No. I'm assuming that the extensive feelings of disgust and anger towards sex offenders does not correlate with real risk, but perceived risk. The latter is determined by media reporting and the 'uncertain' nature of the danger. Perceived risk is a poor way of making decisions and politicians can exploit this to better themselves. Thus perceived risks are determined through irrational (emotional) reasoning, not sitting down and asking exactly how many children are affected by this per year? Is this the greatest or even one of the top few threats to children at that age? Is it worth compromising individual rights for? Does publication of sex offender's addresses actually significantly reduce sex offences against children?(Original post by jellybones)
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.
There's no doubt mothers are capable of making rational decisions, but they're also equally capable of making irrational ones. Especially when their emotions are played with and the safety of their children is questioned. If you can assure me that the answers to all the questions raised above point to the publication of sex offender's details, then a valid moral case exists for doing so. If not, it's more likely a ploy by politicians to gain support and unfortunately, it'll be the irrational decisions by people (most likely mothers) that will contribute to their success.
Turn on thread page Beta
Sarah's Law watch
- 13-07-2006 12:00
(Original post by 10inchpianist)
- 13-07-2006 12:11
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
How is the hypothetical individual (I don't know if the account is real/true) described by 10inchpianist's rehabilitation to be aided by persecution? For those that say persecution will not occur as no addresses are listed - I find this doubtful. Most parents aren't just going to pack up and move because they've been informed there's a sex offender in a 1 mile radius from where they live. Word of mouth will tell of new residents in the area. Slowly but surely the one unmarried loner who's recently entered new council housing will be identified, assumed to be the individual and probably persecuted to at least some degree. Such a system would does do a disservice to those at the lower end of the criteria for the sexual offender status, those that may be otherwise most able to rehabilitate.