[MR] Society Notice

[ldmolly at md.metrocast.net]

While I applaud the SCA for taking steps to safeguard it's children, I
hope the use of background checks will not lure people into a false sense
of security. A background check does not mean someone WON'T commit a
crime, it simply means they HAVEN'T done one YET (or pushing the reasoning
even further: haven't been CAUGHT yet). There are a great many law abiding
people in the SCA (and in the country), but there are also a great many
crimes of opportunity. Having SCA-wide policies such as two adults present
and parental involvement will do much to reduce such opportunity for
predators.

The other issue to consider is of the use of these background checks will
open the SCA up for additional liability in the event someone who's had a
check DOES offend. What if the check's not through enough? Does that make
us liable for not doing ENOUGH to safeguard our members? I'm no lawyer, so
I thought I'd post the question here for debate. I do want to say I think
background checks are A GOOD THING, they're just no substitute for
parental vigilence.

Molly