Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post. )

I didn't stop reading nor did I mean to imply my points were in response to your. I was just summarizing the most common objections made by all.

I never said I would "leak" information. If I found out information from a confidential source, I wouldn't spread it outside of appropriate channels. If I knew about from public records (e.g., the newpaper), I would have no problem telling others. That is the difference. If it IS private, I respect that. But much of what has been said to be private is not.

As for the police...they're not allowed to use the police systems to conduct such checks but they're not forbidden from searching in the same ways available to the public.

The percentage of convictions is entirely irrelevant...unless it is 0.

True enough about 1st time offenders...but it will prevent 2nd time offenders from coming from the officiating ranks. Or, are you saying that since you can't stop them all, you shouldn't try to stop any?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't stop reading nor did I mean to imply my points were in response to your. I was just summarizing the most common objections made by all.

I never said I would "leak" information. If I found out information from a confidential source, I wouldn't spread it outside of appropriate channels. If I knew about from public records (e.g., the newpaper), I would have no problem telling others. That is the difference. If it IS private, I respect that. But much of what has been said to be private is not.

As for the police...they're not allowed to use the police systems to conduct such checks but they're not forbidden from searching in the same ways available to the public.

The percentage of convictions is entirely irrelevant...unless it is 0.

True enough about 1st time offenders...but it will prevent 2nd time offenders from coming from the officiating ranks. Or, are you saying that since you can't stop them all, you shouldn't try to stop any?

My follow up question would be whether you'd feel compelled to tell others about information you got from a background check but you assumed was public record.

Yes, police can use other publicly available channels for such things as getting backgrounds on their kids' dates. But even for that, you need a name and date of birth (at least here in CO). Other states, that may not be available without consent of the subject of the check.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't try to stop any. I'm saying that "even just one" may or may not be worth the effort and expense and privacy invasions. I'm saying it's debatable. If it were a thousand such cases that would have been prevented, it's a no-brainer. If it's zero known cases that would have been prevented, then the question is still unanswered.

Every available means is not necessarily the right way to go. You're right, if it's just $6.95 for a compilation of publicly available information; I'm okay with it with the strong caveat that I want to know who has access to that file, where it's stored (the storage would cover both sides of this, the official and the person who made the decision), and what kind of clearance and training those with access have had.