Should we have more information about Sex Offenders?

[Plain Talker]

I do not accept your trivialisation of the issue by making a faux comparison with dogs.

 

No, MJ... I'm trying to point out the illogic within that particular argument.

[Plain Talker]

It is a perfectly apt question.

 

I would consider any sex offender a threat to children, that is why all sex offenders are barred from working with children AND vulnerable adults, do you disagree?

 

If you are going to argue that some sex offenders (a serial rapist was the example given) are perfectly safe for children to be around, you should be prepared to answer whether you would leave a child with them, or even want them in contact in school, or be happy with them living next door if you have kids.

 

again, no, that's not my argument.

 

My argument is as I and many others have pointed out in this thread (and in others) a child is far more in danger from his/ her "Uncle Bob" than from some random chap-in-a-raincoat in the street.

 

see Andyofborg's comment, here:-

 

Almost all child abuse happens within the family, so rather than worrying about random strangers you should be more worried about what uncle jim is up too.

[happyhippy]

I do not accept your trivialisation of the issue by making a faux comparison with dogs.

 

It's the magnification of the matter which is the problem when it comes to discussing it.

[happyhippy]

It is a perfectly apt question.

 

I would consider any sex offender a threat to children

 

A kerb crawler?

[Bobo11]

just to put things straight. i do not condone vigilantism there is a difference between condoning it and not losing sleep over it. the arguments about sex offenders being the same as other criminals is idiotic as other criminals can be rehabilitated where as its a proven fact that sex offenders can't. labeling kerb crawlers as sex offenders is a weak attempt at proving a point as kerb crawlers are not commiting a crime against the person the crime is against the state which is why they dont go on the sex offenders register. the prostitute is a willing participant and in most cases is not forced into it. its funny how ppl can not answer the simple question of would you leave your child alone if you knew a sex offender was present because it would defeat their own argument. all i am saying is that as a parent i believe i have the right to know if there is a sex offender living in my area!!!!!!!!!!!! pain and simple. it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers. innocent ppl are harrassed and sometimes attacked because of rumours so wouldn't be better if ppl could look and prove their innocence. finally the authorities would only act if there was evidence of a new crime but that does not mean that the person would never attack again just look at at the evidence most child killers have attacked before and been caught wich is why they kill to try and protect themselves. sorry for the essay but i think things need to be addressed

[truman]

it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers.

 

According to a report in the Telegraph in 80% of offences the offender knew the victim..

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7069034/60-sex-offences-against-children-every-day.html

[Bobo11]

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

 

Funny thing - the reason no-one will answer that is because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. We are talking about whether you should have more information about sex offenders living in your area, unless you are claiming that leaving your kids with strangers at all is ok then there is no reasonable point to the question you want answered.

 

To put it another way, would you leave your kids with strangers WHETHER OR NOT they are sex offenders?

 

I suggest you take the time to read the bit that you have highlighted. You will see that I never said leave your children alone WITH a stranger I said leave your children alone. So before you try to come back with a clever question read the content properly please. The question of wether you would leave your children alone is completely relevant, fact is if you knew a sex offender was living in your area you would think twice about letting your children out alone. Wouldn't you?????

[boyfriday]

The question of wether you would leave your children alone is completely relevant, fact is if you knew a sex offender was living in your area you would think twice about letting your children out alone. Wouldn't you?????

Not necessarily, because I can guarantee that there's someone on the Sex Offenders Register who lives in your locality, as I'm sure there is in mine, but without that knowledge you or I are unlikely to adjust our behaviour because experience tells us that the risk is not a great one. All the knowledge does for us is create a heightened state of suspicion and perhaps paranoia that isn't warranted.

[boyfriday]

I would let them out without that information, so how does having that information change anything? Which is the question that people who believe what you do have failed to answer from back in the thread - what change in your behaviour would having the information make? You realise the likelihood is that there is a sex offender somewhere in your general area, right? (If you live in a city anyway)

 

Doing that simultaneous posting style thing again auto

 

Ps: in so far as folks will believe we're the same hombre

[mj.scuba]

You don't get to decide how i answer, fortunately, especially when the question you asked is irrelevant. The question is about living in the same area as them, not leaving your children with them.

 

As to your second question - that is the point, they are all lumped together for no apparent reason.

 

The question is about whether sex offenders in the community, with their convictions were against children or not, pose a risk to children.

 

Your arguments revolves around the question of whether their crime was committed against a child - if it wasn't comitted against a child then that must mean they pose no threat to children. I disagree with that assessment.

 

My argument is that they may or do pose a threat, not because in every case they have always offended against children (their crime may have been against an adult), but because of the violent nature of many sex crimes.

 

Sex offenders are barred from working with children (& vulnerable adults), whether they committed their crime against a child or not. People much more qualified than you or I formulated that policy. They would not have done this unless they felt there was an element of risk to children & vulnerable adults.