Background Checks?

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that. I was thinking about a more formal background check.

I had to have an FBI background check to get my teaching license. It required fingerprinting and cost me, I think (it was 13 years ago), $40. I'm actually not sure what they checked, but I assume it was comprehensive.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I realize that background checks aren't a perfect solution in the effort to keep children safe from predators, but I'm curious if anyone has a strong argument for why the church should not utilize background checks for members serving in positions that involve children/youth, or really in any position of authority and trust.

If the church were to implement background checks for youth leaders and others, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

However, I think implementing background checks would largely be a waste of money. The cold hard truth is that the cost-benefit just isn't there. 

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If the church were to implement background checks for youth leaders and others, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

However, I think implementing background checks would largely be a waste of money. The cold hard truth is that the cost-benefit just isn't there. 

 

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.

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?

Edited April 10, 2019 by ALarson

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Then it should be a position that demonstrates increasing safety for children.

I could care less about comfort of abusers.  I do care about potential abusers feeling safe to seek out treatment to control their attraction and uncaught abusers being willing to confess and accept responsibility to lower the chance of more children becoming victims.

Keeping predators behind bars would certainly prevent many abuses. Keeping predators out of church building would surely at least keep LDS children safer, although it would do nothing to reduce abuse rates outside of church.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Then you shouldn't use the term "pedophile" which includes the latter.

Good point.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

22 year old has sex with 16 year old girlfriend. She is legally a child. In my state this is considered rape. Life in prison? You paint with an incredibly broad brush when you talk about sex offenders and child abusers. Thank God the law is more nuanced than you.

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind, says Gandhi. Jesus also had some things to say about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Are you this Old Testament about all sins and crimes?

Now, I want to be clear because you have accused me of having more sympathy for the abuser than the victim. All I am arguing against is your desire for unjust punishment. One can argue for justice and sympathy at the same time. Having sympathy for the victim doesn't mean I have to be in favor of the worst punishments for the perpetrator. I'm not feeling sympathy for the abuser. I'm saying we need to be for justice.

I was talking about child molesters, although it's still creepy and inappropriate for a 22 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. I don't think your example merits life in prison, but some punishment is justified.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t have much sympathy for them, neither have I expressed such.  That’s a straw man you’ve created. 

I’m advocating being proactive in ways that actually help reduce recidivism rather than doing things that make us feel better while putting more kids at risk.

 

How does allowing predators greater access to children reduce recidivism?

[Gray]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thank goodness most religious people disagree with you. 

Maybe that's why child predators find churches such an easy place to find victims.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But don't adults already feel like their kids are protected when leaders call an individual to a position of authority? Some bishops/SP really emphasize that the individual has bee "called of God through revelation". If a member hears that, wouldn't they logically feel/believe that the person is worthy and safe?

I agree that we don't want parents to be complacent, but they already are. Why else would they allow their children to attend unsupervised interviews that can include LoC questions, sometimes probing questions? I think it would be worthwhile now AND when background checks are implemented, to remind parents that no system is fool proof and that they should remain vigilant in protecting their children.

 

If we want to focus on the problems of parent complacency, then I'm just not sure how adding background checks is going to help. 

If we are worried that parents are more complacent when someone has a calling of authority, what does that mean for when someone has a calling of authority and parents know that they passed a background check?  More parent complacency or less?  Seems obvious that it will likely be more, which is a huge concern since most of the people that we've read about this year that have sexually abused a youth in the church would have passed a background check with flying colors.

This is one of the reasons that I kind of fear background checks.  Will they make it easier for predators who don't have a record to access children by adding to parental complacency?  Will the small number of people they catch make up for that increase in parent complacency?

(I'm ignoring the idea that just letting a youth have an interview alone with the bishop automatically means a parent is complacent because it's such an illegitimate assumption there's no reason to argue against it.)

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Keeping predators behind bars would certainly prevent many abuses. Keeping predators out of church building would surely at least keep LDS children safer, although it would do nothing to reduce abuse rates outside of church.

Statistics show that it will likely increase abuse rates outside of the church.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe that's why child predators find churches such an easy place to find victims.

You think that a child predator who is only allowed to attend sacrament meeting, isn't allowed to interact with any children, and has to be chaperoned into, while in, and out of the building as soon as the meeting is over is going to find that an "easy place to find victims"?   That doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to think.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

How does allowing predators greater access to children reduce recidivism?

I've already linked to one article, which you said you would read, that shows that the more sex offenders are supported by their friends and community, including being allowed to worship in church, the less likely the are to re-offend.  The more we isolate them and banish them from interacting with society, including going to church, the more likely they are to abuse another child.

 

[MustardSeed]

I just wrote a novel, and erased it.  Not all my thoughts need to be shared, I remind myself on the daily. 

We grant a lot of trust in our church.  I think in part because we believe that God calls us directly to have our callings.  There is subconscious undercurrent of assumptive worthiness that occurs as a result.  We are potential sitting ducks in many, many ways. 

Since we DONT have bg checks, what can we do to keep as safe as possible? 

Ps the interview list was interesting.  I’d add “are you passive aggressive?” to be sure to implicate women as well as men.   I mean, let’s be equal opportunity exclusive. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that. I was thinking about a more formal background check.

For example, my most recent background check was done because I was coaching a team. I don't know everything they checked but I assume it was much more than just the SO registry. IMO it would have been inappropriate for the league to run a full background check on me before I even agreed to coach.

Sure, there are lots of public records out there, some easier to access than others. Maybe there could be a background check calling  

Some records require a permission signature from you to access.  Jobs with law enforcement and intelligence agencies are the most intrusive -- they leave nothing out, including your sealed juvenile record.  Certain red flags can deep-six a career, unless your father-in-law is President.  😎

Edited April 10, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we want to focus on the problems of parent complacency, then I'm just not sure how adding background checks is going to help. 

If we are worried that parents are more complacent when someone has a calling of authority, what does that mean for when someone has a calling of authority and parents know that they passed a background check?  More parent complacency or less?  Seems obvious that it will likely be more, which is a huge concern since most of the people that we've read about this year that have sexually abused a youth in the church would have passed a background check with flying colors.

This is one of the reasons that I kind of fear background checks.  Will they make it easier for predators who don't have a record to access children by adding to parental complacency?  Will the small number of people they catch make up for that increase in parent complacency?

(I'm ignoring the idea that just letting a youth have an interview alone with the bishop automatically means a parent is complacent because it's such an illegitimate assumption there's no reason to argue against it.)

OK, but if we follow that approach logically, it would be argued that anything the church (or any organization) does to identify and restrict risky individuals from serving, would lead to greater parental complacency. That doesn't make sense to me. For example, it is well known that schools do background checks of every employee that works there. Does that make parents more complacent when sending their children to school? If so, shouldn't schools stop doing background checks?

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO parents are more likely to trust the EQP or bishop or SP or YM Pres because...why wouldn't they?

I think you have identified a big part of  problem here.  Bishop, YM pres, SP or EQP are not, and should not be considered more trustworthy (whether they have passed a background check or not). I have shared occasions with my children (my wife as well) where we had to tell people with callings of authority no.  None of these incidences had to do with abuse but children should be taught that a position of authority in the church doesn't grant the leader the right to do anything unrighteous (see D&C 121) 

That is not to say we can't hang out with leaders or anyone else, but we should be aware of warning signs and teach our children to recognize warning signals, and what to do when boundaries are crossed (or even when boundaries are close to being crossed).  

I don' think the solution is to try and sanitize our children to keep them safe, but teach them how to interact with people so they will be safe.  Show them  warning signs, monitor them until they are ready to interact on their own.

I think teaching these skills to our children (and even our adults) will do more to prevent abuse than meager attempts to sanitizing their environment. 

Teaching our children to interact with adults (which they will have to do most of their lives) is extremely important.  Most adults they meet won't have a background check and often they will have to interact with people who they know would have failed a background check.

When our children are young we have to protect them and watch them closely when they interact with adults and other children  (even if they have passed background checks).  As they mature and get older we need to gradually teach them and trust them to be on their own with other people.  This is a process that takes time and shouldn't be left until they are 17 years and 364 days old. 

The real reason for background checks and two deep leadership is to protect the organization and the adults. A background check my help keep known predators away from the organization itself, but won't protect the vulnerable people (adults and children) that the predictors seem to  find anyway. 

I think any marginal gains in safety are often  compromised  by a false sense of security as well as restrict the ability of youth to learn how to engage in productive relationships with adults. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK, but if we follow that approach logically, it would be argued that anything the church (or any organization) does to identify and restrict risky individuals from serving, would lead to greater parental complacency. That doesn't make sense to me. For example, it is well known that schools do background checks of every employee that works there. Does that make parents more complacent when sending their children to school? If so, shouldn't schools stop doing background checks?

One of the differences between a school and the church is that the school can, and should restrict access to the institution. The church has been commanded not to restrict access to it.  We can somewhat control who has direct access to youth and children in the church meetings themselves but not who they meet in the halls or who the meet through family connections at church.

Even though the schools in my area perform background checks on all of the teachers, I don't think a month goes by with seeing a mugshot of a teacher in my metro area in the paper accused of child abuse. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Any bishop or stake pres would be well advised to do a quick check on his geographical boundaries for any registered sex offenders.  No permission is needed for that.  It simply uses the information provided by the State for local consumption.  No infringement of anyone's rights has taken place.  Forewarned is forearmed.  That way, the leader knows ahead of time whom to exclude from certain callings.  The economy of God does not include doing your background checks for you.

Some places it is easy, some places it isn't 

In my area the information is not readily available.  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Statistics show that it will likely increase abuse rates outside of the church.  

What statistics show that?

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You think that a child predator who is only allowed to attend sacrament meeting, isn't allowed to interact with any children, and has to be chaperoned into, while in, and out of the building as soon as the meeting is over is going to find that an "easy place to find victims"?   That doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to think.

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.

 

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've already linked to one article, which you said you would read, that shows that the more sex offenders are supported by their friends and community, including being allowed to worship in church, the less likely the are to re-offend.  The more we isolate them and banish them from interacting with society, including going to church, the more likely they are to abuse another child.

 

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.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray

[Danzo]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that still doesn't mean a sex offender should not be allowed in the building.  We have a registered sex offender in our ward and his presence in the building is conditional, but he is still very much allowed in.  He is chaperoned at all times.  He has to leave after sacrament meeting.  The adults in the ward know about his conviction and the conditions of his attendance.   

His presence in the chapel on Sunday does not put any child at risk.

In our ward, he has to be chaperoned by his wife or someone else, but he gets to stay for Sunday school and priesthood. 

The real trick part is that this person is a father to several youth in the ward. and these youth interact with other youth.  We don't want to treat his children as infected by the parent, but this results that youth may end up interacting with him outside of the church events.

As a family, we aren't too worried about it (his offense wasn't randomly attacking youth) but we can't in a practical sense wash the guy completely out of our lives.  We deal with him and try and teach our children how do deal with him and people like him who may not have been convicted of anything yet.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK, but if we follow that approach logically, it would be argued that anything the church (or any organization) does to identify and restrict risky individuals from serving, would lead to greater parental complacency. That doesn't make sense to me. For example, it is well known that schools do background checks of every employee that works there. Does that make parents more complacent when sending their children to school? If so, shouldn't schools stop doing background checks?

No, like I said before, I'm fine with background checks, as long as people are aware that most people who sexually abuse children easily pass a background check.  They don't do much, but like I said before, they probably catch some low hanging fruit here and there, which is better than nothing.  Many companies/organizations use them mostly to reduce their own liability so they can't be charged with negligence.  

But when talking about complacency, background checks don't help that problem and they likely make it worse.  So in any conversation about trying to reduce complacency, I don't see that background checks are at all relevant.  They serve a purpose, but helping with complacency isn't it.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In our ward, he has to be chaperoned by his wife or someone else, but he gets to stay for Sunday school and priesthood. 

The real trick part is that this person is a father to several youth in the ward. and these youth interact with other youth.  We don't want to treat his children as infected by the parent, but this results that youth may end up interacting with him outside of the church events.

As a family, we aren't too worried about it (his offense wasn't randomly attacking youth) but we can't in a practical sense wash the guy completely out of our lives.  We deal with him and try and teach our children how do deal with him and people like him who may not have been convicted of anything yet.

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, like I said before, I'm fine with background checks, as long as people are aware that most people who sexually abuse children easily pass a background check.  They don't do much, but like I said before, they probably catch some low hanging fruit here and there, which is better than nothing.  Many companies/organizations use them mostly to reduce their own liability so they can't be charged with negligence.  

But when talking about complacency, background checks don't help that problem and they likely make it worse.  So in any conversation about trying to reduce complacency, I don't see that background checks are at all relevant.  They serve a purpose, but helping with complacency isn't it.

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  

[MustardSeed]

4 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  

I think that’s legit. We have many more subtle unintentional messages that all is well. 

Ps should responsible adults do bg checks on new family members before family reunions? After all, this is not about law suits but about safety. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

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