This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Lincoln uni
- Theft Act 1968 - Criticisms?
- Struggling on a scenario question
- Ask a UCLan student - AMA
- Criminology Controlled Assesment
- Sarah's GYG
- Hurt or Heal (girls names)
- Do UK medical students/doctors get drug tested?
- Which name do you like?
- GCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Paper 1 Question 5
- UCLAN vet med interviews
- UCLANN PLEASE HELP!!!!! Does Uclan accept A-level resit student for pharmacy????
- UClan Return to Study
- second degree funding
- UCLan Psychology
- UCLAN pharmacy 2023
- Hello from the University of Strathclyde Offical Rep
- Physician Associate UCLan Undergrad 2024
- Vet medicine interview
- UCLan Clearing - MPharm Pharmacy
Sarah's Law
Recently, there has been much discussion over the possible introduction of a 'Sarah's Law' in the UK. This law would be largely similar to the 'Megan's Law' recently enacted in the USA. The law would make details of people on the sex offenders register, including home addresses available to the public, ostensibly in order to allow parents to better protect themselves and their children from paedophiles and other dangers.
I am vehemently opposed to the introduction of this law, not only because it would go against the civil liberties and right to privacy of the people on the register, who may well have reformed since their offences, but also because it would encourage 'mob justice' - violence and abuse against the people on the register.
The recent case where a woman was lynched by an angry mob who believed her to be a paedophile, when in fact she was a paediatrician, demonstrates the willingness of much of the general public to use violence against those believed the be sex offenders, particularly paederasts.
If this law is introduced, it is likely to result in the deaths of many people, who have admittedly committed horriffic crimes, but who have served their time and may well have reformed. The suppossed benefits - the ability to reduce the risk of sexual attacks - are, I believe, grossly overestimated and it is for these reasons that I oppose the introduction of this law.
What are other viewpoints on this?
I am vehemently opposed to the introduction of this law, not only because it would go against the civil liberties and right to privacy of the people on the register, who may well have reformed since their offences, but also because it would encourage 'mob justice' - violence and abuse against the people on the register.
The recent case where a woman was lynched by an angry mob who believed her to be a paedophile, when in fact she was a paediatrician, demonstrates the willingness of much of the general public to use violence against those believed the be sex offenders, particularly paederasts.
If this law is introduced, it is likely to result in the deaths of many people, who have admittedly committed horriffic crimes, but who have served their time and may well have reformed. The suppossed benefits - the ability to reduce the risk of sexual attacks - are, I believe, grossly overestimated and it is for these reasons that I oppose the introduction of this law.
What are other viewpoints on this?
Scroll to see replies
I don't think Sarah's Law has information to that extent. According to Sara Payne on Richard & Judy (
), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.
I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
There's another thread on this (not in D&D though): http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=252819&highlight=sarah
dogtanian
I don't think Sarah's Law has information to that extent. According to Sara Payne on Richard & Judy (), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.
I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
Assuming the information is more vague, then it's not such a bad idea, but it doesn't exactly cast the penal system in a good light, when people released and paroled are almost expected to reoffend.
I think this is a bad idea. The only way it's going to be 'useful' is by giving full information, and that is far too risky - just look at what happened when the Sun named and shamed alleged pedophiles, and mobs roamed the streets looking to beat up anyone they even suspected of being a pedophile.
And if the information's vague, then it's even more dangerous, in addition to being of no practical 'use' in allowing parents to 'protect' their children. You'll just get gangs roaming an area attacking old men, gays and priests (because we all know pedophiles are old, gay or priests)...
This is just ridiculous knee-jerk Daily Express populism on the part of the government, and it's this kind of politics that is the worst thing about this country...
And if the information's vague, then it's even more dangerous, in addition to being of no practical 'use' in allowing parents to 'protect' their children. You'll just get gangs roaming an area attacking old men, gays and priests (because we all know pedophiles are old, gay or priests)...
This is just ridiculous knee-jerk Daily Express populism on the part of the government, and it's this kind of politics that is the worst thing about this country...
This post was ignored in General Discussion so I will present it here to maximise my readership. 
Should we expose, then, the whereabouts of murderers, too?
I will lay out what I suppose is one reason behind not doing so. If you knew that a paedophile was residing in your local area then you might take steps to protect your children; by, for example, walking them back from school. This is reasonable and indeed beneficial behaviour. The change in one's life, on discovering the nearby location of a paedophile, is bearable. However, if you knew that a convicted murderer were in your region then the vigilance would be of a different type. A general wariness would pervade the air; I would certainly behave more carefully (maybe distrustfully) if I knew that I were living near a murderer. I suppose we can live relatively comfortably with the fact that paedophiles live amongst us; the thought that we are walking the streets with killers is a far more troubling idea, likely to shock and disturb many. Further, unlike the steps that one might take to lessen the chances of a paedophile conducting a sexaul attack on one's child, in themselves usually salutary (e.g. spending more time with children) the behaviour that might lessen the chances of coming into conflict with a murderer (e.g. not going out at night) would be utterly unhelpful.
Should we expose, then, the whereabouts of murderers, too?
I will lay out what I suppose is one reason behind not doing so. If you knew that a paedophile was residing in your local area then you might take steps to protect your children; by, for example, walking them back from school. This is reasonable and indeed beneficial behaviour. The change in one's life, on discovering the nearby location of a paedophile, is bearable. However, if you knew that a convicted murderer were in your region then the vigilance would be of a different type. A general wariness would pervade the air; I would certainly behave more carefully (maybe distrustfully) if I knew that I were living near a murderer. I suppose we can live relatively comfortably with the fact that paedophiles live amongst us; the thought that we are walking the streets with killers is a far more troubling idea, likely to shock and disturb many. Further, unlike the steps that one might take to lessen the chances of a paedophile conducting a sexaul attack on one's child, in themselves usually salutary (e.g. spending more time with children) the behaviour that might lessen the chances of coming into conflict with a murderer (e.g. not going out at night) would be utterly unhelpful.
Im against sarahs law as it does not involve hanging the pedophile.
dogtanian
I don't think Sarah's Law has information to that extent. According to Sara Payne on Richard & Judy (), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.
I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
), it won't be personal details made available like Megan's Law, but much more general information, such as the number of sex offenders in the local area, the crimes that they were convicted of, things like that. Basically, it'd be more people asking 'is there a sex offender near me?' 'yes/no'. I think that's better than personal details, but then I don't know enough about the whole thing really. At least they won't have actual details. I would be dead against that, as you're right, it'll just lead to mob 'justice'. I have no idea how they'll decide who should be listed, or how they'll track them. Practical stuff, like.I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not.
Here's the sort of information freely available in the State of Florida. Names, addresses, details of offences, the whole shebang. Click search and type in a zip code - try 32835 for example. Then click on a photo for all the details.
http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_predators/result.asp
I have to agree. I think its a ridiculous idea. I can't think of any other crime where somebody who has been found guilty and served a sentance has his name and address and criminal record available to all and sundry.
The rationale behind this I assume is that these people remain a "high risk" which begs the common sense question, if they are identified as high risk should they be released in the first place?
The rationale behind this I assume is that these people remain a "high risk" which begs the common sense question, if they are identified as high risk should they be released in the first place?
I don't particularly care for the idea of publicizing the personal information of sex offenders, because I think the resulting stigma could easily increase a reformed criminals chances of re-offending. However, I do like the idea of having the general sex offender information publicized to some degree. I think it would be acceptable if the information is whether a sex offender is living in a particular area. It wouldn't have to provide where the offender lived, specifically, or the name, but it could at least give nearby parents the information they need to be cautious and keep an eye on their child.
That said, sex offenders have some of the highest rates of repeat offenses, because they tend to have psychological issues which are the driving force behind their crimes.
That said, sex offenders have some of the highest rates of repeat offenses, because they tend to have psychological issues which are the driving force behind their crimes.
We could end up with the situation like the Paediatrician who had her house burnt down, or the man who was beaten to death after his name was mistaken for that of a paedophile. I think it would be totally unethical to publish these names so low mentality scum can get hold of the info, even moreso in the knowledge of the above cases. If it's for protection, as Howie says, why let them out if you fear re-offence. All I can think of is that the government are just dictated to by the tabloids, which is a very sad state of affairs IMO
I'm really pleased that this proposal has met with such controversy, and I hope it never becomes law. For perhaps the first time ever, I find myself agreeing with Howard - the whole thing is so contradictory.
People seem to view paedophiles as a danger to society, whether they've paid their debt or not. If they are still a threat, they should never be released from jail in the first place. If they are not, Sarah's Law is a pointless waste of money.
If we are to assume that there's simply no room to keep paedophiles locked up until they're no longer dangerous, shouldn't we assume that for murderers and rapists too? Why should I be allowed to protect my children and not myself?
Regardless of whether address and name details will be released, if people start choosing where to buy a house based on how many paedophiles live in the area, there's an obvious consequence. House prices in 'paedo-free' areas will be driven up, and we'll end up with ghettos where child molesters (who, let's not forget, have apparently already paid for their crimes) are able to live. The only people living with them will be those who can't afford to move out.
And if people aren't going to use the law to determine where they live, what's the point? It's all very well to say it will help people to be more vigilant, but do parents really need to know how many paedos are living nearby before they tell their kids not to take sweets from strangers?
People seem to view paedophiles as a danger to society, whether they've paid their debt or not. If they are still a threat, they should never be released from jail in the first place. If they are not, Sarah's Law is a pointless waste of money.
If we are to assume that there's simply no room to keep paedophiles locked up until they're no longer dangerous, shouldn't we assume that for murderers and rapists too? Why should I be allowed to protect my children and not myself?
Regardless of whether address and name details will be released, if people start choosing where to buy a house based on how many paedophiles live in the area, there's an obvious consequence. House prices in 'paedo-free' areas will be driven up, and we'll end up with ghettos where child molesters (who, let's not forget, have apparently already paid for their crimes) are able to live. The only people living with them will be those who can't afford to move out.
And if people aren't going to use the law to determine where they live, what's the point? It's all very well to say it will help people to be more vigilant, but do parents really need to know how many paedos are living nearby before they tell their kids not to take sweets from strangers?
thegreatstupendo
I am vehemently opposed to the introduction of this law, not only because it would go against the civil liberties and right to privacy of the people on the register, who may well have reformed since their offences, but also because it would encourage 'mob justice' - violence and abuse against the people on the register.
Of course! Those criminals civil liberties come above all else! Lets forget the right of a child to be safe and free, or the right of a person to protect themselves from rapists and sexuals predators. How dare we not put these filthy beasts first.
And BTW, sexual offenders have one of the highest reoffender rates. I'll pull up some statistics for you.
The recent case where a woman was lynched by an angry mob who believed her to be a paedophile, when in fact she was a paediatrician, demonstrates the willingness of much of the general public to use violence against those believed the be sex offenders, particularly paederasts.
Quando? Veritas ibi est?
I have never heard of such a story. Source, gratia.
If this law is introduced, it is likely to result in the deaths of many people, who have admittedly committed horriffic crimes, but who have served their time and may well have reformed. The suppossed benefits - the ability to reduce the risk of sexual attacks - are, I believe, grossly overestimated and it is for these reasons that I oppose the introduction of this law.
Really? Megan's law has not led to any such events in the US.
Oh yes. With those two month sentences, which usually get commuted to probation I am sure they have served a fair consequence.
What are other viewpoints on this?
The very sarcastic commentary on you comments. See above.
Wow, that is quite a lot of detail given. Hm.
It seems to be something that gives a false sense of security to me. Why should you have to ask 'is there a sex offender near me'? Surely it makes more sense to just, y'know, watch your kids and be vigilant. Sex offenders all had a first offence. they're not gonna be on the database until after then, are they?
It seems to be something that gives a false sense of security to me. Why should you have to ask 'is there a sex offender near me'? Surely it makes more sense to just, y'know, watch your kids and be vigilant. Sex offenders all had a first offence. they're not gonna be on the database until after then, are they?
I think it's a bad idea. If it were to give out names and addresses then there would be all sorts of terrible 'revenge' crimes and cases of mistaken identity in which innocents could get lynched for no reason.
The less informative approach would just lead to suspicion of every man (or woman) who 'looks' like a peado and could again lead to innocent people being attacked.
I agree with the seintiment of the person above who basically said that if someone is expected to re-offend, then they should not have been let out in the 1st place. If they have done their time and reformed, leave them be.
The less informative approach would just lead to suspicion of every man (or woman) who 'looks' like a peado and could again lead to innocent people being attacked.
I agree with the seintiment of the person above who basically said that if someone is expected to re-offend, then they should not have been let out in the 1st place. If they have done their time and reformed, leave them be.
1013
I think it's a bad idea. If it were to give out names and addresses then there would be all sorts of terrible 'revenge' crimes and cases of mistaken identity in which innocents could get lynched for no reason.
The less informative approach would just lead to suspicion of every man (or woman) who 'looks' like a peado and could again lead to innocent people being attacked.
I agree with the seintiment of the person above who basically said that if someone is expected to re-offend, then they should not have been let out in the 1st place. If they have done their time and reformed, leave them be.
The less informative approach would just lead to suspicion of every man (or woman) who 'looks' like a peado and could again lead to innocent people being attacked.
I agree with the seintiment of the person above who basically said that if someone is expected to re-offend, then they should not have been let out in the 1st place. If they have done their time and reformed, leave them be.
As has happened on at least one terrible occasion where an innocent man was beaten to death
give paedophiles a choice of live behind bars until they're crazy enough to be put in a mental institution so they can be brainwashed into harmless members of society, or a short sentence after which they must walk being a known paedophile, with their name, age, crime, exact address, occupation etc. shown on national news, and on regional news whenever they moved house/home
that ought to cut down on numbers of paedophiles
that ought to cut down on numbers of paedophiles
In theory I think its great in theory to be able to tell if there's someone dangerous near you, and try to prevent your children from being near them. But for goodness sake it is the most impractical idea I've ever heard of. Where do offenders live when they come out of prison? In run down housing estates as they have no savings and often no family. Who else lives there? Families with children, who even if they wanted to could not afford to move elsewhere. Better off families may be able to move to a different area, but who is to say a paedophile who has not been caught is not there anyway? It simply isn't fair on the people who cannot move away and have to live in the knowledge that their next door neighbour likes small children, and there being nothing they can do about it.
I would say that it is also grossly unfair on those who have been wrongly convicted, and the genuinely sorry. Admittedly there are not many, but even so. As a country we are not mature enough to just stay out of certain people's way, instead we have to set fire to houses and show disapproval with car bombs. I agree that what happened to Sarah Payne was terrible, but in no way whatsoever is this law going to stop it happening again.
I would say that it is also grossly unfair on those who have been wrongly convicted, and the genuinely sorry. Admittedly there are not many, but even so. As a country we are not mature enough to just stay out of certain people's way, instead we have to set fire to houses and show disapproval with car bombs. I agree that what happened to Sarah Payne was terrible, but in no way whatsoever is this law going to stop it happening again.
i'm completely against it. there would be all sorts of revenge killings, and there are bound to be some innocent people killed because of mistaken identity. this would mean that these people would need police protection which would take a proportion of the police force away from other matters.
Related discussions
- Lincoln uni
- Theft Act 1968 - Criticisms?
- Struggling on a scenario question
- Ask a UCLan student - AMA
- Criminology Controlled Assesment
- Sarah's GYG
- Hurt or Heal (girls names)
- Do UK medical students/doctors get drug tested?
- Which name do you like?
- GCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Paper 1 Question 5
- UCLAN vet med interviews
- UCLANN PLEASE HELP!!!!! Does Uclan accept A-level resit student for pharmacy????
- UClan Return to Study
- second degree funding
- UCLan Psychology
- UCLAN pharmacy 2023
- Hello from the University of Strathclyde Offical Rep
- Physician Associate UCLan Undergrad 2024
- Vet medicine interview
- UCLan Clearing - MPharm Pharmacy
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
