Sarah's Law Watch

SolInvictus
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
Why are people going on and on and on about revenge killings. In the state megan's law has created no such events, as far as I know, and even if they exist they are a very small number.

Far more children are killed by pedophiles who rape and torture five year olds than criminal psychos killed by the public. Look up the statistics.

Unless someone can show me that more people will be killed by this law than will are killed without it, then I will continue to question the whole "revenge/mistaken identity killings' excuse.
0
quote
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by SolInvictus)
Why are people going on and on and on about revenge killings. In the state megan's law has created no such events, as far as I know, and even if they exist they are a very small number.

Far more children are killed by pedophiles who rape and torture five year olds than criminal psychos killed by the public. Look up the statistics.

Unless someone can show me that more people will be killed by this law than will are killed without it, then I will continue to question the whole "revenge/mistaken identity killings' excuse.
Yeah, but if there so inevitably likely to reoffend, why are we letting them out anyway??
0
quote
reply
SolInvictus
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by naivesincerity)
Yeah, but if there so inevitably likely to reoffend, why are we letting them out anyway??
Why don't you all ask your government that question?
0
quote
reply
ice_cube
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by SolInvictus)
Why don't you all ask your government that question?
Many have. I believe Sarah's law is their solution.
0
quote
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
No it isn't. Don't be deliberately obtuse
0
quote
reply
ice_cube
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by naivesincerity)
No it isn't. Don't be deliberately obtuse
I'm not. There is a problem with the prisons, there are too many people in too small a space. The public, funnily enough, object to the government releasing people when they may still harm, but the government appears to presume that by informing people where offenders are, this makes it better. I think its a disgraceful excuse and way of doing things, but apparently its all ok.
0
quote
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by ice_cube)
I'm not. There is a problem with the prisons, there are too many people in too small a space. The public, funnily enough, object to the government releasing people when they may still harm, but the government appears to presume that by informing people where offenders are, this makes it better.
Ummm

Then use more space...?
0
quote
reply
ice_cube
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
That would involve tax payers money and a rise in the inmates rates. This does not reflect well on the government, so they twist it. I agree it is a warped and deeply flawed system, but for whatever reason its what we have.
0
quote
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by happybob)
Im against sarahs law as it does not involve hanging the pedophile.
hangings too good for them,
People should know that those kinds of scum are nearby and protect those children that could be exposed to people like that.
I wrote in and applauded The Sun for thier name and shame policy. It was an excellent idea i thought.

These people deserve no sympathy or pity. What they have done to children is inexcusable.
0
quote
reply
SolInvictus
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
hangings too good for them,
People should know that those kinds of scum are nearby and protect those children that could be exposed to people like that.
I wrote in and applauded The Sun for thier name and shame policy. It was an excellent idea i thought.

These people deserve no sympathy or pity. What they have done to children is inexcusable.
some good common sense.:congrats: rep to be dished out.
0
quote
reply
Do Chickens Fly
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
It's a political game. Everyone knows mothers are irrationally protective (probably due to hormones) and overestimate risks in order to afford security. If such a law were to pass, imagine how many mothers would vote for the proposing party! Real risks (the ones that have a foundation in reality and actually estimate the likelihood of occurence of incidences) show a different story.

Child sexual abuse proceeded by killings are supremely rare. Even the rarest lethal diseases are more common. Let alone road accidents and cycling deaths. So that surely can't be just cause to infringe on the rights (yes convicts have rights, especially when they have served the sentence decided for them by the judicial system) of a number of individuals whose offences are somehow related to the subject matter.

In the case of child sexual abuse alone, without killing, as repeated time and time again, the most likely perpetrator is a family member, not an outside member. What then is the use of a law that targets the less likely scenario, when there is much that could be done about more significant risks? Awareness that a person who has commited an offence in the past against children that may or may not have been sexual in nature is in the area does not in any way directly increase the risk the parent's child. Uncles and other family members are by far the more significant threats with respect to sexual assualt and new offenders are in essence far more dangerous than those already convicted, sentenced and barred from work with children.

A final problem that I can imagine is this - one becomes aware of the approximate location of all the sexual offenders in the country. Has anyone ever considered that since these offenders are humans with hands and feet, they might be able to travel using means other than their feet? In such a case unless one was separated from a sexual offender by a distance inconvenient to travel by car or rail (>50 miles perhaps), one is in the potential target zone of such an offender. It may then rapidly become apparent that apart from those living in remote areas of the scottish highlands, noone is far enough away from the nearest offender to be statistically safe from such known offenders.

Who then does the potential law help? The children? Definitely not - the risk is too insignificant to be worth time or long debate - better to focus on the rarest of lethal diseases or on refining things such as polio vaccine lethalities. Even better is to watch the close relatives of children and perhaps make the reporting of such abuse easier for children to report. The mothers? Perhaps - only to the extent of relieving their irrational anxiety. But if laws were passed to appease people's irrationality, then I I am sure there many more worthwhile directions the law could stretch its hand in relieving exaggerated worry. The convicts? Does endless persecution help anyone? I can't imagine what benefit being 'named and shamed' would yield. The society? Naming as a deterrant is a minefield with respect to its effects on the inclination to reoffend. Finally I arrive at the conclusion that such laws help only those who suggest them the politicians. By fabricating a serious threat that does not exist through the exaggeration of a minor threat, a novel problem is created. The solution to this problem is cunningly presented by those who created it (those feeding the media with information of 'inadequacies' of the current system), or perhaps created to exploit the problem. Votes are reeled in as an imaginary problem is solved. The party gains strength, the public gains confidence in the state. Everybody wins, except perhaps for those unlucky enough to be named in a register (if such a register is produced).
0
quote
reply
jellybones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
It's a political game. Everyone knows mothers are irrationally protective (probably due to hormones) and overestimate risks in order to afford security. If such a law were to pass, imagine how many mothers would vote for the proposing party! Real risks (the ones that have a foundation in reality and actually estimate the likelihood of occurence of incidences) show a different story.
I find this deeply offensive. You're assuming that all mothers vote on the basis of their emotions for domestice issues and that subsequentially their emotions or maternal feelings are irrational when this is simply not the case. Mothers (and women generally) are perfectly capable of making rational reason based decisions.
0
quote
reply
guccilittlepiggy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
this wouldn't be needed if they were locked up for life i.e until their natuural death.
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 13
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by guccilittlepiggy)
this wouldn't be needed if they were locked up for life i.e until their natuural death.
It also wouldn't be needed if prison did a better job of rehabilitating offenders. Swings and roundabouts. Personally, I'd rather not pay for their meals the rest of their lives.
quote
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
i read about a convicted sex offender in florida who had all her details available to the public. she was a scrawny shy lil thing, who defintaly didnt look like a sex offender. her crime was letting a 15 year old fondle her breats. since then she has had constant death threats/people trying to kill her. she then commited suicide after not being able to cope with it all. a sad story. im not defending sex offenders but this case obviously wasnt fair. i think whether the details to be released depends entirely on the individual
0
quote
reply
guccilittlepiggy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by 10inchpianist)
i read about a convicted sex offender in florida who had all her details available to the public. she was a scrawny shy lil thing, who defintaly didnt look like a sex offender. her crime was letting a 15 year old fondle her breats. since then she has had constant death threats/people trying to kill her. she then commited suicide after not being able to cope with it all. a sad story. im not defending sex offenders but this case obviously wasnt fair. i think whether the details to be released depends entirely on the individual
thats still a sex offence though. god knows what the long term effects on that child will be. if that was the other was round with a man and a 15 year old girl then would you say the details should be released?
In my opinion (although i'm no expert) sex offenders do not suddenly stop what they do and therefore once they've committed any offence irrespective of the severity of it, they should never be allowed out in public again.
0
quote
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by guccilittlepiggy)
god knows what the long term effects on that child will be
dude i felt up some woman #high five#. what sort of 15 year old doesnt like feelin' on boobs ? thats my point. im not defending the womans actions but who knows what she felt at the time. depressed? unloved ?etc...


if that was the other was round with a man and a 15 year old girl then would you say the details should be released?
the woman could have been misinfomed of the guys age. if the woman was any bit attractive most guys would definately lie


In my opinion (although i'm no expert) sex offenders do not suddenly stop what they do and therefore once they've committed any offence irrespective of the severity of it, they should never be allowed out in public again.

mistakes happen though. if a guy pulls a girl in the club he doesnt expect her to 15 with a fake ID. chris rock said it best: "If a woman tells you she's 20, and looks 16, she's 12
0
quote
reply
guccilittlepiggy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
thats for the courts to decide, whether its a geuine mistake or not.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by 10inchpianist)
i read about a convicted sex offender in florida who had all her details available to the public. she was a scrawny shy lil thing, who defintaly didnt look like a sex offender. her crime was letting a 15 year old fondle her breats. since then she has had constant death threats/people trying to kill her. she then commited suicide after not being able to cope with it all. a sad story. im not defending sex offenders but this case obviously wasnt fair. i think whether the details to be released depends entirely on the individual
All sex offenders details are publicly available in Florida.

Let's not diminish this woman's crime BTW. If it were a man who became involved in having a 15 year old girl fondle his **** all hell would break lose whether "(he) was a scrawny shy lil thing who definately didn't look like a sex offender" or not.
0
quote
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by Howard)
All sex offenders details are publicly available in Florida.

Let's not diminish this woman's crime BTW. If it were a man who became involved in having a 15 year old girl fondle his **** all hell would break lose whether "(he) was a scrawny shy lil thing who definately didn't look like a sex offender" or not.
threres no need to reverse the example. the point is i doubt the woman 'raped' the boy.the must have hadsome sort of psychological problems that lead to this
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (157)
27.3%
No (418)
72.7%

Watched Threads

View All