Perverts, New Laws and its impact

[scottk_61]

Most of you have read how in Florida this year a little girl was kidnapped and killed by a pervert sex offender.
That girl was Jessica Lunsford and what happened to her is beyond horrible.
We are all offended that a child could be harmed like this.


Since that happened, the Florida Legislature passed a new law that was signed by the governor. The Lusford Act is the name of this revision of an existing law.
Florida Statute 1012.32.

Only now, about eight weeks before the law coming into use (September 1st) has anyone really taken a look at what it means.

Effective this year, if you officiate for Florida schools,

1. You have to have a background check that includes a nationwide FBI check called a Level 2
Not a problem for the vast majority of us but......
The list of disqualifies is extensive and there is at present no course of appeal.
If you have paid the penalty of your felony offense and have restored you voting rights, too bad.

2. If you work in more than one county, you must have a separate background check for each county.
Why? Each county?

3. You have to pay in excess of 60 dollars for each background check.
No agency has agreed on the cost yet but everyone is pretty sure it is more than 60 dollars each

4. You have to have this background check where you are fingerprinted performed at the school district offices where an automated system scans your fingerprints and submits it.
So you have to travel to each County Seat to get a check done,

No problem for many, but I worked in ten counties in the 2004 season and in five counties in the 2005 season.

5. At present, there is no agreement as to who pays for this.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement does not know, The Florida Department of Education says the school systems must pay. Some school boards say the officials must absorb the cost.

In the county where I live, it will cost (to someone) between 30 to 40 thousand dollars

You read that right, $30,000 to $40,000 dollars.

At the present rates, Florida High School sports officials will (on average) have to work a minimum of three games just to pay for our registration and background checks

Then there are the issues for our school systems in that all volunteers on school grounds have to have this background check. So long to the homeroom moms, to the parents who keep the scorebooks, to the reading coaches etc unless you have the check done.

All deliveries to the schools also fall under this law. So now, the cafeteria deliveries are a problem, The UPS delivery is a problem, office supply deliveries are not allowed without a background check.

I have had one School Board member tell me that it is possible that the schools will not be able to perform their day-to-day business after September 1st.


What a mess,
First, you have to prove you are innocent then you have to pay to work.

A law designed to protect our kids is in the end going to hurt those very kids

[mcrowder]

I see your point.

I sure wouldn't want to have to spend a paltry $30K (a small sum when you're talking about every individual in a large state like Florida) to keep our kids safe. I sure wouldn't want our local sports league to have to spend $300 of it's hard earned money to ensure that the kids are not being stalked, or in danger of far worse.

Good grief.

Other than saying I think the state should possibly make it easier for potential employees (umpires) to get screened, I think this is a GREAT law.

[streamdoc]

Scott,

You have some good points here that generally fall into the "unfunded mandates suck" category. I also feel strongly about our constitutional rights, and feel that they should never, ever be violated by processes designed to protect. In other words, if a process is designed to protect individuals (our kids in this case) but violate the constituional rights of others (officials in this case) then we, as a society are no better for it. However, from what I've seen on this law, I don't feel that it violates anybody's rights. It just makes it inconvenient, and a bit costly to do our work. I'm the father of 2 (4yo boy & 6mo old girl). If just one wacko, pervert is kept out of reach of my kids, I'll gladly pony up the money to work where I choose to work. And let's not forget, we choose to provide this service. If you choose not to work in an area because of the cost of doing business, then that's fine. Now, that being said - back to my first sentence. I think we all could agree that finding ways to fund this process without passing the cost on to those of us that are providing a service to the kids and the community would be best, but that just isn't how things go.

Putting on flame retardant suit now.

[JEL]

http://eteamz.active.com/fastpitch/b...cfm?id=1333692



What price protection?

Somehow we MUST assure our children are protected from US.
The above link happened in my territory! Don't know if I have ever run across this guy, or team, but I easily could have. This can also be found anywhere!

I can assure you I have the kids safety and well being as an utmost priority. I have kids of my own, (hoping for grand ones someday), and dearly love being around children, and having them around me. There is no way in the world I would ever endanger a child.

How do you know that to be true?

I'm certain those who post on this board, and most of those involved with the kids can say the same as what I stated above.

How would we know that to be true?


The fact is, in the last few months or so, not so far from my home, there have been teachers, school administrators, day care providers, etc arrested for harming children. Those have already had the background check!

This new FL law may be a "knee jerk" reaction to Jessica's plight, but is it overboard? I really don't believe it is. I am not convinced background checks alone will solve the problem of abuse of children, but it may at the least help somewhat. It is my understanding the accussed killer of Jessica HAD a background check, was a registered sex offender yet was able to gain access to her.

It is a shame that so few have created the need for this concern, but the reality is there. What other options does government have to try and insure safety? Stronger punishment I think would be a deterent, yet many do not agree. Background checks alone are not enough, as seen in Jessica's case.

What can be done to keep our kids safe from predators? and What limit do we put on costs?

There is no simple answer.

[pollywolly60]

Are you certain that those costs have not been exaggerated? The reason I ask is that I own and operate a day care center out of my home for my "real" daytime job, and thus am required to have a thorough fingerprint background search done. This is a one-time cost of $27 here in the state of Georgia. I also have to have background searches done (no fingerprints) on any adults present in my home while the children are present, and the cost for this is significantly less, though I don't have that figure available at this time.

[AtlUmpSteve]

The point that I see consistently overlooked is that sports officials are NEVER alone with the youth players will performing out job responsibilities. That is not true of coaches, teachers, or school volunteers. How is it even considered that sports officials have an opportunity to abuse the youth when our activities are always performed with coaches, parents, and two full teams present?

In our area, one county agency wants background checks; other agencies have inquired what our position (as an association) would be if they mandated background checks. Our current position is that we will sign releases and submit to the checks (subject to the right of any individual to decline), but that we will not be responsible for any part of that cost. In other words, if you want it, you figure out how to pay for it. I personally would simply decline (and would use any influence I have over others) to participate in any program that wanted me to pay for their regulatory concerns, when, as I said, we are under continuous supervision.

[Dakota]

Russia and most/all of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had much lower crime rates under their former communist regimes than they do now.

Singapore has a reputation of being "crime free", but at what cost? In Singapore, the government "intervened in very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit or what language you use. We decide what's right. Never mind what the people think" (Lee Kwan Yew, the architect of modern Singapore).

A certain level of crime and insecurity is the price we have to pay for living in a society that encourages true democracy, civil liberties, and free expression.

"Crime free" societies where the individual is "secure" are not that rare. Do we want to copy them?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Here's a thought.

How about holding parents responsible for being the children's parents? That means that they don't drop off little Jenny and let the team be the baby-sitter. That means that the parents chose with whom they leave their children and the PC excuse, "well, I didn't want to offend anyone" is not an acceptable general excuse for being a stupid or lazy parent.

Will things happen? It is very possible and you can enact all the damn laws you want and regulate the **** out of people and it still will not stop bad people from being bad people and innocent people, regardless of age or gender, from being hurt.

[chiquita]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Here's a thought.

How about holding parents responsible for being the children's parents? That means that they don't drop off little Jenny and let the team be the baby-sitter. That means that the parents chose with whom they leave their children and the PC excuse, "well, I didn't want to offend anyone" is not an acceptable general excuse for being a stupid or lazy parent.

Will things happen? It is very possible and you can enact all the damn laws you want and regulate the **** out of people and it still will not stop bad people from being bad people and innocent people, regardless of age or gender, from being hurt.

AMEN!!!!

[scottk_61]

I don't know anyone who doesn't want the kids protected, it is just this law is way overboard.

Let me quote this applicable part to you,
"The security background investigations under this section must ensure that no persons subject to the provisions of this section have
been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to,
any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction:"

Then the list of disqualifiers is long, very long and most have nothing to do with sex and a lot of it has nothing to do with kids.

Here is the list as complete as I can make copy it :

a) Section 393.135, relating to sexual misconduct with certain developmentally disabled clients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(b) Section 394.4593, relating to sexual misconduct with certain mental health patients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(c) Section 415.111, relating to adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation of aged persons or disabled adults.
(d) Section 782.04, relating to murder.
(e) Section 782.07, relating to manslaughter, aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person of disabled adult, or aggravated manslaughter of a child.
(f) Section 782.071, relating to vehicular homicide.
(g) Section 782.09, relating to killing of an unborn child by injury to the mother.
(h) Section 784.011, relating to assault, if the victim of the offense was a minor.
(i) Section 784.021, relating to aggravated assault.
(j) Section 784.03, relating to battery, if the victim of the offense was a minor.
(k) Section 784.045, relating to aggravated battery.
(l) Section 784.075, relating to battery on a detention or commitment facility staff.
(m) Section 787.01, relating to kidnapping.
(n) Section 787.02, relating to false imprisonment.
(o) Section 787.04(2), relating to taking, enticing, or removing a child beyond the state limits with criminal intent pending custody proceedings.
(p) Section 787.04(3), relating to carrying a child beyond the state lines with criminal intent to avoid producing a child at a custody hearing or delivering the child to the designated person.
(q) Section 790.115(1), relating to exhibiting firearms or weapons within 1,000 feet of a school.
(r) Section 790.115(2)(b), relating to possessing an electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon on school property.
(s) Section 794.011, relating to sexual battery.
(t) Former s. 794.041, relating to prohibited acts of persons in familial or custodial authority.
(u) Chapter 796, relating to prostitution.
(v) Section 798.02, relating to lewd and lascivious behavior.
(w) Chapter 800, relating to lewdness and indecent exposure.
(x) Section 806.01, relating to arson.
(y) Chapter 812, relating to theft, robbery, and related crimes, if the offense is a felony.
(z) Section 817.563, relating to fraudulent sale of controlled substances, only if the offense was a felony.
(aa) Section 825.102, relating to abuse, aggravated abuse, or neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult.
(bb) Section 825.1025, relating to lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of an elderly person or disabled adult.
(cc) Section 825.103, relating to exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult, if the offense was a felony.
(dd) Section 826.04, relating to incest.
(ee) Section 827.03, relating to child abuse, aggravated child abuse, or neglect of a child.
(ff) Section 827.04, relating to contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a child.
(gg) Former s. 827.05, relating to negligent treatment of children.
(hh) Section 827.071, relating to sexual performance by a child.
(ii) Section 843.01, relating to resisting arrest with violence.
(jj) Section 843.025, relating to depriving a law enforcement, correctional, or correctional probation officer means of protection or communication.
(kk) Section 843.12, relating to aiding in an escape.
(ll) Section 843.13, relating to aiding in the escape of juvenile inmates in correctional institutions.
(mm) Chapter 847, relating to obscene literature.
(nn) Section 874.05(1), relating to encouraging or recruiting another to join a criminal gang.
(oo) Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control, only if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor.
(pp) Section 916.0175, relating to sexual misconduct with certain forensic clients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(qq) Section 944.35(3), relating to inflicting cruel or inhuman treatment on an inmate resulting in great bodily harm.
(rr) Section 944.46, relating to harboring, concealing, or aiding an escaped prisoner.
(ss) Section 944.47, relating to introduction of contraband into a correctional facility.
(tt) Section 985.4045, relating to sexual misconduct in juvenile justice programs.
(uu) Section 985.4046, relating to contraband introduced into detention facilities.


One of the stupid things that is going to get someone I know is that when he was 19 and in the military, he and some others took an MP's radio away.
He was charged and pled NO Contest.
Adjudication was withheld.
Under this new law, he can no longer work as an official.
By the way, he will now lose his job as a school employee too. He is a maintenance man for the school system.

I hate seeing laws like this inacted in this manner.

Protect the kids, on that we all agree but not like this.

[mcrowder]

While I, as a parent, am all for holding parents accountable, there WILL BE instances where the coach is with the children and the parents aren't around. Consider a travel tournment. Consider the bus/van to said tourney. Etc. While I think a great deal can be said about parents using sports as a babysitting event, I also know that even the best parents will not be with their children every second of the day. If I'm entrusting my children to authority figures, I think there's nothing wrong with making sure that there is at least some screening that goes on with said authority figures.

Now... as an umpire, I would find it uncommon if I were alone with someone's kids with no other adults around... but I can actually remember 3 occasions where that actually happened. Twice about 45 minutes before a first game - I was very early, and the kid walked over from school for their game and was also early. The 3rd was one of the kids I recognized walking home from her school in my subdivision. I gave her a ride the rest of the way. (And I did give that 2nd thoughts later, and probably won't do that again --- but if an umpire was a letch of some sort - he could probably find a way to make that happen more often and use his authority to gain trust)

[greymule]

Running background checks on everybody who wants to walk down the street will not be as effective as focusing on known offenders. Watch any of the Court TV shows, Forensic Files or whatever, and in almost all cases the guy who kidnaps and murders the little girl had a record (often a long one) of violent sex offenses.

I often umpire at Megan Kanka field in Hamilton, New Jersey. In 1994, the state moved three convicted sex offenders into a neighborhood and warned no one. One of them, Jesse Timmendequas, enticed 7-year-old Megan into his house with the promise of seeing a puppy. He then beat her into semiconsciousness, raped her, and strangled her to death. It's not clear exactly when she died, but she was dead when he dumped her body in the woods. Before leaving the site, he sodomized the body.

From the Crime Library:

"By the time he was in his late 20s, [Timmendequas] was already exhibiting signs of becoming a sexual predator."

Becoming a sexual predator?

"In 1979, he confessed to the attempted sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in the blue-collar suburb of Piscataway. He was given a suspended sentence, on condition that he undergo therapy. He didn't, and was subsequently sentenced to serve nine months in a county jail.

"Not long after his release from jail, he was arrested again, this time in connection with the sexual assault of a 7-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault and attempting to cause serious bodily injury to the girl. He spent six years at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel. . . .

"At his trial, Timmendequas's lawyer suggested that Megan Kanka brought the attack on herself, that she had approached Timmendequas and asked to see his puppy. 'Jesse didn't suggest it. He was minding his own business,' [said his mouthpiece]."

Timmendequas was sentenced to death, but New Jersey is run by bleeding hearts who will do anything and everything possible to see that he remains alive. He has a better chance of being released than of being executed.

I taught high school in the early 1970s and used to go back and substitute a few times a year, not for the measly pay but just to visit with people I knew. After I had subbed for a few years, the school told me that I was going to have to have a background check that consisted of fingerprinting, checks with mental hospitals, etc., before I could substitute again. Of course, the same checks I had undergone for purchasing firearms were not applicable. The trouble wasn't worth it, so I stopped substituting.

[blue_ape]

New York put a similar law in place two years ago; FBI check, fingerprinting, photo ID. Existing officials, teachers, deliverymen, etc., had the fee waived, but my first year was in 2004, so the $99 fee was my cost, and came on top of all those first year costs like uniforms and gear. If I show up for a school game without my ID, the school has the right to not allow me to work the game. Our ID # is required information on the vouchers we complete before the game. And I don't have a problem with any of it.

vs. Fla., at least my ID is valid statewide .

[Stat-Man]

I have mixed opinions about Megan's law and similar legislation.

I think most people do want their kids ot be in safe environments when it comes to school and extracurricular activities, but the main problem with many of these laws is that they are passed in hasty response to an unfortunate event with little thought given to the ramifications.

Our state's version of Megans law needs improving, in my opinion. Someone who had sex as minor with another minor can be convicted of the same crime as a child molester, yet I'd be more concerned about the latter living near me than the former. Yet our registry lists both with the same offense.

Hopefully with the Florida law, the lawmakers will realize that there will be some hitches that need adressing and do something to minimize the impact on the average person.

I do volunteer work with my church and I had to fill out forms for a background check. I had no problem with it, but I am curious how long the background check is good for and how tightly they plan to monitor volunteers.

[Edited by Stat-Man on Jun 30th, 2005 at 04:57 PM]

[greymule]

And don't assume that a background check will reveal what you want to know. You might flag someone who had been convicted of child molestation in court, but someone who had plea-bargained to disorderly conduct or agreed to a lesser charge on the condition he undergo counseling might not be in the database.

Would O. J. Simpson show up on any list?