![]() |
Quote:
And for those of you who worry about "leaks" of information from your criminal history, if you don't have a criminal history there's nothing to leak, is there? This is essentially a criminal history/court record check, not a total background investigation where they look at your employment, credit history, how often you cheat on your wife. There is nothing else there to leak. |
Quote:
|
Out of curiosity, I requested a PA state police criminal check report although I was not required to do so by the PIAA. It was inexpensive ($10), immediately available on line and anyone can request his/her report. Here are the results with identifying information removed.
Pennsylvania State Police 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Response for Criminal Record Check Namexxx Streetxxx Cityxx, Statexx Zipxxx TELEPHONE xxx TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT: Name: XXX Date of Birth: XXX Social Security #: XXX Sex: X Race: XXXX Date of Request: 08/20/2009 07:32 AM Purpose of Request: School District Maiden Name and/or Alias (1) (2) (3) (4) *** HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD IN PENNSYLVANIA BASED ON A CHECK BASED ON THE ABOVE IDENTIFIERS - REFER TO CONTROL #RXXX *** THE RESPONSE IS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF DATA PROVIDED BY THE REQUESTER AGAINST INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FILES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE CENTRAL REPOSITORY ONLY. PLEASE CONFIRM IDENTIFIERS PROVIDED. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT FINGERPRINTS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE RESPONSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, WHICH MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN THE REPOSITORIES OF OTHER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES. COMPARISON MADE WITH FINGERPRINTS THE INFORMATION ON THIS CERTIFICATION FORM CAN BE VALIDATED BY ACCESSING THE PENNSYLVANIA ACCESS TO CRIMINAL HISTORY (PATCH) RECORD CHECK STATUS SCREEN https://epatch.state.pa.us/RCStatusSearch.jsp) AND SUBMITTING A STATUS CHECK REQUEST THAT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING - SUBJECT'S NAME (EXACTLY AS INITIALLY ENTERED), CONTROL NUMBER AND DATE OF REQUEST. PATCH WILL FIND AND DISPLAY THE CORRESPONDING RECORD CHECK REQUEST. DETAILS ON THE REQUEST CAN BE VIEWED BY CLICKING ON THE CONTROL NUMBER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY IF THIS REQUEST WAS SENT OUT AS A NO RECORD OR RECORD RESPONSE BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PATCH HELP LINE AT TELEPHONE NUMBER 717-425-5546 FOR LOCAL CALLS OR TOLL FREE AT 1-888-QUERY-PA (1-888-783-7972). Certified by: Lieutenant Michael F. Gillelan, Director Criminal Records and Identification Division Pennsylvania State Police DISSEMINATED BY: SYSTEM 08/20/2009 |
wanja,
Thanks. ADs are required to go to the site you provided and check to be sure that that the clearance the official provided was indeed a "no record" report. A report could be forged. Again, it's important to note that nothing in the report will be provided. It will certify that the official received either a "no record" report or a "record" report. In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think that is part of the point- background checks raise the very difficult question of how bad is bad enough to be banned. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
These guys should be banned, I don't question that and never have. Here's what I am saying: 1. These guys don't have necessary access, in their capacity as officials, that makes it more dangerous. 2. Background checks can give a false sense of security, making people feel comfortable rather than preventing knuckleheads from even having the sort of off-court access we have. There's no reason to stick us in an active lockerroom with students (wrestlers for example) who are showering or dressing. 3. Sex-registries are sufficient to ban the ones who have been caught before. 4. The question of who exactly views the reports and makes decisions needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction. |
Quote:
Some mistakes follow you the rest of your life. If you work for a bank and get convicted of embezzlement, you'll never work for a bank again. It doesn't matter if you were 25 or 55 when you did it. If you dealt drugs when you were young and foolish, you'll never pass a background investigation for a federal law enforcement job. If you're convicted of exposing yourself to little girls, you'll never be a teacher, or, in PA, an official. I have no problem with that. |
My "problem" with it is simply that there is not a problem that needs solving to beign with.
I don't care if some guy who was convicted of looking at child pron ever gets to officiate again - screw 'em, I have no sympathy for them. What I *do* care about is that someone has come along and told me that if I want to officiate, I must allow them to dig into my personal life beyond what they can simply ask me about, so that they can assuage their hysteria about the non-existent problem of officials molesting children. If you don't want people with previous criminal histories of whatever sort officiating, then make that the terms of employment. Since the issue is continuing punishment for them, as opposed to any concern that they are actually a tangible threat, then that will deal with that problem in the vast majority of cases, without the need to go and do background checks on officials, 99% of which have nothing to check, and even the 1% (if it is that high) aren't actually any kind of real threat anyway, since they don't have unsupervised access to children. |
Quote:
They won't solve the problem, and they probably won't prevent anything at all. What I have yet to hear about is a previously convicted sex offender using his capacity as an official to gain access to a child for the purpose of abusing that child. I've read about officials who committed these offenses, but never in their capacity or because of the access they enjoyed as officials. My concern is that some are going to want to stretch the disqualifying offenses to include things that should not be included. Some say add "murder," assault, etc. While I'm not against adding "murder," I think there are other crimes that have no bearing on whether a man or woman can act as an official. The article referenced in this thread was written by a man who seems indignant that a man convicted of fraud could be an official. WTF? |
Quote:
FWIW I think you guys have done a good job discussing this. :) |
Quote:
Maybe one way is if you're eligible to vote, you can ref. If not, no go. |
Oddly enough, despite my position on background checks, I am actually a lot more "tough" on what should DQ someone from officiating. IMO, a criminal history of any serious crime is pretty telling.
Not because of any hysteria that sounds like "Think of the children!", which is 99% emotional nonsense, but simply because officiating is a job that first and foremost demands exceptional integrity, and a criminal record suggests a lack of said integrity. However, I also think that hard and fast rules about this are foolish - you need at least some level of subjectivity so people can make sane exceptions. I would basically want to consider things like: 1. The nature of the crime - does it involve issues of trust, integrity, and character? 2. How long ago did it happen? What was the age of the potential official when it happened? Is it likely that this was a one-off incident, or is there a pattern? 3. What level of officiating are we talking about? Is there room for some restrictive rules about what this person can officiate, for some period of time, to ascertain their fitness? Again, I do not agree that blanket background checks are justified or even ethical, however, in any case. |
I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be more telling than even a single vehicular manslaughter charge when a person was 21. The problem is, that sort of analysis is necessarily subjective and therefore vulnerable to abuse (by those making the decisions).
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46am. |