Should we have more information about Sex Offenders?

[mj.scuba]

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:-

 

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

[boyfriday]

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

 

I'm going to agree with you on this point scuba. The reality is that I wouldn't have knowingly placed my kids under the supervision of someone I knew was a sex offender. Perhaps it's a justified position, or maybe it's an irrational one.

 

The problem is I believe if we were told the details of criminals living in our communities the information would be overwhelming, yet we wouldn't be in a position to do anything about it, other than be more vigilant than we already are.

 

The OP has already said they don't allow their children to play outside, I respect their decision, but what experience is it based on? If they were told there was a paedophile who lived on the same road would that increase their vigilance?

 

What if they lived 2 roads away? Would that vigilance be relaxed or would they simply fret more if their children were temporarily out of their sight..it could almost become a compulsive disorder.

[Rupert_Baehr]

A register of people who are likely to commit sex offences may be highly desirable, but I don't see why it should be available to everybody. No doubt the Police and Intelligence services are in possession of all sorts of very valuable information - but I doubt you're going to see it published too often.

 

There is a risk that sex offender' registers could be misused - or that people could find their names on a sex offenders' register. From the US:

 

"A decade ago, when James Smith was 17, he and an accomplice forced another 17-year-old into a car with them near Green Bay, Wisconsin. The two wanted to collect drug money from a friend of the boy, and they forced him go along for the ride, making clear to him that if he didn’t, “he is going to get what is coming to him,” according to the criminal complaint in the case. After the incident, Smith was convicted of a crime called “false imprisonment.”

 

No one disputes that Smith was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. What Smith and many others watching his case found surprising was that the state of Wisconsin ordered him to register as a sex offender.

 

Although his crime was not in any way sexual in nature, Smith’s photo was posted in an online registry. He also faced restrictions in some parts of the state on how close he can live to schools, parks and other places where children commonly gather.

 

Last month, the highest court in Wisconsin held that Smith does, in fact, belong on the sex-offender registry. Just days earlier, the Supreme Court of Georgia came to the same conclusion in another case in which a man named Jake Rainer had been convicted on the same charge as Smith. The crime of false imprisonment, both courts found, counts as a sex offense under state law, even if nothing sexual happened.

 

That couldn't happen in the UK, could it?

 

If an individual gets drunk and pees on a war memorial, he is likely to find his name splattered all over the newspapers. Could his name end up on a sex offenders' list?

 

If an individual (who is not drunk) gets 'caught short', goes down a back alley, gets caught relieving himself and is prosecuted, could his name end up on a sex offenders' register? Is he a threat to children?

[boyfriday]

If an individual gets drunk and pees on a war memorial, he is likely to find his name splattered all over the newspapers. Could his name end up on a sex offenders' list?

 

If an individual (who is not drunk) gets 'caught short', goes down a back alley, gets caught relieving himself and is prosecuted, could his name end up on a sex offenders' register? Is he a threat to children?

 

That's very true, a man relieving himself, depending on when and where he does it, could be convicted of outraging public decency, which could result in an entry on the register.

 

Here's another example-the girls were investigated and charged, but the case was later dropped, as it wasn't deemed in the public interest:

 

"Earlier this summer, two 21-year old women were prosecuted for the crime of outraging public decency after they performed a deliberate “wardrobe malfunction”. Abbi-Louise Maple and Rachel Marchant lifted their tops and flashed their bare chests at a CCTV camera before collapsing in giggles on the beach at Worthing, West Sussex. The CCTV operator called the police and minutes later the two girls were arrested, interrogated and then charged."

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2492018.ece

[Cyclone]

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

 

Their crime could be pinching someone's backside in a club. Sexual assault according to the letter of the law.

If everyone who ever pinched a backside is a threat to children then the human race is doomed.

[Plain Talker]

 

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

 

truman! How could you interfere in this thread by bringing the TRUTH into the equation, damn you!

[esme]

just to put things straight. i do not condone vigilantism there is a difference between condoning it and not losing sleep over it.

so although you aren't a vigilante you see nothing wrong with others indulging in vigilantism.

 

so if you knew someone was a vigilante you would do nothing ?

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.

oddly enough I agree with this

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.

really ? you have evidence of this ? I would be very interested to see this evidence

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.

no it doesn't, we do our best not to leave our children alone anyway whether we know there is a sex offender present or not, they are children and we are responsible for their safety, however different parents look after their children in different ways, so this would be a different discussion

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.

I disagree for the reasons I have already given

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

this is incorrect as Mr Truman pointed out

innocent ppl are harrassed and sometimes attacked because of rumours so wouldn't be better if ppl could look and prove their innocence.

ok, suppose someone harasses you telling the world you are a sex offender, you show them a bit of paper that doesn't have your name on it they turn round and say "well that just means you haven't been caught yet" and they carry on

 

if someone showed you a bit of paper however official looking would you immediately change your mind, apologise and go round telling everyone you told about them that you were wrong ? or would there be a suspicion that perhaps they knocked it up on their computer ?

 

if someone is convinced of your guilt but has no evidence that you can refute then it is pretty much impossible to change their mind

 

the law says you have to prove someone's guilt, not that the accused has to prove their innocence, and if you can't prove someone's guilt then you leave them alone, you don't say anything and you certainly don't do anything

 

and if you do have proof you take it to the authorities

 

finally, what if there's a mistake on the register that brings a rampaging mob to their door, will the mob listen while they explain that there's a mistake on the register.

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

but the authorities know where these people are and monitor them regularly you have no need or right to know this, but if you have suspicions or evidence then you take it to the authorities and let them deal with it, they get paid to do this, you don't, they have authority to investigate, you haven't

[owlforlife]

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

[owlforlife]

They MAY be a threat to a child, as any person MAY be, but the mere fact of having a conviction for a sexual offence makes them no more or less likely to be a threat to children than anyone else (assuming it wasn't an offence against a child of course). And i very much doubt the policy was formulated by experts, more likely mandarins and politicians.

 

So by this remark are you saying that you are as much a risk to children as a sexual offender. Cos I sure as he'll know that I'm not

[Alien]

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

 

 

As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

 

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.