Background Checks?

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine, but you know and can be cautious. If his offense was against children, would you allow your children to spend the night at his home with their friends? Or does the knowledge that he is an abuser change that? There is a lot of space between treating the man and his family as lepers and acting like there is no issue at all. Most reasonable people will change the way the interact, in appropriate ways.

Years ago we had a child sxual abuser in our ward. The ward council was made aware. Assignments were made to ensure he was chaperoned while at church. Prior to this, if our children needed to go to the bathroom during Sacrament meeting we would just let them go, because we thought they were safe. When we learned of this man, we began escorting our children to the bathroom every time. After he moved out we continued to escort them in the hallway. It was a wake up call for us, not just to be aware of this one individual but to be more generally cautious.

We wouldn't let our children spend the night at his house (but we don't let them spend the night at anyone else's house either).  There is a history in our family of abuse happening so we have always been cautious. Our ward has a designated hall monitor and a designated children's bathroom where adults aren't allowed during church hours (we had this in place before the person on the sex offender list moved in).  

Real life is messy and we always have to balance between between to cautious and too trusting. It can be difficult.  Both extremes can cause problems. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The world truly is a dangerous place, isn’t it. 

The irony is that most violent crime rates are falling. We are just more paranoid.

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It could also be argued that if there is a regular system of doing background checks, there would be greater general awareness of the need for background checks, thus making people less complacent  

Maybe, but it is human nature to relax their guard around people we know (or think we know).   Everyone knows about stranger danger, but after spending time with someone they are no longer a stranger.

We need more education on seeing the danger in people we know; family, friends, teachers and coworker, and yes, even fellow church members.  

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The irony is that most violent crime rates are falling. We are just more paranoid.

I would suggest that we are far more willing to talk about sexual abuse so we are more aware that it is all around us.  Much of it never gets reported. I’m not sure about stats on sexual abuse being higher or lower but I’m sure a simple google will verify.  Not that it matters much for this thread.  Anyone would be foolish to assume they are immune to sexual abuse. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It could also be argued that if there is a regular system of doing background checks, there would be greater general awareness of the need for background checks, thus making people less complacent  

Maybe.  It's hard to think that any reasonable adult would not know that sexual predators are out there, even in churches and schools would need knowledge of background checks happening to figure that out.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Just the cost of one of the past lawsuits that the church has had to settle in the past regarding this issue would pay for a whole lot of background checks. 

I even one of those could have been prevented with a background check, it's relevant here.

So, the argument of cost is not a good one, IMO.

Sorry, but if the math made sense, the church would likely be doing it already. Here's my back of the napkin calculations for the cost of implementing background checks:

Between those serving in Primary, Nursery, Sunday School, YM, YW, Bishopric, etc. you are easily talking about at least 45 adults in each ward who would need background checks. Multiply that by 12,400 wards here in the US alone. And then multiply that by the cost of the background check, say, $40 and you come up with $22,320,000. And that doesn't take into consideration the costs that are going to be associated with tracking who has / hasn't had background checks. Additional background checks that will be required whenever people move in / out of the ward, callings change, etc. Oh, and for them to be effective, you're going to have to have them all repeated at some regular interval - likely once every 3 - 5 years. 

So, you're talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, in perpetuity, all for a chance at maybe keeping a person with a record from serving in certain callings. 

If that's worth it to you, then so be it - nothing I can do to change your mind about that. For me, I think it would largely be a waste of resources. On the bright side, at least it's something the church could spend money on that critics wouldn't whine about so much. 

 

Quote

What cost would you put on preventing one of your kids or grandkids from being abused if a background check would have caught a perpetrator that may have been called to work closely with them?  How much would be too much?

This is going to sound cold, but if you don't trust the people who are teaching your children, then why don't you pay to have background checks performed on them yourself? I mean, you can't have so many children that it would cost more than a couple hundred bucks. So, right back at you: how much is too much? 

 

[Danzo]

43 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

I lived in Australia for 10 years.  The government implemented a Blue Card system that required that anyone dealing with children had to be background checked.  It included everything from teachers to little league coaches.  The Church had to comply and the Bishop was required to ensure that anyone involved with the youth had a valid Blue Card.  Seemed to be a really useful tool.

I am interested to know how much  the rates of abuse went down due to the Blue Card system.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sorry, but if the math made sense, the church would likely be doing it already.

It does make sense (they've paid out millions from what I have read over the years).  But even it it ended up costing them more, it would be worth it even if it prevented just one innocent victim from being abused.

I'm appalled that you'd even attempt to put a dollar sign on the worth of that.  I believe there must be other reasons the church leaders have not opted to do this yet and would hope it's not because of money.

Edited April 10, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

This is going to sound cold, but if you don't trust the people who are teaching your children, then why don't you pay to have background checks performed on them yourself?

Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄

Edited April 10, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

I lived in Australia for 10 years.  The government implemented a Blue Card system that required that anyone dealing with children had to be background checked.  It included everything from teachers to little league coaches.  The Church had to comply and the Bishop was required to ensure that anyone involved with the youth had a valid Blue Card.  Seemed to be a really useful tool.

Excellent.  I have to believe we will get there too....the sooner the better, IMO.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Maybe, but it is human nature to relax their guard around people we know (or think we know).   Everyone knows about stranger danger, but after spending time with someone they are no longer a stranger.

We need more education on seeing the danger in people we know; family, friends, teachers and coworker, and yes, even fellow church members.  

I can't argue with that.

You're exactly right about the need for greater education of parents and children so that they can recognize and appreciate the dangers. I simply think that a background check is a logical part of the education leaders need.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

I doubt it - Democrats won't even make it so people need to prove their ID before they vote...

Ha!  But when it comes to this topic, most are supportive of taking steps to protect the children.  It's become a hot topic with all the abuse coming out committed by different religious leader, etc.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  But, in the meantime, the church leaders could make them mandatory for anyone who will be working with youth or children.

Edited April 10, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

What statistics show that?

 

First, I would be very happy if that minimum step were happening. I'm not aware that it is. But some volunteer chaperone isn't likely to be a real security professional, and isn't going to be enough to ensure that the predator doesn't start targeting more victims.

 

I skimmed through it. The conclusions from that article seem to be that current strategies have not reduced the rate of re-offense, not that isolating them made them MORE likely to reoffend. If I missed something crucial would you mind quoting it directly?

I would suggest some kind of special outreach ministry might be more appropriate than shepherding wolves in to sit with the sheep.

From the article I already linked to:

"Registered sex offenders face many integration barriers as a result of their designation; for example, limited access to housing, education, and employment as well as community segregation and harassment, which could increase their risk for committing additional crimes, including subsequent sex crimes."

"The collateral consequences do not end with registered sex offenders, but continue with their families. Registered sex offenders' family members also suffer the consequences of registration, community notification, and residency restrictions. When registered sex offenders are released from prison, rarely are they completely alone. Most if not all have a family—mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles—and many even have children of their own. Research on the collateral consequences of Megan's Law for family members is limited, but Levenson and Cotter found that 67% of registered sex offenders in their study reported that their families suffered emotional distress as a result of community notification.76 This finding indicates that, whereas some may advocate the need for “shame and blame” effects of community notification, rarely do we consider the impact, by proxy, on the registered sex offender's family.

Although it is difficult to find compassion for individuals who have committed sexually based offenses, the history of the United States proves that segregating a class of citizens on the basis of emotionally driven laws is risky considering that the empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness is sparse. There is also evidence that these laws could be doing more harm than good.51 Study findings suggest that those with histories of any kind of criminal offense reintegrate more successfully when they are offered social support and opportunities to reintegrate into society through housing and employment.47,76,77 Although this has yet to be empirically tested, because registered sex offenders are often denied these basic essentials of life, the increasing limits on their rights and freedoms could increase instead of decrease their risk for recidivism.

Therefore, those with a passionate interest in preventing sexual crimes should work to provide ex-offenders with stable community support that can assist in their success. Because of the proliferation of laws directly related to registered sex offenders, however, this may prove a difficult task. For example, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management:

[M]yths about sex offenders and victims, inflated recidivism rates, claims that sex offender treatment is ineffective, and highly publicized cases involving predatory offenders fuel negative public sentiment and exacerbate concerns by policymakers and the public alike about the return of sex offenders to local communities. Furthermore, the proliferation of legislation that specifically targets the sex offender population—including longer minimum mandatory sentences for certain sex crimes, expanded registration and community notification policies, and the creation of “sex offender free” zones that restrict residency, employment, or travel within prescribed areas in many communities—can inadvertently but significantly hamper reintegration efforts.78"

From a different article:

"Helping Offenders Deal with Challenges Following Release from Prison

When reentering the community, sex offenders may face many challenges that can cause their lives to be unstable, includingxi:

• negative public feelings, including being ostracized or the victims of hostile acts; • restrictions on where they can live; and
• dif culties nding a job.

This instability can put them at greater risk to reoffendxxii; therefore, working with offenders to deal with these challenges is crucial to their ability to live crime-free lives."

From another article:

"Laws like banishment zone ordinances actually make us less safe, as they impede offender rehabilitation and thereby increase the likelihood of reoffense. People who transition from prison into society face countless challenges, and most have very limited resources, financial or otherwise. People who want to lead law-abiding lives after serving a prison sentence need to establish stability in their homes, jobs and families. Those are difficult things to achieve, but add to this the consequences of Megan's Law and limits to where offenders can live, and few have hope of succeeding. Indeed, the fear of the stigma of Megan's Law can force offenders underground, out of the watchful eye of police and parole officers.

Banishment zone laws may very likely force sexual offenders to move from environments in which they have support networks into other communities in which they have no support, putting residents in their new communities at risk. Further, people who are labeled as sex offenders lose jobs, get evicted, are threatened with death, and harassed by neighbors. Some have had their homes burned down or been beaten in acts of vigilantism. Coping with this kind of stress is almost impossible, and without exceptionally strong support systems, most are doomed to fail.

If you doubt whether we should care about the stress and suffering of someone who committed a sex crime, consider the consequences for society when the ex-offender fails. When nothing works out - job, home, family-individuals are more likely to give up and reoffend."

If you go to the articles and read them, you'll see the references that were used to support the statements.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If his offense was against children, would you allow your children to spend the night at his home with their friends?

Every therapist I know doesn't allow their kids to spend the night at others' home no matter how well they know them.

We came close to that.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It does make sense (they've paid out millions from what I have read over the years). 

How much money? Specifically, how much money have they paid out in North America over the last five years? Over the last ten years?

Seriously, if you don't know, then how on earth can you possibly have an informed opinion about what makes financial sense and what doesn't?

 

Quote

But even it it ended up costing them more, it would be worth it even if it prevented just one innocent victim from being abused.

This kind of bumper-sticker rhetoric has never really worked on me. YMMV.

 

Quote

I'm appalled that you'd even attempt to put a dollar sign on the worth of that. 

I know. I'm a monster.

I would rather see the church funnel those millions of dollars to people who are genuinely in need of help instead of shoring up the bottom line of some background check company in middle America just to make you happy. 

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

This is going to sound cold, but if you don't trust the people who are teaching your children, then why don't you pay to have background checks performed on them yourself?

Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄

So, just to be clear, no price is too high for the church to pay in order to ensure the safety of even one child, but almost any price is too high for you to pay to ensure the safety of your own children? Is that right?

Seriously, why don't you just put your money where your mouth is and pay for background checks on the leaders who are working with your own children / grandchildren?

I mean, if there's even a chance that one of them might be associating with a predator, wouldn't you want to know that? And, if you do, and you aren't running background checks yourself - why aren't you? 

It wouldn't happen to be because...the cold hard truth is that the cost-benefit just isn't there?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How much money? Specifically, how much money have they paid out in North America over the last five years? Over the last ten years?

Seriously, if you don't know, then how on earth can you possibly have an informed opinion about what makes financial sense and what doesn't?

 

Q- Why don't we know how much the Church spends on litigation/settlements?

A- Because the Church doesn't tell us & because (from what I've read) the Church often requires those who receive settlements to sign NDA's.

The Church knows how much it spends and it could easily let us know how much it spends. Of course they don't do that because they want to keep these things quiet, probably for a combination of PR purposes & to not encourage others from filing suit.

It always strikes me as an odd argument when people claim that we don't know certain things, and the reason is because the Church won't tell us. I think it would be quite interesting to know how much $$$ the church has spent to settle abuse cases.

Quote

Seriously, why don't you just put your money where your mouth is and pay for background checks on the leaders who are working with your own children / grandchildren?

Perhaps the church could allow us time to investigate prior to sustaining a leader in a calling. As is, we have about 5-10 seconds to decide whether or not we sustain them publicly.

You're right. If leadership won't do it, we could do it ourselves. Run a full blown background check on leaders and then make that info available to the rest of the stake/ward. We could check finances, pending lawsuits, past bankruptcies, criminal activity etc. But I get the feeling that if someone actually did that, you'd cry foul.

Edited April 10, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[MustardSeed]

Ok seriously I don’t think it was such an outlandish question to ask why this is not done, since it’s done in so many other settings that cater to Children. 

58 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Seriously, why don't you just put your money where your mouth is and pay for background checks on the leaders who are working with your own children / grandchildren?

I don’t know, this sounds a little aggressive.  

Edited April 10, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Every therapist I know doesn't allow their kids to spend the night at others' home no matter how well they know them.

We came close to that.

That is my husband’s and my policy as well. No sleepovers. No one in the family has ever had anything bad happen at one but it just seemed like the smart thing to implement. 

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It always strikes me as an odd argument when people claim that we don't know certain things, and the reason is because the Church won't tell us. I think it would be quite interesting to know how much $$$ the church has spent to settle abuse cases.

You don't have to know what the numbers are. The church knows what the numbers are. 

And the individuals who have access to all of the information necessary to make an informed decision have decided not to implement a background check system.

Now, assuming that these individuals are rational actors and not evil monsters (like myself), then it seems reasonable for us to infer from their actions (or inaction, however you want to look at it) that the cost benefit just isn't there. And statements to the contrary are just opinions formed on nothing more than blind emotionalism. 

 

Quote

Perhaps the church could allow us time to investigate prior to sustaining a leader in a calling. As is, we have about 5-10 seconds to decide whether or not we sustain them publicly.

Most background checks can be completed in under a week. So you're talking about your child being potentially exposed to a potential predator for what? maybe two hours at most before you would know. The likelihood that your child would be abused in that time is infinitesimally small. 

That's plenty of time to talk to your Bishop and let him know that you can no longer sustain Brother/Sister So-and-so and that you will not allow your child to be in their class. 

 

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The irony is that most violent crime rates are falling. We are just more paranoid.

Paranoia may have contributed to that. (Have my doubts but perhaps)

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Maybe, but it is human nature to relax their guard around people we know (or think we know).   Everyone knows about stranger danger, but after spending time with someone they are no longer a stranger.

We need more education on seeing the danger in people we know; family, friends, teachers and coworker, and yes, even fellow church members.  

And children as well as adults. A significant amount of abuse is done by other children or youth. On phone so no stats. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, TheRedHen said:

I lived in Australia for 10 years.  The government implemented a Blue Card system that required that anyone dealing with children had to be background checked.  It included everything from teachers to little league coaches.  The Church had to comply and the Bishop was required to ensure that anyone involved with the youth had a valid Blue Card.  Seemed to be a really useful tool.

Was there found to be a drop in abuse rates?  Just curious. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, you're talking about spending millions and millions of dollars, in perpetuity, all for a chance at maybe keeping a person with a record from serving in certain callings. 

And lawsuits might be impacted by the presence or lack of a background check, but I doubt it has ever been the only relevant argument for liability in a suit. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I am interested to know how much  the rates of abuse went down due to the Blue Card system.

Should have read further, lol. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

t does make sense (they've paid out millions from what I have read over the years

But not due just to lack of background checks in my memory. I don’t actually even remember that being much of a point in any.  Annotation of files referred to iirc though. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm