Background checks

[EsqUmp]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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?

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

[EsqUmp]

"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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

"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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by elmsa100

Coming from a place that has high statistics of child abuse cases, I find it admirable to hear about any system implemented to prevent this. Yes it is flawed but still IMO it is better than nothing at all. I guess what should be done is to put up some measures that will improve the system so as to avoid wrongfully accusing innocent persons. Just my two cents….

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.

[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

[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!