I really don't get all the hate. Speaking, at least, for myself, it's not hate so much as that I think you're mistaken. Your position appears not to have been

I really don't get all the hate. Speaking, at least, for myself, it's not hate so much as that I think you're mistaken. Your position appears not to have been fully thought out, based on your explanation or lack thereof. The fact that child abuse by educators is rare is no reason At the risk of seeming like I'm quibbling over semantics, of course it's a reason. It just may not be a reason you find adequate. not to do something relatively simple (like a criminal check) to reduce its incidence. Herein lie two fallacies. The first is that criminal checks are simple. An earlier commentor points out some potential complexities. Saying they're relatively simple begs the question of simplicity. They're most certainly not simple relative to doing nothing beforehand. The second, in my mind far more significant, fallacy is that doing "something" will reduce the incidence of the rare event. If the event is rare enough, we may not be able to reach any rational conclusions for lack of statistically significant sample size, let alone controlling for confounding factors. Lots of things are rare - liver cancer; plane crashes due to mechanical failure; Rackspace losing a whole data center, twice; I don't get the whole "pshaw, it's rare, no worries" attitude. I think you misinterpret as "no worries" the actual attitude of "I have better things to worry about." Far more importantly, I my efforts (not just worries) are far better focused on something more frequent or at least on something where those efforts will clearly make a difference. Otherwise, it's a shameful waste of time.