could go either way :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by sun reader
Printable View
could go either way :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by sun reader
The law is the law and should be adhered to. If you get 5 years for GBH because you beat up some bloke in the pub, then you should get 5 years for beating up a paedophile.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If leniency is shown just because you suspected someone of being a paedophile then it could be used as a defence for other occasions.
"You see, your honour, I thought he was a nonce so I hit him - go easy on me, eh?"
Treating vigilantes in a preferable manner when sentencing can only increase vigilante behaviour, which presumably most sane people would want to avoid.
We have a winner (finally)!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The who and the what is very public. Where they live isn't (besides the offenders register) . However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records.
btw, I don't know of UK laws. I know how it is here.
So yes hundred of thousands of people are idiots.
@vid - that's a no-brainer. However, juries will be juries.
No, you're just plain wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
It is currently impossible for me to find out if there is a paedophile living in my street, this I know for certain. Unless I was a head-teacher or a youth worker ... or something like that.
Yes, crimes and the names of the people who commited them are available to the public but their location is unknown. I might know that Tom Smith abused a six year old in 1987 but as to whether that is the same Tom Smith that lives down the road from me, I have no idea.
This is the crux of the whole matter - I don't know if my next door neighbour is a paedophile and I have no way of finding out. A published list of paedophiles would give me a means to do that - but not only me, organised groups of vigilantes who aren't choosy about the people they target.
Btw,What fecking records :blink:Quote:
However, that also can be found through public records albeit different types of records.
Which was my point really, the public records are irrelevant because they wouldn't show where these people live. They're just a record of offence, court details, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
First you try to convince people that things are already a matter of public record now you are back-pedalling.
Edit: Just to make sure, you do know what this thread is about don't you?
So we're just ignoring the fact that people can be reformed and not be a danger to the community?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Aye, sorry about that, chief.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
It was just doing my head in that Busy, either deliberately or not, wasn't getting the point.
If one bothered they can search state by state via name only and cross reference a number of things such as home sales, employment records, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Many PI's do shit that the public can do but just don't know how (or bother to learn).
So no...you're wrong. :dry:
The point is that many of them are not reformed but have served their time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Many of them can't help themselves so we say to them, ok we'll let you out of jail, but we are watching you.
Many pedophiles know these consequences going in yet still commit their crimes. I say they face those consequences including being ostracized if so.
We don't have states here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
The public are provided with insufficient information, quite deliberately, to be able to trace sex-offenders to their home address with any degree of assurity. This, of course, is to prevent vigilantism. It is also the reason that people protest against it over here.
I reckon you're talking about something you know feck all about. A google search for an employment record - which is totally confidential over here, btw - would be pointless if you only had a name and an offence to cross reference with. You might, possibly, strike it lucky with Theopolis P. Wildebeeste who downloaded some dodgy pr0n in 1999 but you'd never track John Smith who defiled a minor in 1972.
Again, the point is that these lists will provide everyone with the means to find every paedophile. The current system, in the UK, simply doesn't do that.
This is not supposition, it's fact.
A national newspaper campaigned for six months, before a comprimise was reached, to implement 'Sarah's Law' - an equivilent of the US Megan's Law. If they could have just googled for the info, that's what they'd have done.