Background Checks

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:[LIST=1][*]That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime[LIST][*]I've provided an example that directly refutes those ideas...that the claim that officials don't get such access is false. They do...maybe not as much as teachers or coaches...but they do.

This is incorrect. You have not shown an example of where officials have access due to their being officials that is somehow more privileged than they would otherwise.

Everyone has "access" to kids - since we don't lock kids away in a tower.

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

[*]Most people convicted or just about any crime have a hard time changing their behavior....why allow them (those who have a problem that could impact the kids) in a position that puts them closer to the kids than the general public.

Officials are not "closer" to kids than the general public. The general public is MUCH closer to kids than an official acting in his official capacity. Indeed, I have never once been alone with a child due to my job as an official, yet I am alone with children almost every single day outside that capacity. I suspect this is true for almost all officials.

Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.

No, the demand for them has no merit, and since the burden of proof is on those asking us to submit to them, that ought to be telling. There has not been a single compelling argument made for background checks. The claim that this is a problem has, as its totality of evidence, a single unsourced and un-examined anecdotal "just so" story, while repeated requests for objective measures of the problem have been refused.

The opposition is incredibly simple - you don't have the right to poke around in other people private lives unless you can show a compelling need to do so. No such need has been shown, or even attempted to be shown.

Your entire argument sums up to "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, then it should not matter if I dig into your personal life".

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

I've asked for the statistics of how many officials have been negatively affected by leaked information...and I've yet to get those. So, by your standard, the leaking of information is not a problem at all.

Originally Posted by Berkut

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

You've yet to provide how it harms the officials to be checked...where are those statistics?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

Again, you confuse personal info with public information.

If someone killed 3 people in a bank robbery 20 years ago, they made the choice to forever be a saddled with their crime. Why would I let my friends work with such a person without them knowing who they are working with? Why would I allow them to work games for my friend's kids without making it known so that they can make their own informed decision. I'm not willing to take on that responsibility for others.

[Adam]

Camron, Berkut's point is that the burden is on those who wish to require background checks rather than on those who wish to refrain. Without a compelling benefit, that burden doesn't seem to be met.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, Berkut's point is that the burden is on those who wish to require background checks rather than on those who wish to refrain. Without a compelling benefit, that burden doesn't seem to be met.

Bingo.

I don't have to prove that I will be harmed in order to refuse to allow someone to dig into my private life - rather you have to prove that any potential harm done to me by said digging is outweighed by a compelling need. And pages and pages of debate later, there has still not be one single piece of objective evidence provided that there is any actual problem here that needs solving.

This is pretty basic stuff, really. According to Camron's idea of "liberty" police should be allowed to search anyone's home anytime they like, even without a warrant - after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind anyway...

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Berkut

And pages and pages of debate later, there has still not be one single piece of objective evidence provided that there is any actual problem here that needs solving.

Being that I am in DC and associated with the military - this sounds like our government/military at work.

Let's throw money at it or invent a new process - but, is there really a need or problem to solve? As Berkut says, while I'm sure we don't have all the data, it has not been proven that there is an issue.

[grunewar]

One of our Local Rec Leagues just opened their website for this year's fall and winter registration. Under the "Volunteer" Section, which includes referees is:

III. KIDS SAFE PROGRAM INFORMATION:

The following information is required from all adults participating in activities that involve children.

*Have you lived at your present address for the past 5 years: -CHOOSE-Yes/No
If NO list previous address:

Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of any of the following applicable offenses:
*Murder? NoYes
*Child Pornography? NoYes
*Rape? NoYes
*Kidnapping or abducting a child? NoYes
*Child Abuse? NoYes
*Distribution of a controlled substance? NoYes

If you answered yes to any of these questions, please explain:

*Please read the following statement and check the box to indicate your agreement.

I understand my appointment to a position is contingent upon my consenting to undergo and successfully complete a criminal records check.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of any of the following applicable offenses:
*Murder? NoYes
*Child Pornography? NoYes
*Rape? NoYes
*Kidnapping or abducting a child? NoYes
*Child Abuse? NoYes
*Distribution of a controlled substance? NoYes

A guy who ran for State Representative in my district in 2008 (fortunately, he lost) just plead guilty in a plea agreement to incest. He was originally charged with raping his "estranged" daughter. Maybe incest should be on their list. Oh yeah - I knew the guy because we were both members of the local Chamber of Commerce.

In case you're interested, here's the story:

Former Tigard legislative candidate pleads guilty to incest charge