Turn on thread page Beta

Does anyone believe Sarahs law is a bad idea? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RightSaidJames)
    First of all, Sarah's law doesn't allow for "concerns" or or "interest" to be passed on... only convictions will be disclosed, nothing more.

    No, this won't prevent every paedophile from hurting children, only the convicted ones. But we can't go about locking up everyone we think is a possible child molester, nor is it fair to publicly report accusations. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

    I don't think it will lead to vigilante action; the law makes it clear that you are not allowed to disclose the information to anyone else, so someone who did so would be breaking the law.

    Your first point has been dealt with already. On your second point, I was not talking about locking up a potential child molester permanently ,but only those who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child.America seems to be going increasingly down that route with them. With long term specialist secure hospitals for child molestors or selected communities where they once released have to reside. If they are all in certain specified areas it would make it much easier for authorities to monitor them.

    I also think you are being short sighted in the case of vigilante action.There have been several cases where someone who seems a bit 'dodgy' or an allegation made which turned out to be false has been hounded out and in one case killed by a mob. There was the infamous case of a paeditrician being harrassed. In these cases the Police have had to send out leaflets to these communities, where they have said this person was innocent or had no history. And still the person had to move. I am sure some parents would use this info responsibly but Iam also sure some would not. There is meant to be punishments if a parent does release this info to others which show this issue has been forseen as a problem.

    I feel the tabloids and the government to placate certain people are using this greiving mother for their own ends.When really what the government should be doing is radically changing the way it deals with paedophiles. And as been also brought up a sex offender isn't always someone who has been abused young children. A man was recently placed on the register for having sex with a bicycle.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olled-out.html

    I could just see this being used for nefarious purposes by for instance a woman with a grudge against a man. As Iam sure even being checked might well flag something. What if for instance a mother had a check ,was told her boyfriend had a criminal record which had a sex offence or police just had an 'interest' or 'concerns'. Mum either discussed it and decided to stay with this chap or she kept it to herself.What would happen then? Would social services get involved?

    The other issues I have is, could you really expect no vigilante action?.For instance the reason this works well in America is they have in most states much better self defence laws than here with many owning firearms which are kept at home. So I expect people here would feel less secure in being able to protect their familes. In america also, many of the paedos are actually kept in special paedo areas because many states have restrictions on where they can live.

    Finally will this really protect children?. Given that the last case which got massive media attention involved a female nursery worker with no history of child molestation who had a CRB check and also most abuse happens in peoples homes? I think a far better idea is, to just remove convicted paedos permanently for society. In sara paynes case , the paedo here had been let out of prison. Would it protect all children completely? no but in my view it makes sense that this.

    why dont we just set up penal colonies? we have plenty of uninhabited islands in the hebridies....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    Yes, because everybody in this country is far too stupid to differentiate between a paediatrician and a paedophile :facepalm2:

    Have you read the article? Where on earth would a paediatrician appear on the Sex Offenders list? The people you mentioned should indeed be punished to the fullest extent of the law, however I can assure you, your example is by and large a rare occurance.

    CONVICTED paedophiles deserve to have their presense known to near by families. It's for their benefit as well as the families in the communities. If they know other people know about them, they'll be more conscience of their actions and may seek help in order to prove to other people that they have changed and are willing to change. If they continue to fly under the radar, they mostly won't. It's as simple as that.

    As I said before the situation is different in the US due to different laws regarding self defence. In this country I believe people would be much more likely to hound or even kill a convicted sex offender,because people feel less secure in protecting their families. Iam sure the Police would punish the person that released the info but it is a bit late then.

    As I said this law is open to abuse, and I think causes a worrying precedent. What next registers for the mentally ill? ,as lets face it in a minority of cases they are capable of violence without any warning.

    Paedophiles cannot change,that is like asking a Gay man too become straight. Some can control themselves knowing it is wrong I expect but once they have crossed the line of committing an offence they should be removed from society permanently.Sex offenders in general have one of the highest rates if re-offending.Many paeophiles who have gone to the levels of molestation often see nothing wrong with their actions and talk of the child encouraging it. The ones who do, are saying it to get out of prison or a secure hospital.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    why dont we just set up penal colonies? we have plenty of uninhabited islands in the hebridies....

    Makes sense, we have those islands north of shetland that were used to test the nerve gas in WW2 in case the nazis invaded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think its a good thing because my friend has a child with a guy who is supposedly on the register but she could never find out if it was true and now he has been charged again.

    Its a good thing if its only used by parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RightSaidJames)
    First of all, Sarah's law doesn't allow for "concerns" or or "interest" to be passed on... only convictions will be disclosed, nothing more.

    No, this won't prevent every paedophile from hurting children, only the convicted ones. But we can't go about locking up everyone we think is a possible child molester, nor is it fair to publicly report accusations. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

    I don't think it will lead to vigilante action; the law makes it clear that you are not allowed to disclose the information to anyone else, so someone who did so would be breaking the law.
    Wrong.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8477310.stm
    "Under the measures, families will be able to ask police if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse."

    I would have no (major) issue with it if it was simply for convicted paedophiles/child molesters. But this 'suspected abuse' nonsense makes me very uncomfortable. I know people who have had their careers and lives ruined by false allegations. Even when cleared, the 'soft information'still stays on their record forever... whilst the liars get away with no punishment. How is that fair?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Or rehabilitation? This will separate 'us' and 'them', surely? If there is a sex offence, then they shouldn't be able to work in these positions, but what about partners of mothers, etc? And won't this cause more vigilante action?
    I thought it had nothing to do with innocent till proven guilty, I thought it just informed people, namely parents of convicted sex offenders that lived nearby.

    Surely they should be able to know. I know it may seem quite paranoid, but I think it's a necessary precaution.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    As I said before the situation is different in the US due to different laws regarding self defence. In this country I believe people would be much more likely to hound or even kill a convicted sex offender,because people feel less secure in protecting their families. Iam sure the Police would punish the person that released the info but it is a bit late then.

    As I said this law is open to abuse, and I think causes a worrying precedent. What next registers for the mentally ill? ,as lets face it in a minority of cases they are capable of violence without any warning.

    Paedophiles cannot change,that is like asking a Gay man too become straight. Some can control themselves knowing it is wrong I expect but once they have crossed the line of committing an offence they should be removed from society permanently.Sex offenders in general have one of the highest rates if re-offending.Many paeophiles who have gone to the levels of molestation often see nothing wrong with their actions and talk of the child encouraging it. The ones who do, are saying it to get out of prison or a secure hospital.
    What you believe and the reality is highly likely to be mutually exclusive. Families mainly aren't stupid enough to risk a life sentance for murder of a paedophile. There was a case where that happened but generally they don't get harassed in public as often as you like to think UNLESS they are anywhere near a child.

    Mentally ill people who are considered a danger to the public are kept in a secure unit indefinately until that judgement changes, so again I don't see how you can use that as an argument against Sarah's Law.

    Then what we should be arguing for is for convicted paedophiles to be kept in secure units indefinately, as you have already suggested and I agree with. However some are released back into society and sometimes the law makes mistakes with regard to their risk of re-offending. Therefore it makes sense to make families aware they are in the area and make it EXPLICITLY clear they are not to treat the information as gossip. I simply can not see any reasonable objection to this law. Convicted paedophiles within society ARE always a risk. I'm sorry but thats the reality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I thought it had nothing to do with innocent till proven guilty, I thought it just informed people, namely parents of convicted sex offenders that lived nearby.
    It lets people know if they've had any 'suspected' crimes which have gone unproven.

    Surely they should be able to know. I know it may seem quite paranoid, but I think it's a necessary precaution.
    It's very paranoid.
    Firstly, does it mean you'll keep a closer eye on your kids? Surely you should be doing that anyway? I wouldn't let my child run off with a stranger no matter how sure i was that he wasn't a sex offender. So it wouldn't change that surely?

    Secondly, would it make you treat said person differently? Surely by doing this you're discrediting the notion that people can change? If you don't believe in rehabilitation that's fine, but then just lock them up and throw away the key?

    Thirdly, is there a massive potential for abuse? Yes it may be illegal to disclose this information to others, but we both know in some cases it'll happen anyway.

    Finally, do the key areas in society not do this anyway? Teachers, community centre workers, etc are already checked out, yes people slip through the cracks, but then invest more money into that rather then this!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    It could be worse. In some places (I think it's in the US, someone correct me if I'm wrong) they have to have a sign outside their house telling passers by that they are a paedophile.
    http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Search.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

    Have fun :awesome:

    Shows you pictures, crime, address, eyecolour .etc.

    For example http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/pros...=1869408336809
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think a comment made by someone from the US pretty much sums up what I think:

    When someone perpetrates heinous crimes, then they forefeit the right to privacy for the public's protection.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    It lets people know if they've had any 'suspected' crimes which have gone unproven.
    This is one of the most important parts:

    "All parents will be given the right to ask police if anyone with regular unsupervised access to their children has a conviction for child sex offenses."

    It's for people to check to see if there is anyone already convicted of for child sex offenses living near them and their children.


    It's very paranoid.
    Firstly, does it mean you'll keep a closer eye on your kids? Surely you should be doing that anyway? I wouldn't let my child run off with a stranger no matter how sure i was that he wasn't a sex offender. So it wouldn't change that surely?
    Perhaps not, but it's just a safety precaution. It's not even one of the over the top safety precautions either that make you roll your eyes and say "oh ffs!""

    It's merely something for the parents to keep one eye open, just in case there is a child sex offender around.

    Secondly, would it make you treat said person differently? Surely by doing this you're discrediting the notion that people can change? If you don't believe in rehabilitation that's fine, but then just lock them up and throw away the key?
    I do believe in rehabilitation, however it's better to be safe than sorry. There are some that slip through the cracks. This is a fail safe system that helps to make sure that if some of them do feel like going back to their old ways, people at least know who they are.

    Thirdly, is there a massive potential for abuse? Yes it may be illegal to disclose this information to others, but we both know in some cases it'll happen anyway.
    Don't the police have procedures to deal with that?
    Yes for those that truly are rehabilitating it wouldn't help that they got abuse, however if you weigh up that with what Sarah's Law could prevent, I would say it even's it up somewhat.

    Finally, do the key areas in society not do this anyway? Teachers, community centre workers, etc are already checked out, yes people slip through the cracks, but then invest more money into that rather then this!
    Yes there is the CRB check of course for all people who work at schools, or even visitors to schools these days for events. I work for an Educational Charity and I have been through a CRB check.

    However like I said the CRB check cover's only people who work in a school or are affiliated with schools, youth centre's, or generally kids.

    Isn't Sarah's law supposed to cover generally a wider area, citing anyone that might just be living nearby?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure it's a good idea at all. Encourages vigilante action, will potentially ghettoise whole areas in fear of the convicted paedophiles living there (who are presumably considered to be non-dangerous or to no longer be dangerous since they've been released). I understand the perspective of the parents of victims, but I still think it's a bad plan.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meh.)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8477310.stm
    "Under the measures, families will be able to ask police if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse."

    I would have no (major) issue with it if it was simply for convicted paedophiles/child molesters. But this 'suspected abuse' nonsense makes me very uncomfortable. I know people who have had their careers and lives ruined by false allegations. Even when cleared, the 'soft information'still stays on their record forever... whilst the liars get away with no punishment. How is that fair?
    Agreed.

    in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and therefore it is IMO morally wrong to give information over unproven cases.

    To give info on unproven cases is saying "no smoke without fire". That undermines everything our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system is based on!!!

    By doing so the Sarah's law is in effect saying its ok to ruin the relationships and whole life of a man whose been subject to false accusations. Think about it, no ones going to take the chance and give him a job if it comes up on CRB and enhanced checks.

    So thats career down the pan!

    And then theres love life mostly down the pan! with the average age of having first child being 27 now then chances are once the individual is 30 its going to be hard to find a partner as you can write off a relationship with any single mums. So thats going to make things restrictive. Thats if his current marriage etc doesnt go down pan. Try explaining why you got divorced to a new girlfriend!! bet that goes down well.

    And remember theres thousands of men who are genuinely innocent subject to accusations. Are we saying its ok to ruin thier lives on the off chance that it might and thats might prevent a child being abused???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suspect it won't be long before we see some parent exercising their right to check out a person in regular contact with their child mentioning over coffee to a friend that he or she is checking out the local scout master or whoever. Then the friend will pass on this gossip (the mere fact that an application is being made) and before you know it an entirely innocent person will be subjected to assault and harrassment by the usual mobs - as will their family.

    The average British parent can barely be trusted to drive a car responsibly - let alone be trusted with confidential information.

    This will all end in tears, no doubt.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The truth is deep-down people want this law to hunt-down peados, rather than to protect their children. If you suspect someone is a peado simply stop them contacting your children, then, and only then, if they refuse you could go to the police and they should decide on the best course of action. Its a good law gone too far.
 
 
 
Poll
If a uni gives me an unconditional offer they....
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.