Boy Scouts to Require Background Checks

AP | 11/27/02 | IRA DREYFUSS

[lilylangtree]

Good! However, I was a volunteer for a number of years, and I thought the scouts did background checks. I find it surprising that the scouting association did not.

[rmlew]

I had a a background check to be a camp counselor. Why did it take so long for the BSA to institute this?

[WOSG]

You really think that? Do you rent rooms in your house without doing credit checks? No?!?! You are a shill and a pidgeon then. And if you do, your double-standard is showing.

Memo from BSA: Predators, stay out!

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

They've got to keep out the SCUM.

[coloradan]

It's true a police state requires a government mandate which BSA clearly lacks. However, I suppport the "punishment eventually ends" paradigm in which, once criminals are released from jail, they have full civil rights restored. (But, sentences are to be crafted such that people won't be released until the society is comfortable that they will be no threat.)

In the punishment-never-ends paradigm, in which criminals are released early or never even jailed, even though they can't be trusted to buy guns or work with children, leads to a society in which all people must constantly undergo "background checks" to prove they aren't criminal. Being demanded to "show one's papers," isn't exactly the measure of a free society, although a police state admittedly only properly applies when the government requires the showing of papers.

To answer your questions, no I don't support pedophiles gaining jobs at BSA. But, I don't like having to prove my innocence because others are criminal, which the BSA would now require of me should I wish to work for them. As more and more private companies and organizations require this, the need for a national identity card, "to streamline the background check process," or some other comparable government service to monitor and track citizens, will increase. It is this inevitable process which I object to, and which I see the Boy Scouts accelerating.

[Bernard]

Same thing with coaches on T-ball teams. That goes back to at least 1990.

[Joe Brower]

A damned unfortunate sign of these times in which we live, I'm afraid...

[AAABEST]

The idea of a private organization taking these measures is not a "police state".

The government monitoring innocent people, registering firearms, recording your keystrokes, checking your financial transactions is a different matter.

Private organizations are private and can put up cameras, investigate those who choose to become involved with them and look up your ass all they want. Unlike a government mandated inititiative, you have the choice to walk away and not participate.

They are private, and you can not associate with them. This is what you call FREEDOM. Y'all need to learn the difference between a governmental and non-governmental organization.

[coloradan]

The idea of a private organization taking these measures is not a "police state".

Please see my response in post 25.

[mac_truck]

How do the actions of a private organization to screen their membership have any effect on your rights as a private citizen? hint: get a grip, they don't!!

[coloradan]

How do the actions of a private organization to screen their membership have any effect on your rights as a private citizen?

In the same way that a single straw breaks a camel's back. When enough private companies and organizations decide to go with background checks, (1) I will have to be proving my innocence all over the place, grocery stores, libraries, etc., and (2) there are sure to be new government agencies, paid for by my money, to support all the requests for background check information. They may even issue non-criminals new "papers" to establish non-criminality.

I would prefer that criminals be locked up and I left free to go about my business.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Note to self bump. Give Major Donation </font size> to Boy Scouts each year. And thank God for a good group where God beleving boys can learn and practice good values.

[MacDorcha]

"It's true a police state requires a government mandate which BSA clearly lacks. However, I suppport the "punishment eventually ends" paradigm in which, once criminals are released from jail, they have full civil rights restored."

problem is, many of the people going to jail, come out before they complete the term they were sentenced. further more, a severe emo problem has to exist in a person that would even come close to raping a child, or for that matter, male children... or males who want males in general (yes, it was in psycologists' handbooks until the 70's... hippies got pissy) most psychologists still disagree with this decision. but regardless, it is highly unlikely that someone who has been convicted of sexual misconduct will ever revert, by the time they are convicted, they are hardened, and it is improbable that they will ever have enough therapy to completely be compatible in such a setting as being surrounded by young boys in the wilderness.

yes, punishment will end, but when will the one who commited the crime actually change? you have no guarantees in such a matter. also, it is a small portion of the possible life the convicted could take part in. women can't join in men's clubs. and you know how many sane people care? and people dont even have a choice on what sex they are. they have a choice to molest kids, which in turn, gets your privilage to partake in BSA stripped.

as for cards for identification and streamlining... it doesnt really matter. it just means that instead of taking days to not give a felon a gun, it takes minutes. it matters not, either way, they get the info.

[RonF]

Very interesting. Up to this point it had been up to the sponsoring organization to conduct or contract for a background check on the leaders of their Scout units. Some did, some didn't. My previous sponsor did, but our current sponsor doesn't.

The problem with this is that up to this point, the BSA, by not doing these checks and making it a standard that the sponsors were to do so, weren't responsible for flaws in Scouters' backgrounds. Now that they are doing the checks, they will share in the responsibility for any mistakes.

Unlike what a previous poster opined, I doubt that this will keep any gays out of the organization. I can only think that the organization they are contracting with will check legal records.

[RonF]

Here's a page off of ChoicePoint's web site explaining how they do a national criminal search. I imagine that this is the service they're providing the BSA.

The company's web site likes to brag about what good corporate citizens they are. People get nervous about companies that make money out of investigating and selling information about people's private lives. I wonder what kind of deal the BSA is getting here?

[RonF]

I've been a Scouter for 10 years now. While I think that this could be a great thing, I don't like how they're implementing it. What many people don't understand is that this represents a big change in the leader selection paradigm.

Up to now, unit sponsors have been responsible for a Scouter's background. But now, National is taking away their discretion. Instead of the pastor of a church making the decision, or the president of the VFW, some nameless person in the Region office will make the decision, and no one in the Council or in the sponsor will know what's going on. What if the guy had a misdemeanor bust 20 years ago for smoking a joint? A Baptist minister might not like that. An Episcopalian priest might not care. Or vice versa! However, whichever way the Regional person makes the call, he's going to go against the wishes of the sponsor.

What should happen here, in MNSHO, is that the background check should go to the Institutional Head of the sponsor. He or she should then make the decision. Absent something overwhelming (e.g., conviction for child abuse), the control over what's a character flaw and what isn't belongs locally, as it has thoughout the first 90 years of the BSA's history.

We also need an explicit statement on what criteria will make a volunteer acceptable or unacceptable.