Abuse Hotline Article

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, jbarm said:

I see background checks as being very ineffective, based on my own experience in large institutions. 

I think where they may be most effective is just as a deterrent or as a preventative measure.  I have to believe that not many sex abusers would be wanting to hold callings where they'd be alone with youth or children if they knew they'd be asked to submit to a background check.  If the church leaders made it known to all members that this would be required, I cannot imagine many abusers seeking those callings or even making themselves available at all for them.  That would make it worthwhile right there, IMO.

 

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think where they may be most effective is just as a deterrent or as a preventative measure.  I have to believe that not many sex abusers would be wanting to hold callings where they'd be alone with youth or children if they knew they'd be asked to submit to a background check.  If the church leaders made it known to all members that this would be required, I cannot imagine many abusers seeking those callings or even making themselves available at all for them.  That would make it worthwhile right there, IMO.

 

This is the real value - it's a preventative control.  That there are wails of "It's too expensive!" being shouted makes me very nervous for my daughter.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think where they may be most effective is just as a deterrent or as a preventative measure.  I have to believe that not many sex abusers would be wanting to hold callings where they'd be alone with youth or children if they knew they'd be asked to submit to a background check.  If the church leaders made it known to all members that this would be required, I cannot imagine many abusers seeking those callings or even making themselves available at all for them.  That would make it worthwhile right there, IMO.

 

The majority of sex abusers don't have a record so background checks won't affect them in the least and they'll know that.  Such people would be more than happy to consent to a background check because passing one will legitimize them in the eyes of other adults, making them automatically seem more trustworthy than they would seem without one.

Sexual Trauma Services: Why Background checks don't protect people from sexual abuse

"Criminal records checks are the first step many organizations take in executing a sexual abuse prevention policy. Parents talk about running background checks on child care providers. Employers run background checks on future and current employees. Community members search sex offender registries to see if any perpetrators live in their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, background checks provide a false sense of confidence. Criminal record checks only reveal what a person has been convicted of and has not been cleared from their record through pardon, pre-trial intervention, or other tools. Background checks do not show the original charge – only the charge of the conviction.

This is particularly challenging when trying to protect people from sex offenders. 

• The odds of someone being arrested and convicted for a sexual assault are very low.
• Most cases are pled down to a lesser offense so it’s hard to know exactly what crime was committed.
• SC is one of few states who provide no recourse for removal from the sex offender registry. This provides significant leverage to offenders in plea negotiations to agree on a charge that doesn’t require registration. It is unknown exactly how widespread the implications of this are.
• Most perpetrators of sexual abuse develop a trusting relationship or groom the person they assault. That gives the perpetrator the opportunity to convince the person that the conviction was a mistake or that they have changed."

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The majority of sex abusers don't have a record so background checks won't affect them in the least and they'll know that.  Such people would be more than happy to consent to a background check because passing one will legitimize them in the eyes of other adults, making them automatically seem more trustworthy than they would seem without one.

Oh, I don't believe that.  If someone knows they are a sex offender (record or not)....they will definitely avoid any attention to themselves or their background in most cases.  There may be some isolated abusers who would consent, but most want to avoid them.

I firmly believe it would be an effective deterrent.  Nothing is 100% at avoiding cases of child abuse, but it's a piece that should be implemented, IMO.  If it even saves one child from being abused, it's worth the cost and the work involved.  I know others disagree....but that is what I strongly believe.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I don't believe that.  If someone knows they are a sex offender (record or not)....they will definitely avoid any attention to themselves or their background in most cases.  There may be some isolated abusers who would consent, but most want to avoid them.

I firmly believe it would be an effective deterrent.  Nothing is 100% at avoiding cases of child abuse, but it's a piece that should be implemented, IMO.  If it even saves one child from being abused, it's worth the cost and the work involved.  I know others disagree....but that is what I strongly believe.

Why?  A background check has absolutely no negative affects on a sex abuser who has never been convicted of anything.  Having one done brings absolutely no negative attention to themselves and gives them more access to children and teens.  They will pass with flying colors 100% of the time.  Why would they avoid them?  What is the down side for them?  Sincere question.

I agree that if it keeps one kid from being abused it's worth it, but I don't think we should pretend that background checks do things that they don't actually do.  That doesn't help anything or anyone.

Edited May 7, 2019 by bluebell

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?  A background check has absolutely no negative affects on a sex abuser who has never been convicted of anything.  Having one done brings absolutely no negative attention to themselves.  They will pass with flying colors 100% of the time.  Why would they avoid them?  Sincere question.

Repeat abusers and predators do not want to have any attention focused on their background.  Period.  IMO, it does not matter if they have a record....they will avoid having anyone contact people from their past.  Most are pretty paranoid (for good reason if they are repeat offenders).

Edited May 7, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I don't believe that.  If someone knows they are a sex offender (record or not)....they will definitely avoid any attention to themselves or their background in most cases.  There may be some isolated abusers who would consent, but most want to avoid them.

I firmly believe it would be an effective deterrent.  Nothing is 100% at avoiding cases of child abuse, but it's a piece that should be implemented, IMO.  If it even saves one child from being abused, it's worth the cost and the work involved.  I know others disagree....but that is what I strongly believe.

That makes no sense.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Repeat abusers and predators do not want to have any attention focused on their background.  Period.  IMO, it does not matter if they have a record....they will avoid having anyone contact people from their past.  Most are pretty paranoid (for good reason if they are repeat offenders).

That is ridiculous. Are you under the impression that a background screening is the equivalent of an FBI run government clearance check where they are going to talk to your family, employers,and neighbors? They just run a search for convictions through a series of databases and call it a day. If you have not been convicted nothing will be found.

[ALarson]

Just now, The Nehor said:

That is ridiculous.

I disagree (and have experience working in this area). 

Do you honestly believe that repeat predators or repeat abusers want anyone looking into their backgrounds or talking to people from their past?  They don't.

I'm not going to argue with you regarding this....I can only state what my experience has been.

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that the fringe policy statements, rare abuse cases, and stuff that makes the news is somehow the center of the church is misleading. I have talked to people who assume that we must talk about homosexuality regularly after Prop 8 when I probably hear a lesson on Chastity once a year if that and it usually does not mention homosexuality. These things do not define us nor are they at the center of our faith. It is just the stuff that makes the news.

I am convinced you are absolutely and utterly wrong that we are transmuting to a watered down secular faith with a restorationist mythology.

What would it take for you to believe the Church is becoming watered down?

 

For me, I think if a few of these items I list come to fruition then it's the beginning of another Community of Christ: garments are dumped or heavily modified for everyday use, temple ceremony is altered such as simplified any further, it becomes acceptable that belief in a historical version of the BOM is no longer needed, woman gain priesthood powers beyond the temple, or the WOW is loosened.

There's a bunch of other examples, but these all may very well happen over the next two years.  The Church hasn't faced such social pressure like this. except their early years.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure it is an empty argument when applied to schools. Even if it isn’t an empty argument schools are also not in the habit of having two deep adults at all times and switching out teachers every year or two or schoolteachers being volunteers. Apples and oranges.

Then it would seem the church could adjust its practices to minimize the frequency of changes. Keep people in their positions for longer. Have people serving in positions they enjoy and are willing to commit to for longer periods of time. And 2 years is just an idea. There's nothing set in stone about that. Even if a check was done every 5 years, especially for those moving to a new location, doesn't seem overly burdensome

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Repeat abusers and predators do not want to have any attention focused on their background.  Period.  IMO, it does not matter if they have a record....they will avoid having anyone contact people from their past.  Most are pretty paranoid (for good reason if they are repeat offenders).

But there won't be any attention focused on their background.  All a background check does is to run the person's name through a database to see if they've ever been convicted of a crime.  That's it.  It's not any more in-depth than that.  If they haven't ever been convicted of a crime (even if they've been arrested or charged with a crime, if they weren't convicted, it does not show up), the background check comes back clean.  Completely, sparkling, clean. 

So again, why would they care?  You're not really making any sense.  Are you not aware of what a background check is?  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I disagree (and have experience working in this area). 

Do you honestly believe that repeat predators or repeat abusers want anyone looking into their backgrounds or talking to people from their past?  They don't.

I'm not going to argue with you regarding this....I can only state what my experience has been.

But a background check does not look into their background or talk to anyone from their past.  That's not what a background check does.  Not the kind that we are talking about.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?  A background check has absolutely no negative affects on a sex abuser who has never been convicted of anything.  Having one done brings absolutely no negative attention to themselves and gives them more access to children and teens.  They will pass with flying colors 100% of the time.  Why would they avoid them?  What is the down side for them?  Sincere question.

I agree that if it keeps one kid from being abused it's worth it, but I don't think we should pretend that background checks do things that they don't actually do.  That doesn't help anything or anyone.

It does put everyone into a data base that is searchable by police. So, for example, it could be a deterrent for anyone who doesn't want their name, fingerprints etc in the system that can be checked by law enforcement. I don't know how well that would work, and I'm certainly open to other ideas. But the point of my original prediction was to say that the church will make a deal to do "something" with the intent of greater youth protection, whether it's background checks, ceasing of one on one youth interviews which include sxual topics etc.

But I really think youth protection is a big issue that the church hasn't really attempted to tackle yet. I don't imagine for a moment that leaders are indifferent to suffering and abuse and in this day and age additional precautions are taken as a matter of routine in virtually every other aspect of life, whether those precautions are perfect or not. They need to do something and I think they will. Pres. Nelson is a change agent and I don't expect he's satisfied with the status quo where there have been so many cases hitting the press in recent months/years, and the church has no plan or proactive response.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

What would it take for you to believe the Church is becoming watered down?

 

For me, I think if a few of these items I list come to fruition then it's the beginning of another Community of Christ: garments are dumped or heavily modified for everyday use, temple ceremony is altered such as simplified any further, it becomes acceptable that belief in a historical version of the BOM is no longer needed, woman gain priesthood powers beyond the temple, or the WOW is loosened.

There's a bunch of other examples, but these all may very well happen over the next two years.  The Church hasn't faced such social pressure like this. except their early years.  

Many of those examples you cite (garments, worthiness interviews, WoW practice, temple ceremony etc) are cultural issues that have developed over time. I don't see anything wrong with stripping the church of cultural requirements masquerading as doctrine and commandment.

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It does put everyone into a data base that is searchable by police. So, for example, it could be a deterrent for anyone who doesn't want their name, fingerprints etc in the system that can be checked by law enforcement.

This is true, but the people that I know who are like this haven't committed any crimes and don't plan to, they just don't trust the government.  They are the Ron Swanson's of the world.  

Quote

 

I don't know how well that would work, and I'm certainly open to other ideas. But the point of my original prediction was to say that the church will make a deal to do "something" with the intent of greater youth protection, whether it's background checks, ceasing of one on one youth interviews which include sxual topics etc.

But I really think youth protection is a big issue that the church hasn't really attempted to tackle yet. I don't imagine for a moment that leaders are indifferent to suffering and abuse and in this day and age additional precautions are taken as a matter of routine in virtually every other aspect of life, whether those precautions are perfect or not. They need to do something and I think they will. Pres. Nelson is a change agent and I don't expect he's satisfied with the status quo where there have been so many cases hitting the press in recent months/years, and the church has no plan or proactive response.

 

I agree.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This is true, but the people that I know who are like this haven't committed any crimes and don't plan to, they just don't trust the government.  They are the Ron Swanson's of the world.  

I agree.

10 bonus points for the Ron Swanson reference   

But I think people with those kinds of proclivities fear being found out and/or fear having attention drawn to them, either now or in the future. I think many of them recognize the risk of being caught and would do anything to avoid giving law enforcement another tool against them. Again, I don't know how well it works as a deterrent but I suspect it does more than nothing.

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But a background check does not look into their background or talk to anyone from their past.  That's not what a background check does.  Not the kind that we are talking about.

Totally depends on the background check.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Totally depends on the background check.

So you are suggesting the church do the super intensive background checks where you basically hire a PI or team of PIs to track down everything about their past as if you are doing political opposition research?

That would bankrupt the church.

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But a background check does not look into their background or talk to anyone from their past.  That's not what a background check does.  Not the kind that we are talking about.

There are types of background checks that involve that kind of in-depth investigation. However, I think that (1) trying to implement something like that church wide would be cost prohibitive, and (2) I doubt many people would be willing to submit to the kind of investigation that the government does for personnel requiring Top Secret (and above) clearance in order to serve as a Sunbeam teacher. 

 

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree (and have experience working in this area). 

Do you honestly believe that repeat predators or repeat abusers want anyone looking into their backgrounds or talking to people from their past?  They don't.

I'm not going to argue with you regarding this....I can only state what my experience has been.

They don’t do that though unless you are talking about unaffordable background checks. They run a conviction search. They might also get bankruptcies and previous addresses and phone numbers. Companies you owned, possibly licenses you have gotten. They are not going to send someone out to go talk to people about you.

You have experience with previous sex offenders whose offense or offenses had no paper trail refusing a background check for fear of getting caught? Unless they were trying to join the FBI or CIA or seeking high political office I doubt it.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But there won't be any attention focused on their background.  All a background check does is to run the person's name through a database to see if they've ever been convicted of a crime.  That's it.  It's not any more in-depth than that.  If they haven't ever been convicted of a crime (even if they've been arrested or charged with a crime, if they weren't convicted, it does not show up), the background check comes back clean.  Completely, sparkling, clean. 

So again, why would they care?  You're not really making any sense.  

Really?  It makes perfect sense as I read through these posts.

If a person who wants access to be alone with kids has a choice between getting that access somewhere he’s not subjected to a background check (which no one ever knows for certain what the results will be) or going somewhere they are going to have to submit to some scrutiny, which one do you think they will pick?

That’s what a “deterrent” is right?  

Edited May 7, 2019 by JulieM

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

10 bonus points for the Ron Swanson reference   

But I think people with those kinds of proclivities fear being found out and/or fear having attention drawn to them, either now or in the future. I think many of them recognize the risk of being caught and would do anything to avoid giving law enforcement another tool against them. Again, I don't know how well it works as a deterrent but I suspect it does more than nothing.

Totally depends on the background check.

I've had to do them for boy scouts and to work in the school district and they aren't in-depth.  They cost about $40 and just search the databases for each state.  Thorough ones cost around $100 per person.  I think for the church, that would definitely be prohibitive.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Really?  It makes perfect sense as I read through these posts.

If a person who wants access to be alone with kids has a choice between getting that access somewhere he’s not subjected to a background check (which no one ever knows for certain what will be the result) or going somewhere they are going to have to submit to some scrutiny, which one do you think they will pick?

Thats what a “deterrent” is right?  

Like I said, if the person has never been convicted, then they know for certain that they will pass the background check.  I don't see that level of scrutiny to be any real kind of deterrent.  

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, if the person has never been convicted, then they know for certain that they will pass the background check.  I don't see that level of scrutiny to be any real kind of deterrent.  

I’ve heard some horror stories about background checks (bad results).  So, I would think that if someone is at all worried about past actions or associations, they’d avoid them if they had things to hide.  That just makes sense.  

Edited May 7, 2019 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are suggesting the church do the super intensive background checks where you basically hire a PI or team of PIs to track down everything about their past as if you are doing political opposition research?

That would bankrupt the church.

Yes, that exactly what I said. Impressive knock down of that strawman.

Is it possible...that there are more options than the two you think exist: a 2 minute internet search or hiring a PI?

Is...It...Possible? (asked in my best William Shatner voice)