There is an argument for reducing the legal requirement for CRB checks. It seems to me that the CRB requirement is a political response, not based on logic. It's almost as if the only reason for carrying out a check (apart from staying within the law) is to fend off accusations of negligence when either someone discovers that a person in contact with children (or vulnerable adults) has had a conviction, or an abuse has occurred, and the conviction comes out in later investigation.
Both of these are irrelevant as far as child protection is concerned: the first is for the organisation's self protection, the second is too late. What is important is to make sure that wherever possible interactions with children take place in an environment where abuse is impossible or unlikely, and any incidents have some chance of being witnessed.
Why do we insist on CRB checks only where children are concerned, why is it not a legal requirement in other areas of voluntary work or employment? The answer, and I'm guessing, is that we believe in the right of the individual to be able to move on in their lives, and the knowledge of a criminal record can sometimes bring unfair and irrelevant prejudice. Do we make the exception for child protection because deep down we believe that no paedophiles can move on, that all paedophiles are incurable? The flaw in that argument is that not all those branded as a paedophile are 'incurable'. Some are repulsed by the idea of sexual attraction to young children, but have been less than diligent in their relations with a physically precocious young adult. This is criminal carelessness not sexual deviance.
The fact that anyone with a criminal record would be dissuaded from many forms of public service because of CRB checks when the usual fact of having a record would not do otherwise undermines the principles of rehabilitation and deprives society of useful work.
At the moment too many organisations rely on the fact that CRB checks haves been carried out with the result that they put vulnerable people at risk by not having a sound protection policy in place. Such a policy should encourage the principle, throughout the organisation, that no adult be left alone with a child or if this cannot be avoided then in theory there should be a video record or equivalent, for the protection of the adult as well as the child. If video sounds expensive and intrusive, apart from the fact that technology is getting cheaper, it's probably a lot cheaper and certainly more effective than paying for largely irrelevant CRB checks which are unnecessarily intrusive in other ways.
Both of these are irrelevant as far as child protection is concerned: the first is for the organisation's self protection, the second is too late. What is important is to make sure that wherever possible interactions with children take place in an environment where abuse is impossible or unlikely, and any incidents have some chance of being witnessed.
Why do we insist on CRB checks only where children are concerned, why is it not a legal requirement in other areas of voluntary work or employment? The answer, and I'm guessing, is that we believe in the right of the individual to be able to move on in their lives, and the knowledge of a criminal record can sometimes bring unfair and irrelevant prejudice. Do we make the exception for child protection because deep down we believe that no paedophiles can move on, that all paedophiles are incurable? The flaw in that argument is that not all those branded as a paedophile are 'incurable'. Some are repulsed by the idea of sexual attraction to young children, but have been less than diligent in their relations with a physically precocious young adult. This is criminal carelessness not sexual deviance.
The fact that anyone with a criminal record would be dissuaded from many forms of public service because of CRB checks when the usual fact of having a record would not do otherwise undermines the principles of rehabilitation and deprives society of useful work.
At the moment too many organisations rely on the fact that CRB checks haves been carried out with the result that they put vulnerable people at risk by not having a sound protection policy in place. Such a policy should encourage the principle, throughout the organisation, that no adult be left alone with a child or if this cannot be avoided then in theory there should be a video record or equivalent, for the protection of the adult as well as the child. If video sounds expensive and intrusive, apart from the fact that technology is getting cheaper, it's probably a lot cheaper and certainly more effective than paying for largely irrelevant CRB checks which are unnecessarily intrusive in other ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment