Background checks

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You have conveniently missed the point.
Again, unless someone has previously been caught or volunteered information, they will not be prevented from any type of licensing, certification or anything else.

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.

[EsqUmp]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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 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.