Wednesday, July 20, 2011

On-Line Background Check and Faulty Reasoning

Recently I had the opportunity to be watching television and did. What made this particular episode of my rare television viewing worthy enough to draw me into writing about it was that I actually saw a commercial. My missed opportunity with the remote led to my viewing of the attempt by to mollify those in the dating scene.

My ire was raised by the statement made by the actress portraying a confident woman saying, “there's a lot to be said about a mother's intuition, but isn't it better to know for sure”. The implication is that provides that surety.

They profess to provide security through knowledge about the potential lurid past of the subject person for which you inquire. However, they do not interview the subject, query collateral sources or engage in any type of surveillance. Instead, they are nothing but an for-profit depository of public records related to court convictions.

I have often warned against using tools like sex offender registries as the basis for a determination as to scrupulousness of a person. I am keenly aware of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in many cases, particularly sexual offenses. I previously wrote about the false sense of security that these background checks provide.

Databases should be nothing more than a tool. When it comes to your personal safety or that of your children I recommend intuition over any day. Intuition is a function of the subconscious that analyzes a lifetime of events made applicable to a current situation and then renders a feeling. The human mind is a far superior instrument to the for-profit collection and dissemination of data provided by

It is the role of marketing to get you to disengage your mind from a natural postulate and then be susceptible to reconditioning to accept a paradox. The veracity of's claims are spurious. I suggest that, for your safety, you avoid using this service if you believe it will inform you if the person has committed a crime.

Keep in mind -- Casey Anthony, as a rule of law, has not harmed a child; she has lied to police. O.J. Simpson, as a rule of law, has not murdered anyone. Not all people are convicted the first time they commit crimes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

No comments: