Background checks

[Steve M]

"wouldn’t it be nice " if we all obeyed every law? Wouldn't it be nice if we all did what was right - all the time.
The fact is - we don't - so there are laws and consequences. When I am caught speeding, I get a ticket. I any of us are caught stealing, assaulting, killing, ... - we pay a price. No warnings, just pay the price. Laws do not prevent people from breaking them. Knowing the consequences of being caught may keep some of us from breaking them.

Mike and others are right - these checks are a waste of moneys that should be better spent elsewhere. They are a waste of the time involved. They are an unneeded invasion of non-criminal lives. AND they are proven not to work.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by elmsa100

I do agree that background checks do not always prevent anything, but still it is unfair to deny that in some cases they do help, BUT that is something that we cannot positively prove since nobody can gather data or statistics of a crime that was prevented from happening. We just have to go with the gut feeling that a possible crime was prevented when we don’t allow a multiple child offender to work with children.

Sure it is every parent’s responsibility to keep their own children safe but since we cannot be with them every single minute of the day, wouldn’t it be nice to know that other groups are keeping an eye on them when we can’t?

Ask yourself what would you do if your child was harmed by someone that did pass a BI? What would be your next step to protect the child?

Effectiveness is about the same as a security blanket that makes you feel comfortable in believing a "no fly" zone or the so-called additional security at airports actually protects people or that gun control prevents crime.

The company I work for runs prints, polygraphs, credit checks and BIs every propect and we still have issues with security among our employees on a regular basis.

If they are worth anything it is merely a deterent, but still the only people that get flagged are the ones who have already been caught.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If they are worth anything it is merely a deterent, but still the only people that get flagged are the ones who have already been caught.

and doing nothing will not 'deter' anyone who has previous issues.

Spent many a meetings with my city's park board concerning this very issue, and the consensus is pretty much what you say when it comes to 'preventing those who have not been caught'. Legally, there is little an organization can do to stop that for obvious reasons. However, the City's stance is that want to do everything in their power to prevent those who have been caught before (and yes, they understand that is not 100% effective)

Doing nothing, prevents nothing is their mantra. They are very careful to spell this out while also spelling out the flaws aswell to the parents and this is a continual educational process. These checks not only include coaches, but umpires, adult concession workers and board members. My only 'stipulation' that I had to fight for was the source of the check, and convinced them that ASA's ACE program would be the most secure and private. (at first they were willing to let some 'local yokel' perform the checks. and we all know the problems that could occur with that)

I simply have no problem with this. (and I give up much more 'privacy info', submitting a resume and applying online for a jobs these days

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

and doing nothing will not 'deter' anyone who has previous issues.

Well, not even to that good of an extent as we are lucky to get 2 of 10 to pass. If we get 4 of 10, we think we hit the lottery. That means that nearly 80% of those caught still believe they can get by it.

And I will still stand on the point that if an umpire is alone with a child, something is wrong and no check of any type is going to prevent that.

BTW, I believe it should be pointed out that the entire episode which led to this heightened awareness this year had absolutely nothing to do with softball or players, ASA, HS or otherwise.

Then again, if we did BIs on everyone who is permitted a level of responsibility, there would be a very large, empty buildings between the D Streets in the center of DC

[okla21fan]

Mike,
Honest question here: You say your company runs a much stronger 'check(s)' yet you still have issues. If that is the case, why run those checks in the first place?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Mike,
Honest question here: You say your company runs a much stronger 'check(s)' yet you still have issues. If that is the case, why run those checks in the first place?

Because of the nature of the business; To satisfy the insurance companies, customers/banks and firearms laws and regulations.

And it still doesn't keep the bad guys out.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by elmsa100

The same way that I would feel when someone with a record harmed my child and it could have been prevented if somebody had made a background check…homicidal! Having this system doesn’t make me relax and feel safe at all when it comes to my children’s safety, I think that no parent would ever achieve that level of security about safety issues at all. I still believe that with a little polish and improvement this could work, I read someone mentioning about having a “reliable source” that IMO is a step in the right direction.

Background checks can never work. For all of the reasons already postulated. They cannot predict the future, or future behavior. The next step that people who support this type of thinking will want is for all potential umpires to undergo psychological evaluation before being allowed to take the field.

Oh, crap, I should have kept my mouth shut!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

The next step that people who support this type of thinking will want is for all potential umpires to undergo psychological evaluation before being allowed to take the field.

Well, to be honest, there are a few umpires I know who could probably benefit from this. Some fellas have got some serious issues!

[tcannizzo]

Here is the central issue.
A clean background check will never prevent someone from breaking the law.
BUT: If someone breaks the law and a background check wasn't done previously, there is hell to pay.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Here is the central issue.
A clean background check will never prevent someone from breaking the law.
BUT: If someone breaks the law and a background check wasn't done previously, there is hell to pay.

Yep, pretty much.

Let's move on, shall we?

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And what makes you think those would not be vulnerable? What has caused this mess is the bleeding hearts and attorneys who have convinced cowardly judges who have turned what used to be a pretty decent country into a socialistic quagmire.

Of course, the moronic electorate is so gullible, I don't believe it will get better in my lifetime.

And AFA background checks are concerned, they are a feel-good joke that is an embarassment to any intelligent human being.

You got it rite.