[Artemisia] Re: Background Checks
Andrea Waddell
aravis227 at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 17 15:45:46 CDT 2007
Thank you! I completely agree with your response and have been struggling
to put my own feelings on this topic into words. Your missive has helped to
me to figure out exactly why it is that I have been feeling this way about
it. There are bound to be problems with this policy, as there are going to
be with any policy. I wrote a (rather long) email with my commentary,
concerns, and questions to the address that Mistress Thea posted earlier
today for that purpose. I would be more than willing to send it to anyone
who is curious, especially if/when I receive a response. I am not a parent,
but I am a big sister, an "Aunt" to a lot of kids and I live with two for
whom I take a parental role. I am completely in support of the background
checks because Lord Kuro is absolutely correct. Do we really want to allow
someone who refuses to undergo a simple background check to spend time with
the children in our kingdom? When it comes to MY safety, I am absolutely of
the opinion that people should be allowed their privacy. But that is
because I am an adult. I can look at the person next to me and make a
judgement of them based on my knowledge of them and my previous experiences.
And, if necessary, I can (and have had to) defend myself. But when it
comes to caring for children (or people who can not defend themselves, I
have worked with disabled adults in the past) I fully support the idea of
"you shouldn't have a problem with it if you don't have something to hide."
Because a child can't defend themselves. And a very young child usually
doesn't even where that line between appropriate and inappropriate is. That
is one of the reasons that so many cases of molestation are not reported
until the child is older. And even as they get older, they can not, or will
not, defend themselves against an adult who is in a position of authority.
We train them that way. "Listen to your teacher and do what they say." We
HAVE to tell them that to ensure that they behave, to make sure they respect
authority, but that is why it is the schools' job to do their best to make
sure that people who have a history of hurting children aren't there.
People get through, all systems have flaws. However, there are tools we can
use to lower the odds. It is our job as adults to protect kids as much as
possible from people who would harm them, and since we can't be there every
minute of every day it is the responsibility of those who are going to be
taking care of them to prove to us that they are trustworthy. I completely
agree with the sentiment in Kuro's email that the offender could have
thought ahead. Even if they are someone who has truly tried to change their
life and who has not had an offenses since they were punished. This person
still made the choice at one time to hurt another person. And it was that,
it was a CHOICE. And if that person has truly come to terms with what they
did and they have/are recovering, they will understand why it is that they
can not be in a position of authority over children. Why would they WANT to
put themselves in a position where they would be tempted to offend again?
Because I also agree with Morgan, when someone has truly molested or raped
another person, they may not actually do it again, but that thought will
always be there. I undergo a background check once a year for one of my
employers. I have absolutely no problem with this because I understand that
there are people out there who HAVE done wrong and who would not hesitate to
do it again. People who will actively look for opportunities to do it
again. It has been said before in this conversation and I will reiterate
it. It is a very sad state of affairs that this is what the world has come
to. But it HAS come to this. We would all like to believe that the SCA is
a safe haven. Somewhere that everyone has honor. But look at how many
missives you've seen over the last year where someone's entire kit, their
pavilion, their garb, various important SCA items were stolen at an event,
or by someone who seemed to know what they were looking for in their
house/garage/trailer. How many times have you heard about an adult being
assaulted, or someone attempts to assault them? I have heard more of these
stories than I care to remember, and ONE was too many. Crimes are being
committed within the SCA and, like it or not, we need to take steps to
protect ourselves and our children.
-Maysun
>From: Kevin <shadow4549 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list
><artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>To: artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>Subject: [Artemisia] Re: Background Checks
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Konnichi wa,
>
> I am going to weigh-in on this discussion even though I told myself to
>stay out of it.
>
> For those of you who don't know me I am Lord Minamoto Genkuro Kagetane
>of Sentinels' Keep. I am a single father of two small children, Cub Scout
>Den Leader, and an aspiring high school science teacher. To put it bluntly
>I work with kids...alot.
>
> Anyone who is in my position whill tell you that the background checks
>should be required for anyone who has the potential of coming into close
>contact with children. It serves two purposes. It protects the children and
>protects the Society.
>
> Is it harmful to anyone? No. Only if they fail the check in which case I
>have to wonder if we really want them around anyway. Yes, I have seen the
>squeeling about statutory rape can be slapped on anyone and it doesn't make
>them a criminal. Wrong. It does. They chose not to abide by the laws of the
>land. Does it equate to Justice? Can't tell you but a bit of intelligence
>and forthought on their part would have prevented it I am sure.
>
> Personally, if a person has a problem with taking a background check
>prior to being closely involved in childrens activities then is this a
>person you want in close contact with your children on any level? Think
>about it. Do you want to put the chance of having the Society embroiled in
>a mess and becoming disbanded because one of your "friends" that was in
>charge of childrens activities was a serial child molester/rapist who
>preyed on the children in their charge? I think not.
>
> From what I understand of this it only involves those who will or could
>potentially be in close contact with our minor children. It is not meant to
>be exclusionary of anyone in other activities. As such I can't see it as a
>bad thing. Also I am not so sure that statuatory rape charges show up on
>these checks since they are all too often a gray area,but perhaps someone
>could ask a law enforcement officer?
>
> Sincerely;
>
> Kuro
>
>
>
>
>artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org wrote:
>
>9. RE: Re: Background Checks (Dame Theodora)
>
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:39:21 -0800
>From: Dame Theodora
>Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Re: Background Checks
>To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list
>
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>We are not talking about eliminating categories of people from
>participating in the SCA. We are talking about exercising due diligence to
>show that we are doing what we can to make sure that child predators are
>not put in a position to supervise children. As of this time, those are the
>only people expected to be part of a background check.
>
>If we do not do this, and someone decides to sue because their child was
>harmed by someone with a criminal record who was in charge of children's
>activities, they will have a good chance to win. A large cost lawsuit could
>jeopardize the Society as a whole.
>
>As a Seneschal, I am relieved that there will be a background check
>process. It is an objective means to evaluate a very delicate situation.
>The same criteria will be applied to everyone.
>
>I am aware that this does not address situations where someone hasn't been
>caught or prosecuted, but it is a step in the right direction, in my
>opinion. I am also not looking for a witch hunt. I know several people who
>are registered sex offenders. But they are not seeking positions of
>authority with the children of the SCA.
>
>
>~Theodora
>Seneschal, Loch Salann
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Theodora of Trebizond, OP
>Loch Salann, Artemisia
>"Efficio Novae Res"
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>
>
>End of Artemisia Digest, Vol 43, Issue 18
>*****************************************
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag3
More information about the Artemisia
mailing list