sense of security developed; someone let his/her guard down.

I've got two young kids, and this stuff scares the hell out of me.