Sex offenders should adopt states report

[melthebell]

I have to agree with MJ Scuba on this one .

I doubt very much that the isolation wards of our prisons are populated by married couples who had sex on a beach, or people who had a quickie in a phone box. We are not in Saudi arabia, and I'm pretty sure when police 'intervene' in such activities it ends in no more than a caution.

 

If anyone can provide proof that the sex offender's register has a significant proportion of people convicted of such misdemeanors on it, I'll re-consider, but in the meantime I am going to keep on assuming it is made up overwhelmingly of people who have had sex with minors, and sex attackers. Anything else would be stupid.

but thats the thing, does it mean people in prison?

we dont know whos on it, people are blindly believing its all ian huntleys and gary glitters.

i have no proof, any of us dont, but im betting its far more ranging than we'd imagine

 

but i believe its wrong to blindly shout no no no no without even looking at the sceneraio in detail. I think at the very least people should have some form of graded system on it to denote severity of crime

[Bulgarian]

Which sex offenders would you deem suitable to work with vulnerable persons?

 

a couple who 5 years ago, when they were 15, had sex.

 

theoretically anyone who has had underrage sex (and there are lots of people) should be on the register, but only a tiny fraction of people get prosecuted, does that make them unfit to adopt, of course not.

[donkey]

How about the 26 year old bloke who,ten years ago, had sex with his fifteen and a half year old girlfriend?Why would he be deemed a threat to anyone ...?

 

Show me a single link to where a 16 year old was convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. The police and CPS is not entirely staffed by half wits. These cases exist only in people's imaginations.

[melthebell]

Show me a single link to where a 16 year old was convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. The police and CPS is not entirely staffed by half wits. These cases exist only in people's imaginations.

 

thats not the point, it happens, and its A SEX OFFENCE

 

to blindly say theyre all gary glitter is complete nonsense

[Bulgarian]

Show me a single link to where a 16 year old was convicted of having sex with a 15 year old.

 

but they are still sex offenders technically, and should be on the register if the police could be bothered to prosecute them

[mj.scuba]

so as usual your emotionally ranting about something that your "assuming", none of us actually know exactly what types of offenders are on the register, but in theory i'd assume theres all types.

as i said, to me it seems too wide ranging and a grey area when you actually THINK about it.

are you saying theres nobody on the register that maybe shouldnt be? couples done for things they were abit over naughty doing?

people actually innocent but convicted?

 

i think your a little over zealous to follow the rabid headlines of the press and use a little common sense

 

its prolly just me but id never spared a thought for the sex offenders register before, its just there.

but now its been mentioned and you start to question, its interesting to think what types of offenders are on it, bar the normal gary glitter types

 

What rabid headlines are you talking about? And I think you need a massive dose of common sense yourself. You have argued that sex offenders should be allowed to work with children. You then admit yourself we do not know what offences an individual may have committed. So you are arguing for sex offenders, perpetrators of unknown crimes but known to be of a sexual nature, should be allowed to work with children. If you think that's common sense

 

I think you're rather stupid if you only ever assumed 'Gary Glitter types' ie peadophiles were the only sort on the SOR.

 

If you want to argue that certain offences should not warrant being on the SOR, then do so, but you have mixed the issue up with letting persons of unkown sexual convictions work with vulnerable persons which is a different issue entirely. They are barred from working with children for a reason. If you want them to work with children, volunteer your own, let them stay with you, don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

[donkey]

but they are still sex offenders technically, and should be on the register if the police could be bothered to prosecute them

 

So you are talking about hypothetical people who aren't on the register. I don't think we need to worry about them.

[truman]

Show me a single link to where a 16 year old was convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. The police and CPS is not entirely staffed by half wits. These cases exist only in people's imaginations.

 

"...Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.

 

This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.

 

But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register..."

 

from here

[Bulgarian]

So you are talking about hypothetical people who aren't on the register. I don't think we need to worry about them.

 

You don't ?

[melthebell]

What rabid headlines are you talking about? And I think you need a massive dose of common sense yourself. You have argued that sex offenders should be allowed to work with children. You then admit yourself we do not know what offences an individual may have committed. So you are arguing for sex offenders, perpetrators of unknown crimes but known to be of a sexual nature, should be allowed to work with children. If you think that's common sense

 

I think you're rather stupid if you only ever assumed 'Gary Glitter types' ie peadophiles were the only sort on the SOR.

 

If you want to argue that certain offences should not warrant being on the SOR, then do so, but you have mixed the issue up with letting persons of unkown sexual convictions work with vulnerable persons which is a different issue entirely. They are barred from working with children for a reason. If you want them to work with children, volunteer your own, let them stay with you, don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

 

did i mention working?

ive only mentioned adoption which was the topic

but i digress, i never said sex offenders i said SOME and only if they can be deemed not to be a risk, which goes back to my original point, if somebodys not at risk of attacking children, but is ont he sex offenders register for something else why is it deemed more dangerous than say a burglar or a mugger? who could teach his trade to them or even get them to help?