Background Checks

[JRutledge]

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender? And Letourneau was a teacher that was able to gain the trust of a young man when he was vulnerable and powerless (I know many here might suggest they wish it was them, but that is not the point ). But the point I am trying to make here is a lot of sex offense happen much more from people that have direct access to those children. I have dated a couple of people that were molested and it did not happen to them by people other than family members or close friends. These individuals were never convicted or even prosecuted in any way. So what if someone is never prosecuted and is totally guilty of a crime is around children? I think the point Berut is making is a very valid one. It makes us all feel better, but as an official I cannot think of any situation where I even knew a kid beyond the court or field other than them recognizing me as an official. And if that is the standard, I do not need to be an official, I could be a fan. When we are on that field or court, everyone sees my interaction with them.

If anything I have been afraid of being put in places by the school that might be seen as inappropriate. Ever been in a girl's locker room and had a young girl walk in the locker room with a bunch of naked men? Not a good feeling and all it would take is the right complaint and one of us in that room might get accused of some inappropriate behavior. And if a charge was made, would that make a child safer the next time?

There was a coach in my area that was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl. He went to jail for 50+ years or so. And as an official I see many more fans having interactions with kids that I will never have. I might only see a player once. A fan of a school might be at all the games and talk to the kids afterwards. I do not see how officials have that kind of interaction realistically without being accused of being totally unprofessional in other ways. If we talk to a coach too long our motives are questioned. So how do we have a relationship with a player and no one says a word?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender?

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

Did she tell the first employer that she was engaging in inappropriate contact? Of course not, but the point is she had more access to this kid (now her husband) much more than I will ever have with a young person during and after a game.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

Well anyone can sue over anything. I am sure someone might one day sue over how far the background checks should go.

The bottom line is that policy should not be made on whether it stops one person out of thousands. All I am saying is that you need more than a background check. You need policies that keep kids away from adults in inappropriate ways.

Peace

[constable]

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by constable

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

Define "nothing to hide." We all make mistakes when we're young. Look, I'm confident I would pass a background check. But I know there are people who have made mistakes they wouldn't want made public, and that have no bearing on their ability to officiate.

A DUI when you're 19 shouldn't preclude you from officiating, and it may well be something you don't want made public. A background check, when completed, will need to be stored some place. What happens when Nosy Ned gets a hold of it and publicizes it. Or what about an arrest at a political demonstration?

I know it's not the same thing, but the founders of our country made it clear the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra meant nothing to them. There's a reason illegal search and seizures are prohibited. Hell, I'm sure if we had mandatory inspections of everyone's personal computers, we'd catch a lot more child porn afficianados and prevent quite a few crimes.

If you've got nothing to hide....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I doubt that anyone has been harmed by being asked to submit to a basic background check....not a full investigation into your full life including what books you checked out from the library 20 years ago.

Anyone that is denied officiating because of what is revealed on the backgorund check can only blame themselves. Bad choices have consequences. Just because they'd like them to be forgotten about doesn't mean they should. When certain lines are crossed, there are opportunities that should no longer exist for that person...ever.

Sorry, Camron, I wasn't clear. First, let me address this point, then I'll clarify what I actually meant. A basic background check will likely pull up any arrests during adulthood, and will definitely pull any convictions that haven't been stricken from the record.

Do you really think a marijuana possession charge (personal quantities) from 15 years ago is relevant? What about an assault charge from a bar fight 12 years ago? Or maybe the guy who was convicted of blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic or a Marine Recruiting Office when he was in college. There's a lot of information about someone that can be gleened from a background check that should remain private.

There's nothing that can be accomplished with this that couldn't be done with a sex registry check.

Now, back to what I meant that post. I didn't really mean anything with regard to harm to the officials submitting background checks. I am more concerned with Mrs. Basketball Mom thinking all is well because everyone who works in that school has had their background checked. There's a false sense of security stemming from an action that has no benefit.

"It's a warm fuzzy" means simply that it makes people feel better without any real benefit.

"Does more harm" refers to the false sense of security. They're just rearranging the deck chairs, IMO.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by constable

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

If it costs $5, maybe. If it costs $100, as it apparently does in New York, I care. As many have pointed out, the cost/benefit ratio is small given the risk with referees, and we may lose some good referees.

Oh, and by the way, I do have nothing to hide.

[Berkut]

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Berkut

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Adam]

Agreed, there must be some demonstrable benefit before we should be able to require people to turn over aspects of their private lives.

That said, I found out this week that CO is has pretty open records. You can go to the CBI website and pay < $10 and request a background check on anyone for any reason.

That'll come in handy when my daughter starts bringing boys around. "What's your birthday, young man?" "Oh, don't worry, it's just for a scrapbook I like to keep."

pssst: Instead of "fascist," maybe you could have used "authoritarian."

[Berkut]

I think the cost in New York is so high because they do fingerprinting and a pretty full check.

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well. Joy!

[Camron Rust]

Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.

Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I think the cost in New York is so high because they do fingerprinting and a pretty full check.

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well. Joy!

Talk about being paranoid. Do you worry about your photo being on file with the DMV....it is basically the same thing....they have something to identifiy you with. What about your income history? They have that too.

Just as you don't have the right to drive, you don't have the right to officiate. Both of them are privileges that you can choose to engage in as long as you follow the requirements of that choice. Those granting the privilege basically have the authority to set the requirements for that privilege. Don't like them, do something else.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.

Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.

Maybe, but what happens when some enterprising reporter decides an official's fraud conviction is worthy of plastering all over the region? Oh, wait, background checks aren't required for that information to happen, but they sure as hell would make it easier.

Look, personally, if I thought it would prevent abuse, I'd be for it. I just don't see it. And no, "even one" might not be enough.

Again, let me ask this question. What exactly would be found in criminal background check that can't be found in a sex offender registry that is relevant to officiating?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, let me ask this question. What exactly would be found in criminal background check that can't be found in a sex offender registry that is relevant to officiating?

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?