![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a short bit on Megan's Law
There are basically three categories of persons with respect to their suitability for working with children or other vulnerable populations.
1) a person who has been backgrounded, either in order to hold a professional license or in order to work in a profession. Security guards get a (loose) state background check which reputable employers back up with a stricter check. Armed guard backgrounds are tougher. EMT backgrounds are also tough. Far tougher is peace officer and dispatcher, in which they keep digging until they find something.
2) the ordinary lay public, for whom one might check references but there is no verification of having a clean criminal record
3) a person required to register as a sex offender, who is forbidden by law from working with minors. I will quote the state Web site directly because it is important:
Prohibition on Sex Offender Registrants Working with Minors
"Sex offender registrants whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16 are prohibited by law from working, as an employee or volunteer, with minors, if the registrant would be working with minors directly and in an unaccompanied setting on more than incidental or occasional basis or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over the child. If the registrant's crime was not against a victim under age 16, the registrant must notify the employer or volunteer organization of his status as a registrant. Failure to comply with this law is a misdemeanor offense. (Penal Code ยง 290.95.)"
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ | explanation | penalties for misuse
What is not generally known or understood is that backgrounding is really no protection. There are lots of offenders out there who simply haven't been caught, and they tend to be attracted to venues where they can work with kids.
I recall a recent case where a San Jose police officer was accused of sexual battery. In another case over the hill a San Jose detective was convicted of compelling a teenager to give him nude photos of herself.
So being a peace officer is no guarantee either? Wow, what a scary world we live in.
The way to resolve this for any volunteer organization is training for supervisors and firm internal policies that prevent anything untoward from occurring. When your organization is operating in a hotel and with shared hotel rooms, this can get unpleasantly interesting.
Where vicarious liability becomes a major issue is if an organization knowingly permits a registrant to volunteer, without having firm internal policies or controls, and then Something Bad Happens.
Hard to explain to a jury. Really hard to explain to a parent.
1) a person who has been backgrounded, either in order to hold a professional license or in order to work in a profession. Security guards get a (loose) state background check which reputable employers back up with a stricter check. Armed guard backgrounds are tougher. EMT backgrounds are also tough. Far tougher is peace officer and dispatcher, in which they keep digging until they find something.
2) the ordinary lay public, for whom one might check references but there is no verification of having a clean criminal record
3) a person required to register as a sex offender, who is forbidden by law from working with minors. I will quote the state Web site directly because it is important:
Prohibition on Sex Offender Registrants Working with Minors
"Sex offender registrants whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16 are prohibited by law from working, as an employee or volunteer, with minors, if the registrant would be working with minors directly and in an unaccompanied setting on more than incidental or occasional basis or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over the child. If the registrant's crime was not against a victim under age 16, the registrant must notify the employer or volunteer organization of his status as a registrant. Failure to comply with this law is a misdemeanor offense. (Penal Code ยง 290.95.)"
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ | explanation | penalties for misuse
What is not generally known or understood is that backgrounding is really no protection. There are lots of offenders out there who simply haven't been caught, and they tend to be attracted to venues where they can work with kids.
I recall a recent case where a San Jose police officer was accused of sexual battery. In another case over the hill a San Jose detective was convicted of compelling a teenager to give him nude photos of herself.
So being a peace officer is no guarantee either? Wow, what a scary world we live in.
The way to resolve this for any volunteer organization is training for supervisors and firm internal policies that prevent anything untoward from occurring. When your organization is operating in a hotel and with shared hotel rooms, this can get unpleasantly interesting.
Where vicarious liability becomes a major issue is if an organization knowingly permits a registrant to volunteer, without having firm internal policies or controls, and then Something Bad Happens.
Hard to explain to a jury. Really hard to explain to a parent.
no subject
I would really like to figure out some better way of screening volunteers and orienting them to the basic rules of working with minors. Things like - consent or not, DON'T touch them in ANY way under any circumstances other than a medical emergency. Seriously - *any* way. Having seen situations like a pat on the shoulder exagerated into an 'assault' issue, I realize how fine a line there is when working with kids, and I would like to increase awareness among all adults.
no subject
(It's the Oregon case that held pre-employment drug testing unconstitutional for non-safety-critical work, Lanier v Woodburn. http://www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lanier_opinion.pdf?docID=2061 for the original opinion, http://www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/9thCircuit_Woodburn_Opinion_31308.pdf?docID=3001 for the appeals court ruling.)
no subject