Background Checks

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[Amesman]

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.

[M&M Guy]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I assume someone in Mayberry, NC would enter the info so that someone else in Beverly Hills can see the record.

Ironic that you would say that. This year's president of our local rec league is the spitting image of Floyd the barber! Not kidding.