[Artemisia] SCA

[heather garrison]

So here may be a better line


On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:21:12 -0600
  Richard Samul <scascot at mac.com> wrote:
> The short answer to the question is "no".
> 
> A background investigation will only reveal someone who has already  been 
>convicted of the crime in question (actually, it will reveal  *any* sex 
>crime, regardless of whether or not it involved children).  It will not, and 
>I must stress NOT, reveal anyone who is suspected  of, or currently being 
>investigated for, this type of crime. And if  the person isn't even a blip on 
>law enforcement radar, there is  absolutely zero chance of them being 
>revealed by a background check.
> 
> The only thing a background investigation does is to reveal known sex 
> offenders. In most (not all) cases, these are people who are trying  to get 
>on with their lives after their conviction and prison term. A  very small 
>percentage of convicted sex offenders are simple  predators, who lack the 
>ability to learn from a mistake and correct  their lives. Yet, these are the 
>ones who grab the headlines, and have  the country in a panic that "something 
>must be done" (see: the Shasta  Groene case).
> 
> So. Background investigations = good. Keeps the known where you can  see 
>them. Should it be a glaring spotlight? Not in my opinion.  However, 
>background investigations <> total security. Just because  someone passed a 
>check doesn't mean they're safe. The government and  the SCA can't do it all 
>for you, nor should they. You must, at some  point, take responsibility for 
>the safety of your children.
> 
> The case in question is a perfect example. The SCA simply could not  have 
>known anything was amiss, despite claims from the plaintiffs to  the 
>contrary. The SCA had no reason to investigate or have concern  until the 
>matter was brought to their attention. The abuses happened  at a 
>non-SCA-sponsored, private event outside the control or auspices  of the SCA. 
>Even under the proposed rules for background  investigation, there wouldn't 
>have been one, because of the nature of  the gathering. And, the 
>investigation for his holding office wouldn't  have shown anything, anyway, 
>because he wasn't a convicted sex  offender at that point.
> 
> The responsibility here rests squarely on the parents of the children  to 
>(a) know the person they are leaving their children with, and (b)  be 
>approachable by their children. Sadly, it appears that neither  happened, and 
>the SCA is being blamed as a result.
> 
> -- 
> Earc
> 2 pence
> 
> On May 10, 2007, at 8:10 AM, tangl wrote:
> 
>>  Excuse me, but would that have even shown up on a background  
>> check? He was involved in the SCA for 10 years as a youth group  
>> minister, but didn't get caught during the entire time he was a  
>> predator. Background checks, even the extensive kind done by the  
>> Idaho State Patrol, only shows up investigations. If this guy was  
>> sucessfully abusing these children for a decade, no background  
>> check would have shown his evil side. Was this predator actually  
>> investigated and cleared several times or something? Or did this  
>> conviction happen all at once, with a flood of children brave  
>> enough to step forward once the first one(s) did? A situation like  
>> that wouldn't have shown up on a background check, even if we  
>> required them at the First Garden Party. I guess I don't want the  
>> SCA held responsible because we didn't utilize the mind-reading  
>> software we so obviously have been hiding from the  
>> government.Maitresse Tanglwyst de HollowayBarony of Arn HoldKingdom  
>> of Artemisia-Chuck Norris can
>> believe it's not butter.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
>> Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Artemisia mailing list
>> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia