[Artemisia] background checks

[Richard Samul]

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