Background Checks

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There doesn't have to be an explanation. Such criminals just have to live with the fact that they will not be welcome in some circles and there will be many occupations they will never qualify for. They gave up many of their rights (even the right to an explanation) the moment they chose to commit the crime.

Wow, I thought I was hard core. I disagree that there doesn't have to be an explanation. I agree that there are some crimes that carry permanent penalties, but in those cases there are compelling reasons for those. They can be explained. If someone who gets charged and convicted of murder for what happened in a bar fight when he was 19 loses his right to drink alcohol for the rest of his life, that can be fairly argued. Tim Donaghy has likely lost his right to ever officiate again, and it makes sense. Pete Rose, same thing with baseball.

If we're going to exclude a long-ago murderer from officiating, I think they deserve the right to an explanation. The connection is lost on me. I'm not above reason on this, though.

Also, as I've said, if a majority reached a consensus differing from my opinion, I'd have an easy time going along.

Back to M&M's question though. Is this really a problem?