Frankly, I don't think that alone should be disqualifying. From coaching? Probably (depending on the specifics). From officiating? No.

I will give another quick example.

There was an official in my area that worked a major conference in college. The league started doing background checks. They found out that this individual had a charge of domestic violence or some kind of charge towards his wife. This apparently happened during a time when they were getting divorced and we all know how messy those things can be. There were no convictions and much of the information was found out to be bogus, but it took time to prove that information. Now this person was also in law enforcement and had the resources to likely take care of this information. But soon after this information was revealed, he was released from that conference even thought he had been suspended and brought back for a short time. We must keep in mind that certain charges carry stigmas to them as well and even if there is no conviction, people think you have done something wrong and this could obviously affect someone just trying to officiate.

I do agree with Mark that someone convicted of Manslaughter might not be a good person to officiate, but I would personally think the circumstances might also be a factor as well. People serve time for defending themselves or harming someone that did something against them. And they do not always spend massive amounts of years in jail either, but they are still convicted of a felony.

Peace

Exactly, if you were going to push drugs or sex on a kid you could get more access than a sports official does by being a fan in the first row. Everyone is watching officials.

Background checks on everyone who attends a sporting event, or enters a public building, or talks to a potential victim makes more sense than targeting a group that has 10 - 10,000+ people watching them

Well, well, after reading this post, sleeping on it, waking up, going to work for 15 hours, come back and read somemore. I say everyone who attends a sporting event involving kids should be subject to a background check. This way Mrs. Basketball Mom can have a warm and fuzzy about everyone in attendance knowing they are safe for kids to be around.

Have fun officiating with Charles Manson.

Your original post mentioned manslaughter, which can be negligent or involuntary (and where do they sentence people 25+ years for that?). Hitting someone with your car can be manslaughter. That disqualifies people from officiating?

Charles Manson is not notorious for his manslaughter convictions.

Mark, this kind of hyperbole doens't serve this discussion well. As mbyron indicates, the manslaughter charge is pretty vague and can emcompass any number of things that may or may not show poor character rather than a momentary lapse in judgment.

20 year old college kid gets drunk, drives, and causes a fatal accident. He serves time for vehicular manslaughter. You going to exclude him from officiating?

Similar kid gets into a bar fight defending a date, uses too much force and gets charged by an overzealous prosecutor and convicted for whatever reason. He spends 10 years in prison for manslaughter. You going to exclude him from officiating on that basis alone?

I think we can all agree that Manson would never be allowed to officiate, his demeanor would disqualify him immediately. That's the other part of this no one has brought up yet. These non-sexual offenses should not be, IMO, strict deal breakers. The people we're talking about will either have reformed or not, and as long as they're not working in a vacuum, that will come out.

My next question is this, what do you expect someone with a manslaughter conviction to do on the court (or in the locker room) that would endanger the kids?

Like I said, I can see looking at that with a teacher or a coach; but officials just aren't in a position for this stuff to matter.

I guess that means we should disqualify anyone who has ever been convicted of conspiracy.

Been waiting for someone to ask if they're then going to subject scorekeepers, scoreboard operators and announcers ("They say my name soooo nice ...") to background checks, too. Granted, many might be teachers or other school personnel, but not all.

Does anyone know if someone can request a background check for certain offenses, and the report will only contain the information about those certain offenses, and not a full report on everything?

I wouldn't have a problem if the reports were selective, based on the criteria required by the state. If the state does not want any officials who have prior convictions relating to drug distribution and offenses related to minors, and the report doesn't show the arrest for flag and bra burning back when they were young, then I would think that should satisfy the biggest complaints on both sides of this issue.

If there was no need to take my picture to get a drivers license, yes, I would question why they wanted to do so.

However, it seems rather clear that it is in fact necessary to the concept of licensing drivers that their picture be taken, so I accept that as a reasonable request.

There is nothing "paranoid" about this - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't think this technology is available yet, M&M. It may be, but I think I would have heard about it. Those databases are pretty heavy, so adding the filter functionality based on offenses would be burdensom from a storage and programming perspective; and thus expensive for law enforcement.

On top of that, each jurisdiction codes their statutes and charges differently.

Well, I don't want everyone knowing about bra-burning incidents from the past. It wasn't even my bra. You see, there was this chick that originally said she would go to the prom with me...

...wait a minute...oh, crap, never mind.

Anyway, isn't there some sort of national database or clearinghouse that handles these records? How else do records from other jurisdictions show up? I assume someone in Mayberry, NC would enter the info so that someone else in Beverly Hills can see the record. And there has to be some sort of "conversion" from the local statute to the national database. And then, by extension, an easy way to filter by types of arrests and convictions. Isn't that also how credit report information is handled?

With no apparent control over who is allowed to see, and thus use, the information provided in the checks, I would not have a problem if the only information shown is what is requested. I would have a problem with allowing anyone to see everything. Even if I had nothing to hide.

Credit checks are very different because there are 3 different reporting databases. Criminal procedures are very different and sometimes states are not as technologically advanced in how they report the information from one county to another. I have heard of some information not being held databases based on where you were charged or convicted. I think some information falls through the cracks.

Peace

Rut is right. With credit, there are three clearing houses for the information. That's not the case with the states. They're getting better about sharing, but it's more about getting the various databases to communicate with each other as opposed to some sort of convenience store for criminal histories.

The system in place works well for what it's used for, but it's just not set up for a filtered background check only looking for certain types of crimes. Mayberry will likely have a different set of codes for a given offense, and the guys in Hollywood would be confused as hell. And to filter based on offense you'd have to have some sort of standardized basis (criminal code, key words, etc) that just doesn't exist.