Sarah's law

[Ste]

I wrote this thread on another forum that is less liberal than here (no not PB) but thought it would provide an interesting conversation here as well.
Mainly, is there anyone who thinks this law would be a good idea?

Anyway. Sarah's law.

Basically, John Reid seems to be bowing to pressure from the NOTW to introduce some kind of law to publicise where all sex offenders are living once they've been let out of jail.

An article for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5093804.stm

Now there are a few things that need noting:

1. Most sex crimes, violent crimes and indeed most crimes are carried out by people who the victim knows. Relation, friend, colleague etc.

2. This will let people know where all sex offenders are living - NOT paedophiles. We've had massive debates on here before about sex offenders - remember the builder who is on the sex offenders list because he slapped a womans arse? Yeh, he'd be on the same list as someone who raped a 3 year old.

3. Very few sex offenders are actually dangerous to children. It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16 even if you're under 16 yourself if you are male. This would mean you are put on the sex offenders list and your details would be distributed to everyone. Not to mention all the Internet offences and things that Yahwe has mentioned before.

4. In order to know where sex offenders are living, the sex offenders need to volunteer the information to the authorities. If they knew that everyone in the country would know where they are living they simply wouldn't register. This means the authorities, let alone anyone else, wouldn't know where they are anyway. So it makes the situation worse.

5. The general public are idiots. We saw what the vigilante action did with the stupid NOTW campaign. It published the names and addresses of innocent people for a start and vigilante groups targetted people with similar names, similar addresses, paediatricians, etc etc. Noone wants to see that happen again. I wouldn't trust the general public not to start vigilante action even if the sex offender wasn't living anywhere near them.
Can you imagine? "Shit, there's a kiddy fiddler living in the street - ooh look there's an old man walking past a school, he looks dodgy, get him!"
This isn't an exaggeration either, it happened before.
This action wouldn't be justified even if it were a paedophile but what about all the other sex offenders on the list? They've done their time, they're not going to reoffend, why can't they live in peace?

6. It's been proven that by giving all criminals the support they need when they are in prison, and once released from prison, greatly reduces the chances of reoffending. And I mean massively. Turning them into targets is going to increase the liklihood that they will feel marginalised and have no hope of leading a normal life. Getting them a job and a social group allows them to have a life away from crime.

7. The whole "omg he'll be released in 5 years" thing ISN'T DOWN TO THE JUDGES. There are two figures here btw - the 'sentence' and the 'minimum sentence'.
The Judge can give a maximum of an 18 year minimum sentence for most crimes. The goverment has introduced laws saying that a guilty plee reduces this by a third. Then another law means they can apply for parole halfway through the minimum term. This leaves you with 6 years. Minus the time they've already spent in jail leaves the magic 5 years.
The newspapers again show their lack of intelligence by attacking judges when they should be lobbying the government for this.

8. I think that people shouldn't be released from prison if they are likely to reoffend. If they've reoffended already then that's it, 2nd strike and you're locked away for life. Combined with a "no prison sentence unless they are dangerous" and I think we'd avoid a lot of problems.
Yes this isn't fully explained, there will be a lot of "what if's" and "except for's" etc... But I think it would work better.


What are your views?

[lokken]

Well one would think that while children need protection, I'd ask the following questions:

1) Why are paedophiles allowed out in the general public without some kind of rehabilitation to make them not dangerous/less dangerous to the public?

2) Is the appropriate punishment for crime incarceration and/or rehabilitation or instead of that the former and life long persecution by the general public for a punishment already served?

A support line recently came out (I can't remember the story exactly) and said that large numbers of its calls weren't from people reporting offenders but from people who had thought about offending and wanted to stop. It's clear therefore that while people need punishing for committing these kind of offences, they also need help.

[Dace]

As usual that seems to be a Government quick fix. If you want to do things properly then it takes time, money and effort. I presume that the reason they want to publish the list is to stop sex attacks (notably on children). Well fair do's. In a just and humane (/sane) society you don't just kill the "sick people" (which is what publishing the list would do in several cases im sure) you try and cure them.

I'm reasonably sure that most paedophilles were abused as children so to cut down the numbers of paedophilles you need better detection services to stop sex attacks on kids (and thereby stopping future sex attacks on kids). You also need thorough counselling services for those who have been found to be abused. You might not be able to go through EVERY household in the land searching for abuse warning signs (although that should be the ideal) but you can certainly focus on institutions and organisations (eg adoption homes / young offenders institutes etc etc etc) where it has historically been shown that alot of abuse takes place.

With regards to general sex attacks ... i'm sure there's a profile of a young (20-30's male) who's a bit of a loner who does these kind of things. If these people were more integrated into their community they might not feel that the only way they're gonna get their rocks off is to rape someone. I may be wrong on this one but i think more social inclusion for young men is the way to go. Organisations being actively promoted to them etc. Groups where they increase their self confidence by being part of them etc etc etc.



In short, tackle the root of the problem not it's symptoms.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Ste

It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16 even if you're under 16 yourself if you are male.

This sentence shouldn't end "if you are male".

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Proteus

This sentence shouldn't end "if you are male".

Hold on - so a girl under 16 can be arrested for having sex with a boy under 16 as well?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Ste

Hold on - so a girl under 16 can be arrested for having sex with a boy under 16 as well?

Yes.

[dda]

Some sexual criminals should never be allowed out of prison as they are of a type which will continue to reoffend regardless of punishment or rehabilitation efforts. Serial rapists and serial child molesters are the group of which I speak. If a sexual criminal is felt to be safe enough to let out on the street than he shouldn't have his address advertised.

[milo]

Obviously its idiotic, im not sure why parents would even want the information. What do they expect people to do with this knowledge? the only logical action i can think of is selling up and leaving but short of that they'd just resort to standing in the street and pointing, which contradicts the reason they're out on parole in the first place. If you want them to be rehabilitated into society why would you want society to stand and point? (or much much worse).

[dda]

If you see one of them chatting up your 8-year old son or daughter you might be moved to warn the child to stay away from the pervert.

[milo]

Originally Posted by dda

If you see one of them chatting up your 8-year old son or daughter you might be moved to warn the child to stay away from the pervert.

going back to what you said, if they presented a danger to my 8 year old son they shouldn't be out in the first place, assuming we want people rehabilitated and not stoned its contradictory to say 'let them out to re-integrate into society' and 'omg look its him stay away from him, oi u fcking PAEDO'

In the same manner i don't think that someone who rapes a woman should have his identity released and if they're deemed ok to re-integrate into society i don't see why my 16 year old wife should stay away from him.

[dda]

Criminals are, at least in California, released after serving a fixed term They are then on parole for a short period of time. It is immaterial whether or not they are rehailitated or not. They have served their time, they are released. Recidivism is very high in the case of rapists and paedophiles. I wouldn't want my 8-year old or my 16-year old to be the one to determine that the offender was not rehabilitated.

If the law allowed them to be kept in prison until they had no more naughty urges then we could release them to the cemetary in due course as then and only then is it likely that they would be rehabilitated.

One's sexual orientation, and serial rapists and paedophiles have a sexual orientation toward their specialties, is not capable of rehabilitation. Homosexuals aren't going to become heterosexuals based on therapy. Nor are heterosexuals going to become homosexuals because or rehabilitation. There are those in society who, sadly, will ALWAYS be a danger to those around them despite the best efforts of society to render them harmless.

This having been said, Sarah's law seems over broad as it includes people not in the sexual predator class among those subject to it.

[milo]

heh then you'll like the stupidity of whats happening here, theres an outcry because certain individuals were given 5-8 year minimum terms on a life sentence. They got life but can be considered for parole/early release (or the combined effects of both) after 5 years, its incredibly unlikely they would get released but media went off on one anyway. They'd only get released when those evaluating them were certain they posed no more threat, now they want laws to say their address can become widely known if they are released.

To me anyway the present system seems fairly uncontroversial and straightforward, i don't understand the 'outcry'.


edit

and im against the naming of laws in the memory of certain individuals

[dda]

If they have the power to keep them in prison forever then the other seems unnecessary.

[milo]

not if you're the NOTW we'll also apparently see an increase in minimum terms (which wouldn't have affected those cases anyway) and no reduction in sentences for guilty pleas where the evidence is 'overwhelming' whatever that actually means. All these laws and changes wouldn't affect the cases the tabloids list in any meaningful way and will probably just lead to the judiciary having to read yet more hasty legislation and the rest of us living in even more shit conditions.

[Emperor Rozenski]

I think jail time is too lenient for these kinds of crime. I think the Marsellus Wallace approach would work best, to quote Ving Rhames:

“I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ni**ers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.”

[milo]

In the rightous fury of society against a rapist the advocation of rape is logical.

[furball]

To quote the Sun (the sister paper of the News of the World) today:

They hit out days after Home Secretary John Reid called the five-year jail term given to child sex beast Craig Sweeney "unduly lenient".

****ING TABLOIDS.

[Cannon_Fodder]

That's why I don't read them anymore.

I was also listening to talksport today since thats the only station it seems I can pick up at work, and it was like listening to the Daily Mail being read to you.

'Paedophiles should be hanged'

'Paedophiles should be castrated'

Idiots.

[milo]

How is John Reid's policy of 'its all everyones elses fault and its all shit shit shit' going down in the government? i can't imagine charles clarke and his clique are overly impressed!

[milo]

all he seemed to do is blame the civil servants

[Yahwe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5096542.stm

Things have got to be bad when they are too right-wing for the police ...

[Dace]

Originally Posted by dda

If you see one of them chatting up your 8-year old son or daughter you might be moved to warn the child to stay away from the pervert.

I'd be more interested in telling the parent to actually take care of the child, making sure they knew where they were at all times thus ensuring the child's safety. A paedophile can't spirit a child away if one of the parent's is standing right there with them now can they?!*

Imagine two scenarios;

Scenario 1: A gang of thieves operate in a particular area. The names of known thieves are released to the general public. Instead of making sure their homes are properly secured people go round to where the thieves live and kill them "just in case".

Scenario 2: People suspect that thieves might operate in their area. I mean there are thieves everywhere so it's a reasonable assumption to make. People don't need to know for certain that they're at a greater risk of robbery, taking the sensible approach they make sure their homes and cars are always securely locked.

Again it's a question of time and effort. People are lazy and want their child's protection/safety handed to them on a plate. If/when i have kids i'm gonna spend the time ensuring their safety/education/whatever. I'M gonna put the time in. I'm not gonna rely on a poorly paid civil servent to raise my kid.

Anyways **** THE GENERAL PUBLIC THEY'RE A BUNCH OF ****ING BAWBAGS!











*unless the paedophille has "cloak of child abduction +5" in which case the parent, and by extension the child, is ****ed

[s|k]

Once you pay your dues to society for breaking the law, regardless of the law, then you should be as free as any other person. Sex offenders are turned into second class citizens with less rights than others, even though they may have finished carrying out whatever sentence they were ascribed during their criminal trial. It is wrong to continue to dig up new ways to **** these people over AFTER they completed whatever punishment was required of them. If people feel that the most correct course of action is life in prison, then they need to go through the established avenues to set the minum sentence that reflects their views. Going around protections of our civil rights, to circumvent all the established barriers, for whatever reason, is an abomination, and citizens shouldn't stand for it.

People who are willing to give up freedom for security, deserve neither...etc.

[Another Slayer]

Originally Posted by Ste

Now there are a few things that need noting:

1. Most sex crimes, violent crimes and indeed most crimes are carried out by people who the victim knows. Relation, friend, colleague etc.
es
What are your views?

So surely if the victim / parents know who is and who isn’t a sex offender they can avoid contact and avoid the majority of these sorts of incidents? (Where re offenders are involved at least)

I don’t know how many cases involve re offenders but it would seem to be a useful statistic to know for this sort of discussion
Anyone?

I am against the publication of this sort of list, I personally support the concept of keeping dangerous people off the streets and letting "rehabilitated" ones out

[JonnyBGood]

The Sun don't go anywhere near fair enough. What we need to do is shoot everyone accused of being a paedophile. That'll make certain of the safety of children. Er until they become an adult and get shot I guess.

PS Has the sun ever had a headline of "THIS MAN WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN?" If not, why not?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

Once you pay your dues to society for breaking the law, regardless of the law, then you should be as free as any other person.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, isn't there an idea that some people are "generally" OK, but probably shouldn't be entrusted with certain responsibilities? e.g. if you get convicted of a large amount of fraud maybe you shouldn't be running any charities accounts departments any time soon or something?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, isn't there an idea that some people are "generally" OK, but probably shouldn't be entrusted with certain responsibilities? e.g. if you get convicted of a large amount of fraud maybe you shouldn't be running any charities accounts departments any time soon or something?

No I think it is irrelevant. I believe in a clean slate and second and third, and fourth chances. If whatever happend as a consequence of a conviction did not prevent a change in behavior, then perhaps what happens as a consequence of a conviction needs to be revaluated.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Another Slayer

So surely if the victim / parents know who is and who isn’t a sex offender they can avoid contact and avoid the majority of these sorts of incidents? (Where re offenders are involved at least)

So what you're saying is that all convicted sex offenders should have some kind of armband or tattoo or something so that everyone can see who they are?

This is about "omg there's a pedo on my street" and the parents wouldn't have a clue if it was someone coming from the next town or something...

Obviously that isn't one of the reasons I'm against it, it's just another reason why it wouldn't work.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Ste

So what you're saying is that all convicted sex offenders should have some kind of armband or tattoo or something so that everyone can see who they are?

That's a bit like the Jews having the Star of David on them back in the Nazi days.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by s|k

No I think it is irrelevant. I believe in a clean slate and second and third, and fourth chances. If whatever happend as a consequence of a conviction did not prevent a change in behavior, then perhaps what happens as a consequence of a conviction needs to be revaluated.

I think there is a line between unnecessary persecution (e.g. Megan's Law) and simply being sensible (e.g. barring a solicitor from practice for a dishonesty offence) and stopping people who have committed such offences being put in position of trust.

Going back to 'Megan's Law' I don't see how telling a parent that a convicted offender lives in the area stops a paedophile finding a child and molesting them, or even stops them from wanting to. Such a law to me simply indicates that the system itself is failing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

If whatever happend as a consequence of a conviction did not prevent a change in behavior, then perhaps what happens as a consequence of a conviction needs to be revaluated.

Well, maybe. But it's seems possible that people who commit offences of a certain nature might be doing so because of a form of illness. It might be we have no cure for this illness, but it can be controlled by therapy or whatever. It might get to a stage where after a while they can be released into society as we're reasonably sure they won't reoffend. However, it still might be a bad idea to put them into a situation where they'll be tempted to do it again.

And you might be willing to wipe the slate clean three or four times, but I'm not sure everyone else would. In fact, if someone said they let their kid be looked after a convicted child molestor (who had been given three chances previously, and failed each time) I'd raise a question about their ability as a parent.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

That's a bit like the Jews having the Star of David on them back in the Nazi days.

Slightly but, and I'm purely making a point here, paedophiles did commit a crime. 'Every jewish person' did not.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

paedophiles did commit a crime. 'Every jewish person' did not.

I think someone is forgetting the murder of Jesus Christ here!

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Slightly but, and I'm purely making a point here, paedophiles did commit a crime. 'Every jewish person' did not.

But I was making a reference to the armband thing...

[JonnyBGood]

Quiet guys, you never know when ZOG is watching

[Another Slayer]

Originally Posted by Ste

So what you're saying is that all convicted sex offenders should have some kind of armband or tattoo or something so that everyone can see who they are?

This is about "omg there's a pedo on my street" and the parents wouldn't have a clue if it was someone coming from the next town or something...

Obviously that isn't one of the reasons I'm against it, it's just another reason why it wouldn't work.

At the begining of the thread you made a list of "important points" and one of those was, that in the vast majority of cases the victim is known to the offenders. you stated this i assume to add weight to the case that this list was pointless, while infact it i belive it is the sole thing making this list half useful.

if you know who is and who isnt "a danger" its not going to help you in a situation where someone steals your children from a park and takes them off behind a bike shed, unless you have some stupid vigilantes checking names on a register for everyone who enters the park or somthing

HOWEVER this is only the smallst minority of cases, the normal would be mum and dad knowing about their kids going off to play at their friend jimmy´s house who lives with his uncle who lives at "123 main street" and this will ring bell which they will see from thier list is the home address of a known offender



(ok if jimmy´s uncle is a convicted sex offender he probably wont have custody of him, but nm. replace jimmy´s uncle with the kids own uncle, grand father, father or mums new boyfriend)

[JonnyBGood]

I can see it now..."hahaha jimmy no mates dad is a paedo!!!"

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Another Slayer

At the begining of the thread you made a list of "important points" and one of those was, that in the vast majority of cases the victim is known to the offenders. you stated this i assume to add weight to the case that this list was pointless, while infact it i belive it is the sole thing making this list half useful.

HOWEVER this is only the smallst minority of cases, the normal would be mum and dad knowing about their kids going off to play at their friend jimmy´s house who lives with his uncle who lives at "123 main street" and this will ring bell which they will see from thier list is the home address of a known offender

Are you suggesting that people would/should check this list every time a new man enters their families life?
This is assuming many things anyway:
firstly that you know the address of the person you're checking
secondly that the exact name and address is listed on the register
thirdly that the person is a convicted sex offender and is on the list in the first place.

And anyway, by known to the victim I mean it is usually a member of the family or a family friend.

[JonnyBGood]

Furthermore I can't believe that the state could realistically get away with allowing jimmy to stay with his uncle, a convicted paedophile. The potential hilarity of that situation is beyond reckoning.

[Another Slayer]

Originally Posted by Ste

Are you suggesting that people would/should check this list every time a new man enters their families life?

No i am not suggesting this, i have said that i dont support the list being made public. I wouldnt suggest that you stay up everynight with a gun pointed at your front door to protect yourself from burglers. However, if you were to want to protect yourself from burglers with a gun, i would suggest that it would be best to stay up at night. (dont know if i made this point very clearly)

Originally Posted by Ste

This is assuming many things anyway:
firstly that you know the address of the person you're checking

As i think we agree, these abuses occur by people known, so your kids would have visited a few times before they are really in danger, in this case you might have taken the kids yourself and seen the address

Originally Posted by Ste

secondly that the exact name and address is listed on the register

yeh i have heard stories about Jon smith who was put on the list as jonathan and various searches have missed him. one of the many pracitcalaties that need "ironing out" regardless of if this list is publicised or not

Originally Posted by Ste

thirdly that the person is a convicted sex offender and is on the list in the first place.

yeh, all these measure can only protect against known sex offenders, i imagine that if there was to be a public list people wouldnt want to be on it but would it be too difficult to add it as a parole condition or somthing

Originally Posted by Ste

And anyway, by known to the victim I mean it is usually a member of the family or a family friend.

surely the list will still work for these cases, that insted of checking jimmy´s uncle you check your family and family friends..

abolute paranoria i agree, again i am not supporting this list, i just want to say that it would potentially offer some protection.

If this added protection is worth the massive rape of freedom i dont really think so

[Another Slayer]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Furthermore I can't believe that the state could realistically get away with allowing jimmy to stay with his uncle, a convicted paedophile. The potential hilarity of that situation is beyond reckoning.

Originally Posted by Another Slayer

(ok if jimmy´s uncle is a convicted sex offender he probably wont have custody of him, but nm. replace jimmy´s uncle with the kids own uncle, grand father, father or mums new boyfriend)

yo... read the post

[JonnyBGood]

I can't believe the state would allow anyone who is a convicted sex offender to have custody of a child. The british tabloids would have a field day!

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Slightly but, and I'm purely making a point here, paedophiles did commit a crime.

no they didn't.

please use the term child abusers.

Paedophilia is not a crime.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no they didn't.

please use the term child abusers.

Paedophilia is not a crime.

Pardon. Given the context, it was rather obvious that I meant 'child abusers' as opposed to paedophiles. A mere slip of the, er, finger.

[acropolis]

so anyway, looking at this map, i moved from 55125 to 15213.

in the words of homer simpson, "BOOOO-RING!"

however, apparently 90210 is the hangout.

some people might point out the "downsides" of having this kind of information made public, like, you know, people going out and murdering their local paedos.

but really, how often does that happen?

personally, i'm excited that you brits will soon be joining the civilized world. cheers etc.

[Marilyn Manson]

Of course I'm opposed to it. I don't want everyone knowing where I live.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Pardon. Given the context, it was rather obvious that I meant 'child abusers' as opposed to paedophiles. A mere slip of the, er, finger.

when i say "negro" it's safe to assume i mean "criminal" not specifically someone of african descent.

i see no reason to change this notation, given that everything is always crystal clear in the context of my posts.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by acropolis

when i say "negro" it's safe to assume i mean "criminal" not specifically someone of african descent.

i see no reason to change this notation, given that everything is always crystal clear in the context of my posts.

All negroes have committed a crime anyways so I'm not sure what your point is here.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

All negroes have committed a crime anyways so I'm not sure what your point is here.

this is only because their skin color mirrors their tainted souls.