[Artemisia] Re: Background Checks

[Richard Samul]

I fear where this policy is leading us. Already, on several lists,  
there have been comments of "good riddance" - and even implied  
threats of physical violence. There has even been a suggestion that  
sex offenders as a whole should not be allowed to join the SCA.

That is not the SCA I joined.

Sex offenses are reprehensible. No one knows that better than I. But,  
as bad as they are, it should be remembered that the sex offenders  
are people. Granted, there are a few who fall into the "heartless,  
soulless monster" category, but for the most part, a convicted sex  
offender is someone who is trying to pick up the pieces of their life  
and who usually manages to live as a productive member of the  
community. It should also be remembered that not every convicted sex  
offender has committed a crime against a child. There are a myriad  
number of ways to get onto a sex offender registry, including  
convictions for solicitation of prostitution, or being an 18 year old  
having sex with a 17 year old girlfriend with an over-protective parent.

Sex offenders who have committed crimes against children shouldn't be  
allowed to supervise children. And those who seek to be in such a  
position should be banished absolutely from the SCA. Period, end of  
discussion. But, if we begin excluding sex offenders (whatever their  
crime) from even participating in the SCA at any level, then we have  
lost something. At a bare minimum, we will have lost whatever  
knowledge or skills they possess. And that is not an SCA that I want  
to be a part of.

So, I beg this of the members of this list: Know that, based on sheer  
percentages, there are sex offenders on this list. You may be shocked  
to find out who they are. The debate and discussion, while much  
needed for the protection of children from those who would prey on  
them, needs to be conducted on an unemotional level.

Thoughtfully,

Earc
Arn Hold
Artemisia