Giving a list to people is different. We should also have lists for all criminals then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Printable View
Giving a list to people is different. We should also have lists for all criminals then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Due to the sad nature of the world we live in I'd protect my child as much as I can anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
If if it's public then a list can be made. What are you on? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
You're missing the point, while you say that you wouldn't wish for the bloke's house to be burnt down, other folk - indeed organised groups of folk - would want his house burnt down.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your child, I feel the same way but there is the flip side to consider, if some sick bastard was taken off the face of the earth but it was later discovered that the 'sick bastard' was a law abiding citizen and his place on the list was due to a computer glitch then I assume you'll think this is unacceptable. It could be your friend or a family member that was the victim of some paedophile list cock-up.
I'd prefer that the authorities knew of all paedophiles and were keeping an eye on them rather than having vigilantes drive the individual 'underground' where no monitoring is possible.
the fact that there is anyone that would burn down someones house on suspicion of them being a peadophile is the problem. if people really look after their kids i reckon they'll be ok. not to jusify the case for peadophiles but i think parents should take more responsibilty educating, laying down curfews and seeing what their children actually do in their spare time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
yeah! i want a list of burglars, not that i want to break their little smackhead legs or anything :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
You've got a stutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
So why do people need a list then? Why can't they just make their own?
WWWhat r uuuu tttalking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
People do make their own lists. Sometimes they go door to door and/or publish a newsletter when a sexual offender moves in the neighborhood.
Not in the UK they don't and not in some states of the US they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Only the authorities have access to the sex-offenders register.
Otherwise why would there have been a huge campaign over here to publish the addresses of paedophiles. If they were already available then it would appear to be pretty pointless.
Either hundreds of thousands of people are idiots or you're wrong.
Ok to inject some new slant for those that wish the list to be published (I am one of them) do you think the penalty in law should be hard or soft on the vigilantes? and do you think that the police should put every effort into bringing these people to justice?
I do realise that when mobs form they are not rational and there is no excuse for such actions even though as I said I fully understand the passion behind the actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
One innocent casualty is unacceptable so I believe the full weight of the law should be brought down on vigilantes.
Of course paedophiles shouldn't be released back into the community in the first place..... If the law protected us properly in the first place we wouldn't have this thread. :angry:
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.
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
Aww shit dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
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.
Great post!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I don't agree with changing the law just because of the actions of idiots to benefit ex-convicts.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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.
Meh, I already know I'm right ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I might read it when I get home, tho'.
Right about what?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
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
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.
Well that's a different thing that I do agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
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.
As we can see by the posts it is a very complex situation. I dont agree that these list should be made public, for the various reasons already stated. Before thinking of a solution you have to remember that most paedophiles never come to court. The offences take place within the family and most families 'hush' the situation. These people are already in your area. :(
My own opinion is that over and above the present conditions all families with children should be informed that a paedophile has moved into their area. Though the name and address should not be revealed. At least then parents would be more alert and vigilantism would be kept to a minimum.
Personally life on an island in the middle of the Atlantic with no visiting rights and no parole would be my ideal solution. Feeding them would be an option. :angry:
I would allow them to work to earn food and water. Other than that I have no problem with your solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Is vigilantism that high over in the UK? Even with the fact that you don't already publish the names and addresses?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Tbh I can't remember the offenders on the list for my area besides the fella down the street.
I dont know about other areas. But I have seen three innocent people hunted out of house and home in this area in the last 15 years. The real paedophiles were eventually caught. :) Of course everyone said that they were sorry and how were they to know. I have found most vigilantes who had no personal involvement in cases were only doing it to appear 'big' in the community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Tbh he is the one who would stick in your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Which is kind of the point, I'm sure you would agree.
1 every 5 years, to my mind is not enough reason not to publish the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Particularly if the "vigilantes" are dealt with as the criminals they are. Which would hopefully reduce the figure to none.
Sorta but there are 3 in the immediate area.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I think it's the way they look and I remember one being a woman.
The felladown the street looks fuckign weird.
I will try to find the link.
It's the ones who look entirely normal who are of greater concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
The "who would have guessed" brigade.
WHAT THE FUCK!!!!
I see 2 fellas that I've played basketball with on that fucking list!!!!!
One is for Child Sex Abuse (even though he's young as shit himself) and one for 3rd Degree Sex Offense (he's older)!!!! :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
They are both younger than me though. I wonder at what age they commited these offenses.
The older one is the same one always talking about all the bitches he gonna fuck and last year got a DUI.
He said he learned his lesson (the DUI) though but this is some shocking shit.
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
I agree JP. I remember a fellow who was a church elder, delivered all the old folks papers before he went to work in the morning. Pillar of society. One day he was off work and they required something he kept. They broke open his locker and found a cache of pics of young girls in various poses. It turned out he was not alone and a few others were also involved. He got the jail but I am not sure about the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I also remember a fellow in a village who was caught stealing boys underwear from lines. I heard later that he had been elected a tory councillor and was in charge of the village boys team. He was also the school janitor. It seems that some people turn a blind eye. :(