Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think that's the real concern

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...

And THAT is more or less what happened here in Portland with the official I'm aware of....that went to jail.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And THAT is more or less what happened here in Portland with the official I'm aware of....that went to jail.

Two questions:

1. Is there some reason to think that absent his position as an official, he would not have been able to find some child to befriend and molest?

2. Did he have a history that would have excluded him from officiating had a background check been done?

3. Does this happen a lot?

OK, so that is three questions...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Two questions:

1. Is there some reason to think that absent his position as an official, he would not have been able to find some child to befriend and molest?
...

His position put him in a place to befriend

Originally Posted by Berkut

2. Did he have a history that would have excluded him from officiating had a background check been done?
...

Don't know but it will keep him from having that avenue open to him again somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Berkut

3. Does this happen a lot?

OK, so that is three questions...

Isn't once too much?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

His position put him in a place to befriend

Not really - the fact that he is a human being who lives in a society puts him in place to befriend kids. He could have walked into the gym and sat down next to some kid and befriended him, or it is even likely that he is already friends with lots of kids, like his relatives.

Don't know but it will keep him from having that avenue open to him again somewhere else.

Barn door, except this barn has no sides, roof, or door for that matter.

Officiating does not provide anyone with any special access to kids - that is the danger, not the fact that you are there and kids are there - that happens everytime I walk into my local grocery store.

Isn't once too much?

Emotive nonsense. Of course once is too much - but that doesn't mean that any all imposition on others (99.999% of whom are perfectly innocent) is justified as long as it can stop one single instance of a crime being committed.

That same logic can (and has) been used to justify any kind of restriction of liberty or invasion of privacy. The reality is that bad things will happen. We don't want to live in a police state (and in fact most police states still ahve bad things happening anyway - generally much MORE bad things), so we have presumably decided that there should be some kind of balancing mechanism for how we restrict the innocent majority in order to protect ourselves from the criminal minority.

That balancing mechanism involves some sort of *objective* measure of risk weighed against the imposition the "fix" imposes on everyone else, and the effectiveness of the fix. So far, nobody has been able to EVER provide a single piece of data to measure the risk of NOT doing background checks on officials, or shown how the fix will reduce that risk.

And this should be easy to find, if in fact there is a problem. People have been officiating without background checks for decades - surely if this is a problem, there ought to be lots of data about it, right? Lots of police reports of officials who abuse their position to molest kids?

Right?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Not really - the fact that he is a human being who lives in a society puts him in place to befriend kids. He could have walked into the gym and sat down next to some kid and befriended him, or it is even likely that he is already friends with lots of kids, like his relatives.

No....officiating game gives an official acess that a fan wouldn't have had. They have repeated contacts with the same kids in a trusting environment that allows the offender to develop a trust with the child.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Barn door, except this barn has no sides, roof, or door for that matter.

So, since you can't close all access, don't bother with any...particularly the most likely or the most easily addressed?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Officiating does not provide anyone with any special access to kids - that is the danger, not the fact that you are there and kids are there - that happens everytime I walk into my local grocery store.

Sure it does. Positions of authority, even if in limited venues, give access that the random person does not have.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Emotive nonsense. Of course once is too much - but that doesn't mean that any all imposition on others (99.999% of whom are perfectly innocent) is justified as long as it can stop one single instance of a crime being committed.

Citation please? You might be suprised to find that he number of offenders is a bit higher than 0.001%.

Originally Posted by Berkut

That same logic can (and has) been used to justify any kind of restriction of liberty or invasion of privacy. The reality is that bad things will happen. We don't want to live in a police state (and in fact most police states still ahve bad things happening anyway - generally much MORE bad things), so we have presumably decided that there should be some kind of balancing mechanism for how we restrict the innocent majority in order to protect ourselves from the criminal minority.

That balancing mechanism involves some sort of *objective* measure of risk weighed against the imposition the "fix" imposes on everyone else, and the effectiveness of the fix. So far, nobody has been able to EVER provide a single piece of data to measure the risk of NOT doing background checks on officials, or shown how the fix will reduce that risk.

And this should be easy to find, if in fact there is a problem. People have been officiating without background checks for decades - surely if this is a problem, there ought to be lots of data about it, right? Lots of police reports of officials who abuse their position to molest kids?

Right?

Do you not think that the whole idea of a background check was started by having kids molested only to find out that the teacher/coach/referee had a record of the same behavior elsewhere that would have been easily discovered with a simple background check?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you not think that the whole idea of a background check was started by having kids molested only to find out that the teacher/coach/referee had a record of the same behavior elsewhere that would have been easily discovered with a simple background check?

No. I think the teachers and coaches got started that way. Officials got thrown in when someone realized we weren't included in the background checks. IOW, it didn't matter that the problem wasn't there, only that we weren't included in the solution.

It's a warm-fuzzy that does more harm than good, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's a warm-fuzzy that does more harm than good, IMO.

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.

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't once too much?

Camron, I would argue that if it only has happened once or twice, it may in fact not be worth the burden of background checks (recognizing the level of burden they represent is under debate).

Legislation is often debated with this in mind, "if it even saves one life...." Well, with this particular topic, they could apply all sorts of draconian measures to ensure no child is harmed by an official. Let's put GPS tags on every one so we know who was where and when. Hey, if it stops even one instance, isn't it worth it?

Once is too much, but it's not a debate ending argument for anything.

Speed limits get the same treatment, "if it saves even one life...." Well, not really, we could virtually eliminate traffic accidents with a 20 mph limit everywhere combined with very heavy traffic enforcement. But it would bring commerce to a virtual halt.

Obviously background checks for officials isn't nearly as draconian as a 20 mph speed limit on the interstates. It all needs to be weighed, though, and if the benefit is just one or two, we can debate whether it's worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent on background checks nation wide.

Personally, I'm not convinced it would even prevent one; not in ways a simple sex-registry check wouldn't cover. But then again, I seem to be in the minority by thinking only sex-related crimes should be relevant for this particular issue.