Felons Supervising Minors: Is It Legal?

[PHall]

^ Your right. 

I still think when a person with a questionable background finds out we do background checks, they will mysteriously disappear.  I think this whole thing is a null point. 

You would be amazed. There are some folks out there who are either bold enough or dumb enough to think that the fingerprint check won't find anything.
In the past 5 years, we've had at least 4 people trying to join my squadron come back with "hits" on their fingerprint checks.
And we're not talking about minor stuff either. We're talking felonies, mostly drug related.

[JoeTomasone]

My understanding was that if an applicant was convicted of a felony that did not involve pedophilia and the circumstances were such that it posed no relevance to CAP (either due to age committed, length of time "clean" since, or the nature of the offense -- or a combination of these) and the applicant was forthright in disclosing the matter at the time that they applied that they would still be permitted to join pending a review of the facts.    If the offenses were not disclosed it supposedly was grounds for immediate disreview and membership denial.   

[PHall]

That's what they did. They said they had not been arrested or convicted of a felony on the application.
Of course when the fingerprint check came back as a hit the game was over.

[CadetProgramGuy]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

OK fellas,

I know Johnny Yuma personally, and I know the people he hangs with, he does believe in redemption.  He is a good person....Really......

What I think he is trying to say is this......

If you ask someone if they are a felon, they answer yes.  Immediately  speaking does it matter what for?

After talking to the person, you can then decipher what they 'were accused of' then you can make your arguements.

True, Charles Manson is a Felon, so is Martha Stewart.  They are both Felons bottom line.  (yeah I know there is a little bit of difference between them.....)

[PHall]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

OK fellas,

I know Johnny Yuma personally, and I know the people he hangs with, he does believe in redemption.  He is a good person....Really......

What I think he is trying to say is this......

If you ask someone if they are a felon, they answer yes.  Immediately  speaking does it matter what for?

After talking to the person, you can then decipher what they 'were accused of' then you can make your arguements.

True, Charles Manson is a Felon, so is Martha Stewart.  They are both Felons bottom line.  (yeah I know there is a little bit of difference between them.....)

And neither Charlie Manson or Martha Stewart can join CAP because they are convicted felons.
And there seems to be no provision in the regs for felons who have had their civil rights restored either.
Yes, the Commander can ask for a waivier, on a case by case basis.
But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

[lordmonar]

PHall,

Are you sure about that?

I know of a couple of convicted felons who are members of CAP.

The former AZWG CC was convicted felon IIRC, there is someone I know locally who spent some time in the pen for tax evasion.

My point being....39-2 does not say that being a convicted felon is an automatic bar to membership.

[PHall]

Like I said, the Unit Commander of the unit that the person is joining can request a waiver from National Headquarters.

Depending on the offense (violent/nonviolent) and the time since the offense, National may grant the waiver.

[mikeylikey]

But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

Why would we have too?  That means I have to tell all the parents the backgrounds of every Officer in the SQD.  If I don't I would set myself up to being sued.

Once again a felony is violent or non violent and could have been a mistake the person made as a kid 40 years ago.   

[PHall]

But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

Why would we have too?  That means I have to tell all the parents the backgrounds of every Officer in the SQD.  If I don't I would set myself up to being sued.

Once again a felony is violent or non violent and could have been a mistake the person made as a kid 40 years ago.   

Parents seem to find out about this stuff. Don't ask me how, they just do.

[Flying Pig]

A mistaken violent felony?   I can give it to you that in life people have serious lapses of judgement and that they can sit back and say "Wheeew, that was stupid."  But I have yet to see an accidental violent felony.  In CA we call that a "strike."  (Before that goes off into another thread..trust me it takes a lot more than 3 to get life despite what the media tells you)

As far as getting sued?  Criminal records are public knowledge.  I think you could stand a better chance of being sued by the parent who wasn't made aware that "Timmy's" Deputy Commander for Cadets had a conviction for a violent felony in his past.  Parents always seem to find out because we all tend to come from the same community in our Sq.'s.  Someone always knows the secret.
I am going through this right now in my Sq. with a local County Supervisor wanting to direct kids to CAP as they are released from the local Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp as a condition of their probation.  Sorry, My unit does not have the time, or resources nor the interest to dedicate to that type of undertaking.  Her idea was to have two separate the Cadet units. Basically, one for the good kids and one for the bad kids.  Im not kidding! (Its election year and she's looking for a cause.)

About 10 years ago, when I was Deputy Commander for Sq. 59 in Hemet, CA. we had a man inquire about membership.  Great guy.  Was in his 50's and taught kids how to box at the local youth center.  He thought about CAP.  Problem is, when he was about 18, he did a few years for participating in a violent gang related crime, Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The guy is a completely different person now, and very active in trying to get kids to go a different path.  He met the prime example of a guy who was stupid and left that life behind him many years ago.

I talked with him, and he decided not to pursue CAP.  I explained to him the background check, etc.  He wasn't afraid of it, because he had told me what CAP would find.  And selfish or not, I have talked with many parents who really have no interest in reformed criminals interacting with their kids.  Usually my civilian employment brings up that topic, and parents usually ask what type of screening process that adults go through.  My approach has been that if the need arises, I can contact people like this person I talked about and have him assist the Chaplain as a guest speaker possibly.

I have found that many people with past issues always seem to want to work with cadets. I'm sure many don't and probably never want to mention their past.  I can understand that people make bad choices, but we have to have a cut off.  In our society, that almost always begins with the "no felony convictions" clause for even the simplest of organizations.  A cadet?  I will take a serious case by case look at any cadet that comes to me.  Because we really may be able to change a kid who may have just screwed up.  The issue with that as for a cadet though, is the act would have been very recent. 
An Adult?  No, sorry, I'm glad you are a different person, but as a commander, I have about 35 people who are already members that I need to be concerned with.  An adult coming into CAP looking to be the exception falls pretty low on my list of priorities. I have a 5 person membership committee as well where we bring in each potential Senior and we crack open a soda and basically say, "Tell us your deepest darkest secrets"  We use the bright desk lamp, in dark cramped smoke filled office also.  But seriously, many of my Seniors have cadets of their own and really want to know who this person is.  There are many places you can serve.  CAP isn't it.
We can rant and rave about people being framed, or an overzealous prosecutor, but in the end, 12 people said you did it.  It may not be the perfect system, but nobody has thought of a better one.

[floridacyclist]

Of course, you always have adults who committed felony acts as kids and then grew up...and still face consequences

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354898,00.html

[flyerthom]

Of course, you always have adults who committed felony acts as kids and then grew up...and still face consequences

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354898,00.html

And there is the gray area of this whole discussion.

Q: What is the difference between illegal and against the law?

A: One is a sick bird ...

[Flying Pig]

Ummmm, the guy is a convicted RAPIST.  

[0]

Well yes he was convicted, but it shouldn't define who he is.  I mean he was a kid at the time.  Should he have known better yes, but at the same time come on people who were convicted can learn from their mistakes and speak out against what they did, saying they were wrong and trying to make sure no one makes the same mistake they did.

[Hawk200]

Well yes he was convicted, but it shouldn't define who he is.  I mean he was a kid at the time.  Should he have known better yes, but at the same time come on people who were convicted can learn from their mistakes and speak out against what they did, saying they were wrong and trying to make sure no one makes the same mistake they did.

It does define who he is. He made a life altering choice for someone else, and now someone would have you believe that he is the victim. Where is that OK?

As for learning from his mistake, he still should be, but apparently has decided that in one case, he should be let off the hook. If no one grants a reprieve for him, then that's tough.

Too many people don't learn that any decision you make lasts forever. Everything you do defines who you are, and those decisions actually last long after you're dead.

[0]

Ok, and in this case he's only going near the school to attend his son's graduation.  So are you going to punish the son by not letting his father see him graduate?

And what about those who aren't allowed to go near the property to vote?  Or to attend a PUBLIC hearing? 

[Hawk200]

Ok, and in this case he's only going near the school to attend his son's graduation.  So are you going to punish the son by not letting his father see him graduate?

I'm not punishing his son, and neither is the government. As punishment for the man's conviction, he is forbidden to go on school grounds unless under certain conditions. The son has no punishment handed to him by the government, there isn't any.

You're doing an end run about people taking responsibility for their own actions by claiming that they are punishing the son. The father committed a crime years ago, and as such, he has to serve a punishment. It's the fathers crime that is being dealt with. The law states what he must suffer. Unfortunately, due to his own actions, he cannot go on school grounds. That's a perfect example of any decision you make lasting forever. He doesn't get to see his son's graduation due to his own criminal conduct. He has harmed his son, not the government.

Here's a scenario (one that doesn't involve the law): You have a worker that never shows to work on time, doesn't accomplish his or her assigned duties, leaves early without permission, and costs your company money due to not getting work done. Do you keep the individual around and pay them just because they have kids? It's a tough scenario, but many people look at it as punishing the children. It's not. It's eliminating an ineffective worker, and it's on the person who doesn't perform. This mans case is similar. He has disappointed his son due to his own actions, the government had nothing to do with it.

And what about those who aren't allowed to go near the property to vote?  Or to attend a PUBLIC hearing? 

I guess you missed this part (quoted from the article): "In August 2006, a state law went into effect prohibiting sex offenders from going onto school property without permission from the district superintendent. The only exceptions were government meetings or polling sites."

So your argument is invalid there. The law has an exception.

I won't get into the felons not voting thing.

[0]

The way I read that article it said that even yes those exceptions were made that final decision was up the superintendent.  the superintendent in question is upholding the policy of not at all going near the site even for voting.

edit,

I just reread that part of the article and I apologize I did misinterpret.

But I still agrue that in the case of a graduation an exception should be made so a father can see his son graduate. 

[Hawk200]

The way I read that article it said that even yes those exceptions were made that final decision was up the superintendent.  the superintendent in question is upholding the policy of not at all going near the site even for voting.

I understand that. It's far easier to just perform a blanket ban than to make an exception, and have that exception be the time when something bad happens.

The superintendant probably has additional concerns, anything from insurance requirements to local opinion of the school if she allows it. It wouldn't be very easy for her if she ended up with a mile long picket line outside the grounds if someone heard about it. Why should she be forced to endure something like that over the decision to allow a criminal to come on school grounds?

It stinks, but that father made a choice to commit a crime in the past. No one else should have to suffer for it, but it was his own decision, and one he has to live with.

[0]

Well at least for the graduation ceremony a one time event.  Say for example a relative of yours had a criminal record and wasn't allowed near a school.  Despite that ruling wouldn't you want your relative there to share in your accomplishment?