Background Checks?

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, rpn said:

But if all you do is check the sex offender registry, you don't have enough info to determine whether or not the person is unsuitable --- there are people on them who were homeless and peed in the park, and others who had consensual sex with a girlfriend who was still underage.   Futhermore, although I don't know a current statistic, in the past the research found that pedophiles offended as many or more than 50 times before getting caught.   So not being on the registry doesn't do much if anything to protect children. 

The only thing less effective at keeping predators away from kids than background checks is not doing background checks.

[sjdawg]

Just now, Gray said:

The only thing less effective at keeping predators away from kids than background checks is not doing background checks.

100% this.  Background checks aren't perfect and won't prevent every abuse but at a minimum is it better than what is happening today.

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[Danzo]

Just now, rpn said:

I suspect it prompts some who would do harm to self select themselves out of being in that organization.    And that clearly would reduce risk.   But since at least pedophiles are known to commit many offenses before the first time they get caught, background checks may not reduce abuse, unless the predator self selects to avoid the organization.

It might, but somehow I would think that all it does is change the location, not the incidences of abuse.  With all of the background checking going around these days   there should at least be some studies showing that the incidences of abuse are decreasing.

I really haven't seen that. 

We may be striking at the branches instead of the root of the problem. 

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

It costs a lot of money (to do the fingerprinting and follow the information to the full extent necessary not to malign innocents and make sure you have all the info on each person).  (And across country boundaries or in most countries where records are not so very digitalized or kept, even if bad guys are caught and fingerprinted, perhaps even impossible.)

It takes weeks to do it right. 

It makes people feel good, but it doesn't really protect anyone from anything.   (I call this creating security theater.)

What I would do if I were in charge of the church is enforce the two deep leadership, ask the children of the person being considered for leadership whether their parent is fit to serve, and have anyone being considered for a calling in the church where they dealt directly with youth or children complete a questionnaire (below) before speaking with the bishop about the calling or at least before being called in ward or stake leadership (including RSP and EQP), with EQP/RSP asking the same when talking with ministering prospective ministering people),

Do you get angry (if they said "no" that would raise a red flag of credibility). 

When was the last time you yelled at anyone when you became angry?  Circumstances

When was the last time you thought of pushing someone intentionally?

When was the last time you used force or coercion to get something you wanted?  Circumstances?  What would you do the next time in the same circumstances?

When was the last time you were not fully honest in a relationship?

When was the last time you were not financially honest?

Have you ever violated the 2 deep leadership requirement at church?  Why?  And in what circumstances, and when?  (The point here is to make sure they know to cancel the activity if they cannot find a parent or someone to preserve 2 deep leadership, because this is the ONE thing that does have capacity to protect young people)

What does emotional abuse look like to you?  (The point here is to talk about this.  And teach what we know about God expects of mortals.)

Have you ever emotionally abused your wife, a minor, someone you supervised, someone you thought weaker than you, an employee, or anyone?

What does physical abuse look like to you?   (The point here is to have a discussion that includes God doesn't use force or threats or coercion to effect His goals and neither should mortals.)

Have you ever physically abused your wife, a minor, or anyone?

What does sexual abuse look like to you?

Have you ever inappropriately looked at or or thought about sexually, or touched a minor, someone who was incapacitated, an employee or anyone? 

When was the last time you intentionally viewed porn?  

Have you ever intentionally or for more than the time it took you to identify something that was as such, viewed porn involving minor?

Have you ever done anything to anyone that others might interpret as inappropriate or morally wrong?

And for the relevant callings?  (those handling money, or auditing)

When was the last time you were not fully honest?

Have you ever kept money or property that didn't belong to you, or cheat on your taxes?

Do you have trouble keeping your bills paid on time?

Is your job stable?

When was the last time you told your spouse about something you heard from those you minister to?   Circumstances.  (Because trying to figure something out, or getting spouse to help address it might be appropriate.)  those being called to bishoprics/presidencies, including secretaries

Have you every had reason to suspect that something you shared with a spouse confidentially was then shared or acted upon by your spouse?   (If so, how would you plan to protect confidentiality of the things you will know in the course of your accepting this calling? )

What is your understanding about the need to preserve what members tell you in this role as confidential?   (You want them to know that it is no small thing to share the things members say in confidence with others, and that advising the member of how you might need to share and asking permission would be critical to preserving their agency.)

If the members in our ward knew everything about you that you and your Heavenly Father know about you, would they sustain a decision to call you into a position that directly interacts with youth or children or finances or requires confidentiality?   If, no,  would   you agree with their assessment, why or why not?

I'd guess that most who are predators would decline to be called to anything after reading the questionnaire.  (Others would too, not necessarily because they are pedophiles or into underaged kids, or abusive, though, so leaders shouldn't ask thereafter more than, "Is there anything I can do to help you get to a better place?   I can help you find appropriate therapy for whatever your issues are  and help you pay for it if necessary, and I would like to do that because you deserve to be and feel square with God's expectations."   or maybe, "if you are survivor of any kind of abuse, I can help you find and pay for therapy if you want to let me do that"

Holy cow. You should sign up for the Catholic Inquisition. We'd give you implements of torture to go along with those questions  

[sjdawg]

Just now, Danzo said:

It might, but somehow I would think that all it does is change the location, not the incidences of abuse.  With all of the background checking going around these days   there should at least be some studies showing that the incidences of abuse are decreasing.

I really haven't seen that. 

We may be striking at the branches instead of the root of the problem. 

Is it your belief that the church should maintain the status quo?  If you don't believe background checks are part of the solution what do you think should be done?

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

24 hours a day?  Of course not.  But you asked if they could be treated differently than other members.

How would treating the person differently look in practice?

No Callings?

No Youth Callings?

A weekly announcement on Sunday, announcing who the sex offenders are in the ward?

Do we make them wear a sign?

perhaps a letter sewn into their clothing?

Its one thing to talk on a internet board saying the church should do this or that, its another to actually live with the situation. 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Danzo

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It might, but somehow I would think that all it does is change the location, not the incidences of abuse.

Not with a child who has parents (and leaders) who are aware of the predators past sexual abuse.   

The predator still may abuse other children, but the chances of it being made easier to have access to children through his calling are cut down to near zero, if he's not put into this calling.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Does that prevent them from being with children?

Serious question. 

The registered Sex offender that attends our ward has children that are members of our wards, so the church really can't prevent him from being around some of the children in our ward.  These children happen to have friends in our ward.

Since you are aware he is a registered sex offender you can now be cautious about his involvement with children.  If say this 13 year olds parents at least knew, like you, that they had a registered sex offender in the ward, they too could have been more cautious.  I mean that's for starters.  

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

How would treating the person differently look in practice?

No Youth Callings?

Yes.  I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.  How hard would that be to implement?

Just absolutely do not approve him for any callings where he works with children.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[tulip]

use the money saved on janitors and buy some background checks

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Is it your belief that the church should maintain the status quo?  If you don't believe background checks are part of the solution what do you think should be done?

I think that the youth and parents should be taught how to detect and prevent abuse.  

I think it would be much more effective than trying to  tag the bad guys.  Tagging who is bad or good just gives a false sense of security.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A weekly announcement on Sunday, announcing who the sex offenders are in the ward?

Do we make the wear a sign?

perhaps a letter sewn into their clothing?

You seem much more concerned about the predator's feelings than you do about preventing more children from being abused by them.

Am I misunderstanding your questions here?

I'm sorry if they might end up suffering some embarrassment, but that's nothing compared to the suffering a child endures when sexually abused (and the pain that stays with them throughout their lifetime because of it).

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[sjdawg]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think that the youth and parents should be taught how to detect and prevent abuse.  

I think it would be much more effective than trying to  tag the bad guys.  Tagging who is bad or good just gives a false sense of security.

Perhaps it isn't an "either or" conversation but a we should do both conversation

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.  How hard would that be to implement?

Just absolutely do not approve him for any callings where he works with children.  

But in the story at the OP (as with most incidences I am aware of) the abuse doesn't take place at church or at church sponsored events. 

Not having a calling working with children wouldn't have changed the results.

[sjdawg]

Just now, Danzo said:

But in the story at the OP (as with most incidences I am aware of) the abuse doesn't take place at church or at church sponsored events. 

Not having a calling working with children wouldn't have changed the results.

Did he build the initial relationship through his church involvement or outside of it?  If the victims were attending church I'd suggest the grooming was done at least partially through church involvement.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, tulip said:

use the money saved on janitors and buy some background checks

Or don't make the temples so ornate and elaborate and expensive.  

I honestly have no issue with how many millions are spent on temples, but then don't turn around and claim there's no money for something as important as this is.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There is a registered sex offender that attends our ward.

Is the church now responsible for what this person does outside the church?

Does knowing who is a registered sex offender allow us to treat this person differently?

 

There's one in my ward too.  It can be really hard on a ward.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Did he build the initial relationship through his church involvement or outside of it?  If the victims were attending church I'd suggest the grooming was done at least partially through church involvement.

You would prohibit this person from coming to church?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

But in the story at the OP (as with most incidences I am aware of) the abuse doesn't take place at church or at church sponsored events. 

It doesn't matter that the actual abuse did not physically take place at church:

Quote

Michael Davis, 34, met the victim at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Kasson. Davis was a young men’s leader at the church. He was titled “President Davis-Elders Quorum President” and was reportedly responsible for the men and young men’s group.

This predator should not have been in a calling over young men. 

[rpn]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You seem much more concerned about the predator's feelings than you do about preventing more children from being abused by them.

Am I misunderstanding your questions here?

I'm sorry if they might end up suffering some embarrassment, but that's nothing compared to the suffering a child endures when sexually abused (and the pain that stays with them throughout their lifetime because of it).

The typical practice when a sex offender is known to be in the ward, is to assign one or two members to be with them at all times while at the church.   That works to prevent possible harm.   Announcements would trigger some people, make lots of people afraid when they need not be because those who are out would typically still be locked up (at least in the US, where the law allows civil conviction in such cases after any criminal sentence has been served) if they were seen as a continuing threat to public safety.

[ALarson]

Just now, Danzo said:

You would prohibit this person from coming to church?

No...just keep him away from children if possible and alert the parents so they can do the same with their own children. 

This is not that difficult, Danzo.

Would you want this man in the OP to be your Young Men's president in your ward?  Would you want him to be alone with your own son?

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

This particular guy, however, would not have passed a background check.

But if he wasn't in a calling that worked with kids, would doing the background check have protected the boy who was abused?  

[sjdawg]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

You would prohibit this person from coming to church?

Where did I say that?  I thought the topic was about background checks and church callings not banishment

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It doesn't matter that the actual abuse did not physically take place at church:

This predator should not have been in a calling over young men. 

Not quite clear what his calling was, if he was an Elder's quorum president, he wouldn't be in direct contact with the young men. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rpn said:

The typical practice when a sex offender is known to be in the ward, is to assign one or two members to be with them at all times while at the church.  

That's great.  But if no one knows they are a predictor or sex offender, that precaution doesn't take place.