sex offenders lists

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = Bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

We don't have states here.

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.

---

Aww shit dude.

I'm talking from a US perspective....quite obviously.

I don't think we have this vigilantism problem against pedophiles like the UK. I even thought the article you pointed out would have been US related stuff yet it had shit about beating peoples ass with the same name. Stupid people will always do dumb shit.

Over here we know where they reside and what they look like and that's good enough. Then again, I'm part of a large metropolitan area and not some small hick town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = Bad

---

Great post!!!

I don't agree with changing the law just because of the actions of idiots to benefit ex-convicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Aww shit dude.

I'm talking from a US perspective....quite obviously.

I don't think we have this vigilantism problem against pedophiles like the UK. I even thought the article you pointed out would have been US related stuff yet it had shit about beating peoples ass with the same name. Stupid people will always do dumb shit.

Over here we know where they reside and what they look like and that's good enough. Then again, I'm part of a large metropolitan area and not some small hick town.

---

Alrighty then. So you'll agree that Chebus' assertion that your point, which you repeated to Chebus at least seven times, is in fact, totally irrelevent. Since, quite obviously, he was speaking from a UK perspective.


Btw, I'm pretty sure that it is only a minority of states in the US who have full access to the sex offenders list. The other states are pretty much on the same page as us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The sex offenders register should be a matter of public record and available to view. I believe that the right of people to know who convicted sex offenders are outweighs their right to privacy.

Details of where sex offenders live should also be available, for the same reason. Contrary to popular opinion I want to protect my children and knowing of potential dangers in the area would assist in that.

As manker said, crimes should be treated with the same degree of severity. GBH is GBH and should be treated as such. However in Scotland we now make an exception for race related crime. I don't know if I agree with this but I feel in my water that I do. It just seems right. I certainly wouldn't allow the person being a previous sex offender as mitigation.

Knowledge of sex offenders location = Good

Vigilantism = Bad

---

I suppose I can see your point but still, the lists will clearly lead to vigilantism. Innocent people will get beaten up (or worse), obscenities daubed on their homes and their lives/reputations will be ruined. Also there is the point of paedophiles being driven 'underground' because they're scared of the vigilantism. Where presumably they will meet people of the same ilk.

To obfuscate (:happy:) matters further, to catagorise all offenders by putting them in one big list is wrong. That would mean putting Pete Townshend, for example, in the same catagory as Rose West. Some guy who had sex with a fifteen year old because he was drunk and she said in the pub that she was older will be put on the same list as serial child abusers.

If some sex-offenders weren't to be put on the list then this would also cause problems as where do you draw the line between an offence 'bad' enough to get you listed and one that is deemed to be not quite serious enough.



Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.

Here's something to bolster your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Here's something to bolster your argument.

---

Meh, I already know I'm right ;)


I might read it when I get home, tho'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Meh, I already know I'm right ;)


I might read it when I get home, tho'.

---

Right about what?

If a police officer shoots an innocent person by (accident or on purpose) that's not a reason to rid ALL police forces of guns. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I suppose I can see your point but still, the lists will clearly lead to vigilantism. Innocent people will get beaten up (or worse), obscenities daubed on their homes and their lives/reputations will be ruined. Also there is the point of paedophiles being driven 'underground' because they're scared of the vigilantism. Where presumably they will meet people of the same ilk.

To obfuscate (:happy:) matters further, to catagorise all offenders by putting them in one big list is wrong. That would mean putting Pete Townshend, for example, in the same catagory as Rose West. Some guy who had sex with a fifteen year old because he was drunk and she said in the pub that she was older will be put on the same list as serial child abusers.

If some sex-offenders weren't to be put on the list then this would also cause problems as where do you draw the line between an offence 'bad' enough to get you listed and one that is deemed to be not quite serious enough.



Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.

---

All good points and well made. As with many things however we must create a balance, answers to these questions are seldom black and white. Hate to be all buzz-wordy but it really is a risk assesment / proportionality thing. I simply feel that on balance it is better to publish than not. Particularly when the person whose privacy is violated is a convicted offender and the person at risk is an innocent child, woman or whatever.

With regard to the vigilantism, that is a matter for the Police. They must prosecute the offenders and a the Courts who must sentence appropriately. I know it isn't the Police who actually prosecute, but this keeps it simpler and on point.

As to who goes on the list, I can see your point, but I don't have the same problem. The list will include what they were convicted of, so it will be clear who did what.

It is a simple thing for me, their rights to privacy diminished when they commited the offence, that was their choice. Our right to know who they are remains and outweighs their right.

I'm afraid I then see the potential vigilante as an entirely sperate issue. Certainly not big enough to swing the scale (mix me no metaphors) back in their favour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Having one big list is fraught with too many difficulties for me to think it's a good idea.

---

Well that's a different thing that I do agree with.

The example of the fella in high school is a case for not being grouped with serial abusers.

I think his label would say Statutory Rape or Sex With A Minor.