![]() |
Quote:
|
Just The Facts ...
Quote:
The worst of those crimes - kidnappings, rapes and murders - are being committed not by strangers hunting innocents but by family members, neighbors or trusted adults the family knows. Kidnappings by complete strangers, while terrifyingly sinister, are fairly rare events, representing only about one in every 2,900 abduction cases. The most recent survey of kidnapping data conducted in 2002 for the U.S. Justice Department revealed that of the roughly 261,000 children who are abducted each year, the vast majority (203,900) are taken by a family member - often in a custody dispute - and just 90 to 115 are victims of kidnappings by complete strangers. The idea of a child being dragged off to be tortured, raped and murdered by a stranger is so terrifying and so well reported in the news media that parents, educators, even law enforcement officers and politicians, have accepted as fact that stranger abductions are more commonplace than they actually are. "Those are the ones that capture the public's imagination, and they should because they're awful" says Jim Beasley, supervisory special agent for the FBI and a specialist in crimes against children. "But because they hear the story told over and over, people tend to forget that this is the same incident." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course, someone thinks that this is a big problem and most people are jumping on the bandwagon and drinking their kool-aid. For those of us who take the time to think about the issue and question the core assumptions, concluding that it is really just a big PR job is more reasonable. |
Quote:
What was described in Pennsylvania seems way over the top. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I cannot imagine how - I get to a game site, I go to a private locker room, I change, I officiate the game, I return to a private locker room. When do I ever have access to kids alone? This is a solution without a problem, and considering it is a solution that A. Costs money B. Takes time C. Is prone to error, and D. Most importantly is a blatant violation of basic privacy rights it is utterly ridiculous. We do background checks where I officiate, and I have nothing to hide. I am not willing to take a stand on principle in this case, but it does bother me. I don't like the idea of someone poking around in my private life without very good reason, and the fevered imagination of some busy body who thinks officials have any access to children is not a good reason. I want statistics. I want verifiable, objective data defining the scope of the problem this "solution" is fixing. Anyone have any? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone that is flagged as a risk should be reviewed for accuracy before taking action. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
So, how often does this happen then? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What about people who are unfairly accused as a result of some error? What about the fact that everytime you do a background check on someone, their data is out there in yet another place that it can be stolen or abused or simply mislaid or mishandled? Quote:
Quote:
They are going to go through my background and try to find out things about me that they are not willing to ascertain simply by asking me. Anytime some governing body is going to demand information from me, simple privacy also demands that they have some justifiable reason for needing it that clearly outweighs the potential negatives (and *I* get to define those negatives, since it is MY information). Or rather, that *should* be the standard that is used, IMO. Instead the standard is "Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind random people digging through your past, right?!?!" Well, I do mind. It doesn't matter, since I have no leverage, and am not willing to give up officiating over it (although I know people who have), but it is ridiculous. I notice you kind of cut out my request for objective and reliable statistics for how widespread the problem of officials molesting kids is, such that these kinds of measures are needed to solve the problem... |
I see both arguments. I really do not think it is necessary to give a background check for someone that is really not accessible to kids. And if we are, it is not because we are allowed that access. What we do is really out in the open. If we are given close access to kids, that could be completely prevented by administrations on so many levels.
I also see the invasion on some level. But a background check is only going to find those that are convicted offenders. If you are not convicted, you still can slip through the cracks. And there are a lot of people that are not convicted that commit acts against minors. I also think it is kind of a waste of money on some level when you are not giving background checks to fans and other individuals who will have much more access to children. But a lot of policies are for nothing more than a peace of mind. I just think there are other way to achieve that peace. Peace |
Quote:
In fact, I would bet the difference is an order of magnitude, maybe even 2 orders of magnitude. And this is an injustice to those officials, it is in fact, a slight committed against them by society - our privacy tossed aside to assuage someones emotional hysteria. |
Sorry if I come across a little strong on this - it is one of my pet peeves, to be honest.
|
Quote:
I think the concern (the validity of the concern is different) is that an official will make friends with the kid, arrange to "accidentally" bump into the kid after practice the next night, and then offer him/her a ride home... |
I see both sides of the fence on this issue. I work in an occupation where an FBI security background check is required (because of the line of work I do and what I have access to). I will say that if they are truly concerned about anything in your background they are not doing EVERYTHING they can. My background check for work took around 4.5-5 months to complete (yes, I really meant to type months). I really believe that these superficial background checks are a good idea (at $3-$5) but not at a price tag of $100. :eek: That astounds me! I don't know if I could justify officiating for that price tag (although I'm assuming that would be something to be taken off of the taxes at the end of the year).
I believe as a predator, however, it would be just as easy to go into a school for a basketball game and molest someone as it would be for an official. -Josh |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33am. |