melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 No they couldn't. They would have to have comitted a sexual offence "against" a child or adult. If you are saying there are people on the register who have not done this, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. Personally, I would find it quite incredible if that were the case and nobody had reported it in the media, or raised questions in parliament about it. why is it my onus to demonstrate it, im purely showing there could be and to cover all bases, whereas you lot seem to blank EVERYTHING off as child abusers. have people ever been locked up who have been found to be innocent? could that mean theres people on the sex offenders register that is? in theory you get done for a crime you could be "convicted" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 sex between consenting underage "adults" is still deemed a crime, do you think ALL men accused of rape are guilty? theres been plenty of women found out to be lying for one reason or another its not a clear cut issue I agree with that, but surely it's another separate issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 What! Then... Surely the simplest way to solve this is to have two registers. One for paedophiles, rapists and the such like, then another one for consensual sex offences. Adoption absolutely, however the ones who say do it in public, would they be the most trusted teachers? Not necessarily because of what they might do to the children, but as to what morals they may teach them. Just as AFAIK convicted criminals are not allowed to be teachers, etc... at last somebody with some sense i dont know about two registers, but maybe it DOES need looking at and having maybe a grading system, those on the miner scale and then rising to the hardcore peados if somebody consenting is put on it for whatever reason (i dunno, S&M, underage consenting sex, sex in public) then they should be allowed a little more freedom if found to not be a threat rather than tarr everybody with the same danger to children brush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I agree with that, but surely it's another separate issue! not if they get found guilty for whatever reason and stuck on the sex offenders register? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 but again your just blindly throwing that term around like confetti "sex offenders" think to yourself WHO could be a sex offender? is it just the worst kind? could there be any other types? see seem to have closed your narrow mind some more and failing to think of all the reasons why somebody may be on it My bold - because that is the correct term for people on the sex offenders register. I have no reason to think of what possible sexual offences a person may have committed to warrant being on the register. As far as I'm concerned, being on the register=risk. That is why the register exists, to manage risk. I would argue that people who are not a risk (perhaps the young boy given as an example in Truman's linked article) should not be on the register, and therefor could adopt children. However, until those cases do not appear on the register at all, I think it would be foolish to make exceptions, effectively gambling with children's lives. If the gamble fails, you screw up a life forever. You accuse me of a closed mind, why don't you open yours up to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 sex between consenting underage "adults" is still deemed a crime, You are talking about hypothetical cases instead of real ones again. No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence unless it was an attack or abuse, in which case it would be right they should be on the register. do you think ALL men accused of rape are guilty? theres been plenty of women found out to be lying for one reason or another its not a clear cut issue So you think we shouldn't regard people convicted of rape as sex offenders, just in case they were wrongly convicted. Let them work with kids, or adopt? That's very magnanimous, but the people who were abused as a result might see it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 You are talking about hypothetical cases instead of real ones again. No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence unless it was an attack or abuse, in which case it would be right they should be on the register. 16 isn't under age..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 What! another one for consensual sex offences. People charged with such crimes don't go on the sex offenders register. In the rare event when such things come to court, it would probably be a public order charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 not if they get found guilty for whatever reason and stuck on the sex offenders register? But once found guilty (even if wrongly), you are guilty until proven innocent. In those case's where they have been wrongly convicted, it's wrong and unfair, but stands. I hear people swear blind their innocent, even though i've seen them with my own eyes. It's always said that everyone in prison claims their innocent. (But this is (one reason as to) why I don't agree with the death penalty) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 You are talking about hypothetical cases instead of real ones again. No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence unless it was an attack or abuse, in which case it would be right they should be on the register. So you think we shouldn't regard people convicted of rape as sex offenders, just in case they were wrongly convicted. Let them work with kids, or adopt? That's very magnanimous, but the people who were abused as a result might see it differently. you dont know if anybody or not as been convicted of underage sex or indeed if they are on the register. im fed up of arguing on the subject now, ive said what i wanted to say on the subject, it seems certain people have their minds made up and refuse to even think that there maybe varying types of people on the register. so ill sign off with ALL im trying to say is, shouldnt somebody in the know investigate fully and maybe change it slightly to make it fairer? if your not a gary glitter type character then why should you get classed int he same league as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.