Background Checks

[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.

[constable]

Originally Posted by 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.

Man some people are paranoid.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by constable

Man some people are paranoid.

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The "right" comparson would be either:

- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information regarding an offiical that was obtained through the official's background check has been leaked to the general public.


or:

- An official person harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The "right" comparson would be either:

- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information regarding an offiical that was obtained through the official's background check has been leaked to the general public.


or:

- An official person harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

While I understand your attempt to make a "proper" comparison, I am still focused on the underlying questions: Has there EVER been a case, or cases, of a sports official harming a child, and the initial or repeated contact with that child was a result of that person being an official? And, secondly, is there a reasonable chance that case or cases would have been prevented if there had been a background check?

In other words, is there really a problem that needs to be addressed?

As for possible leaking of information, no, I do not have official records or statistics, but I am going on anecdotal information on leaks. I think we are all aware of most of the high-profile cases, such as the names on the baseball PHD list that continue to be leaked, and I'm sure most of us are aware of more local examples. Can I be sure my information - name, address, SS#, arrest record, types of books overdue, etc., - is just as safe in some state high school association office as it is in a federal courthouse?

More importantly, if the reports are not filtered, why would I want to supply more than the required information to the state? If the state has made the requirement that only felonies involving drugs or sex, especially around children, are the only criteria for rejection of a license, then they should not need to know about the manslaughter conviction from 25 years ago, or that the overdue book is The Kama Sutra. You can argue that manslaughter should be a criteria - fine, make it so. If it is not, then the people involved in making those decisions (who do not belong to a government agency or law enforcement) do not need to know non-essential information.

So, if there are documented cases of officials with prior records doing harm to the kids they come in contact with, then I'm all for doing what is necessary to both protect the kids and keep me from being associated with those scumbags. But I should only have to supply the necessary information, not any more. And there should be sufficient safeguards in place to protect that information. If there is no real problem, then there is no necessary information to provide.

[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.