Background Checks

[JRutledge]

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

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.
Peace

I would be willing to bet a million fake internet dollars that more people will be excluded from officiating either by choice or error who are great officials who are zero danger to anyone's kids than actual threats will be found and eliminated.

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.

[Berkut]

Sorry if I come across a little strong on this - it is one of my pet peeves, to be honest.

[jdmara]

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. 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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I would be willing to bet a million fake internet dollars that more people will be excluded from officiating either by choice or error who are great officials who are zero danger to anyone's kids than actual threats will be found and eliminated.
.

If some self select exclusion, that's their problem. They probably wear tinfoil hats too.

I'd bet that the errors are FAR fewer than the number of people it properly excludes....and that the errors are generally corrected very easily.

Originally Posted by Berkut

In fact, I would bet the difference is an order of magnitude, maybe even 2 orders of magnitude.

.

I would too...but in the opposite direction of what I'm guessing you're assuming.

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

Your fears of Big Brother are not justified.

[Berkut]

It is rather ironic that you are accusing those who ask for some data and justification for background checks of over-reacting to a imagined issue.

Tin foil hats indeed. Your solution is to solve a problem that doesn't exist - and if it did exist, it would only provide the illusion of protection anyway.