Standard American response. The "I'd rather feel good" about something then actually doing something good Chicken Little attitude.

Background checks work differently depending on where you are. In New York, most officials have to be fingerprinted in order to work public high school games. In order to get fingerprinted, officials have to go to police stations or Dept of Ed offices that have "live scan" fingerprinting. Because it's based on fingerprints (not merely a name or date of birth), there is virtual no possibility of mistake. The Dept of Ed then gets a fingerprint response for the individual. Should the official be arrested, a response is automatically generated. Should the official choose to stop officiating, he/she can apply to have the fingerprints destroyed. Contrary to what many have argued, merely having a prior conviction doesn't bar officials from certification. The Dept of Ed takes into account the nature of the crime and when occurred. Aside from having to pay around $100 for this, there really haven't been any problems.

I wish we had an icon for COLOR ME SKEPTICAL. I would make it bold for all 4 comments.

It's been said before, but....
They are a waste of time. There's a local school district who's assistant AD was just arrested for inappropriate stuff. He was fully checked on his background check, passed all of the state's requirements for school employees, ... all of this while in a relationship with a student athlete.

You have conveniently missed the point.

If one's fingerprints are not in the system, then they are useless. Again, unless someone has previously been caught or volunteered information, they will not be prevented from any type of licensing, certification or anything else.

IOW, as has been so apparent in recent discoveries that a BI prevents absolutely nothing and is a waste of time and money.

OTH, not checking at all has the potential to stop no one, right? By conducting these 'worthless' checks, does it also detour some who have no business being there in the first place? I am not sure that is a bad thing.

So because not everyone who behaves inappropriately has a criminal conviction, background checks are entirely worthless? Yeah, that makes sense. I guess we should stop fingerprinting teachers, police officers, day care providers, prosecutors, child protective services employees, etc. If fingerprinting deters some from ever applying or results in someone being rejected, then it does work and it works 100% as it pertains to that person. No one said it was perfect, but it's better than nothing.

You clearly speak while having no experience with this. I know officials who have convictions, but based on the age or type of conviction, can still officiate. Fingerprints are regularly destroyed in NYS, such as when someone who was arrested gets acquitted. For officials (or teachers or anyone else fingerprinted for work), you simply fill out a form. The state is legally required to return your prints. No two people have the same fingerprints (unlike DNA with identical twins). With the 10,000 or so fingerprint responses I've dealt with, I've never had the wrong person.

How can the state "return" your prints if they're digitized? :confused::confused::confused:

In NC, they no longer "ink" your fingertips. It's all digitally scanned on-site.

"Return" is the old term that is still used. Even when they used ink to print you (many still do this), the prints were then scanned into a computer data system. So even then, they had to be removed from the database. In New York, the prints are removed from the system and you are given a certified confirmation of such.

Even if they say they've destroyed it, I have zero confidence that they absolutely do destroy it. There have been plenty of cases in which government agencies claim that they properly handled this or that, only to find out later that they were so backed up, they skipped a few dozen here or there.

Hell, we've even had mail carriers say, "I'm done with my route today," only to find out months later that they were keeping the mail at their own house.

Bottom line: I don't trust people I don't know, and I sure as hell do not trust bureaucracies to do what they say they'll do.

You know, they have this cute little function in the lower right-hand corner of a post that actually provides you the ability to cite the post to which you are referring.

Again, you can have all the fingerprints you want, it doesn't mean a thing and, yes, they are useless in prevention unless, as has been previously stated numerous times, the person had already been caught.

And, yes, I've been fingerprinted for many different reasons, from my security clearance to weapons permit, and it still doesn't make any difference, all they are good for is identifying me AFTER the fact.

To echo what Mike said, how are background checks preventing anything? Can they tell if someone may offend in the future? Schools have been doing background checks for ages, yet you still hear of the occaissional incident where teacher and student are involved in inappropriate relationships. Did the background checks prevent that???

All background checks do is mine data on innocent persons. They invade those peoples' rights, IMO, just so that a few misguided persons can feel good that "at least we are doing something to make our children safe." Quit looking to other groups to protect your children, and do it yourself.

The FBI and NICS checks being the perfect example. Those weren't even inadvertently retained either, they were intentionally retained.

Well, I kind of anticipated they'd retain mine, but that was a trade-off that I was willing to make to get my CCH.