[MR] Atlantia Digest, Vol 51, Issue 26

[AlexandKier Kenlon]

The background check actually limits out liability. If someone puts in for a
position dealing with children and we do a BG check on them and then they
later turn out to be a pedophile or other molester the group who ran the BG
check can show a good faith effort to make sure the person is 'safe' to be
with children. If it were to go to court, the group can show the judge the
BG check and say "But your honor, a background check performed by Acme
Background Checks Inc. and documented here on this form did not indicate
that the person in question was a pedophile when they put in for the
position."

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read about Scouts and Schoolboards, the
BG check has saved them from liability on numerous occasions.

Lord Alsandair O'Caoindealbhain

On 4/11/07, atlantia-request at atlantia.sca.org <
atlantia-request at atlantia.sca.org> wrote:
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
> From: ldmolly at md.metrocast.net
> Subject: Re: [MR] Society Notice
> To: "'Merry Rose'" <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
> Message-ID: <3872.72.9.2.14.1176320217.squirrel at 72.9.2.14>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 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
>
>
>
>