Have Oregon, NY, or Maine's laws prevented any crimes against the children they are meant to protect? Some data from them would be a start. What is the cost of the law, which is an intrusion into people's lives, in terms of dollars and more government?

I'm for it. When I applied for a Nevada Physical Therapy license back in '97 I had to give fingerprints. I was a bit surprised but figured it would help weed out those who shouldn't be working with kids.

Yogasong raises another point. With any background check, what is the cutoff? Obviously a child-abuser or hardened criminal would be ruled out. But what if someone got in a fight when they were 22 and was convicted of assault, can they not work with kids when they are 32? Marijuana possession? Simple robbery? I'm not against the idea, but the ever increasing bureaucracy is not always a great thing.

SM_bos . . . them unINTENDED consequences should be taught in schools!
Screw with the BULL get the horn. It should be part of the CORI process pure and simple. If you aren't as pure as the driven snow - not with our children you don't work!

I fully agree with the fingerprint check. I am a teacher and a father, and no stone should be left unturned to determine who works with kids. However, I understand that the $55 fee for the background check is to be paid by the teacher. That seems patently unfair and another unfunded mandate by politicians who want to pass laws and look good but don't have the stones to pay for them. Why is it the obligation of a veteran, hardworking employee to pay for his or her own background check when the state moves the goalposts midgame? Again, I have no problem with the check, but shunting the fee on the teachers really shows some nerve.

Nothing is more precious than OUR CHILDREN !!!

I see no reason why not. So many out of State crimes may not show up here in Massachusetts. It isn't a bad idea to check the national data base. Children have to be protected.

Agree we should take reasonable steps to protect kids but knee jerk laws arent always the best answer. One question; would any of the awful examples of child abuse above have been prevented by these precautions? Are there any examples anywhere, ever? or are we just addin one more step? One more bureaucracy? One more cost without ANY benefit?

I don't see why not. If you have nothing to hide what is the problem

As I understand the class 1 sex offender classification in Mass., the police don't have the right to diseminate that information to the public as to an individuals status as level 1, so a sex offender registry check wouldn't show any record--however, as I expect level one commited a crime, it should show on criminal check. Or does it?