Sarah's Law

Originally Posted by keith_d

I think there are too many opportunities for mob rule with a publicly accessible register of sex offenders. But I can understand the paranoia of parents regarding "ex-offenders".

I'd be tempted to apply a spot of technology to the problem. Fit serious offenders with an embedded microchip and require that they carry a GPS logger when they leave their house. It can be fairly discreet, no bigger than mobile phone, and keyed to their microchip tag.

That would make it relatively easy for the police to rule ex-offenders out of an investigation because they could easily prove their location. Of course, repeated failure to carry the logger should result in another visit to the court, and potentially an additional sentence.

Not foolproof, but I would regard it as adequate in the vast majority of cases, mostly because it's a very visible reminder for the ex-offenders that someone is watching them.

It would need to be cabled to wrist or ankle, or how would you know that the offender has left the house without it? The GPS signal would just show that the logger was still in the house, whislt the offender was standing outside the local primary school with nobody having any idea where he was. Having cut it off when turning up for a weekly check-in would then be the offence.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

It would need to be cabled to wrist or ankle, or how would you know that the offender has left the house without it? The GPS signal would just show that the logger was still in the house, whislt the offender was standing outside the local primary school with nobody having any idea where he was. Having cut it off when turning up for a weekly check-in would then be the offence.

isnt it said that prison is suposed to re-habilitate offenders. if some one comes out and requres a gps monitoring thier movements doesnt that suggest that they cant be trusted and are therefore not rehabilitated.
I know we give them to kids who nick cars to ensure they'll be home for bed intime etc or people who are locked up for motoring offences and therefore are unlikely to reoffend in the same vain.
But to release someone from prison after commiting a serious sexual offence only for them the wear a tag for the rest of thier lives. It just proves that infact prison doesnt help these people, frustatingly it encourages the idea that they are preditors. Thier sickness is waiting and acting on an oportunity to steal someones humanity, if its not something that encarseration can cure then release is not an option. Unlike some crimes DNA usually can be the concrete proof in these cases, and if DNA proves you guilty then IMO you should be banged up and never allowed to play out again.

Lots of other discussion going on I would say that no, the public shouldn't know. For pretty much all the reasons already mentioned. About making only repeat/serious offenders public....again no - because I think the same rules apply. Also, there's no need for the public to know as they are 'rehabilitated' (I note leedsmatt7's post above btw) - and if they aren't rehabilitated they shouldn't be out already! (so maybe what I'm saying is that our system needs revision?)

One last thing....likelihood of reoffending....unfortunately locking people up for 'intention to commit a crime' is a pretty big line to cross. Hands up who's seen Minority Report?

If I am totally honest, this is not the response I expected of the forum. Although, everyone seems to echo my views, which is rare...!!

Some good points so far. The only one I really wanted to pick up on is the comparison to homosexuality. I don't thin paedophilia can ever be linked to it as, although it can be a sexual urge which the person can't change, homosexuality is 2 consenting adults whilst paedophilia is an adult taking advantage of a child who is vulnerable.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

homosexuality is 2 consenting adults

No its not.

Homosexuality is sexual orientation, and has nothing to do with consent or age.

For example, a man and a 15yo boy is still paedophilia, as is a woman and a 15yo girl.

Likewise, a homosexual man raping another man, regardless of the victims orientation is still non-consensual, likewise in the case of a woman attacking another woman - although whether that would ever be called rape, rather than serious sexual assault is another matter.

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

No its not.

Homosexuality is sexual orientation, and has nothing to do with consent or age.

For example, a man and a 15yo boy is still paedophilia, as is a woman and a 15yo girl.

Likewise, a homosexual man raping another man, regardless of the victims orientation is still non-consensual, likewise in the case of a woman attacking another woman - although whether that would ever be called rape, rather than serious sexual assault is another matter.

I wouldn't call the act of a male raping another male an act of homosexuality. I would call that rape.

I wouldn't call a man having sex with a young boy homosexuality. I would call that paedophilia.

I wouldn't call a male raping a female heterosexuality. I would call that rape.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

I wouldn't call the act of a male raping another male an act of homosexuality. I would call that rape.

I wouldn't call a man having sex with a young boy homosexuality. I would call that paedophilia.

I wouldn't call a male raping a female heterosexuality. I would call that rape.

Erm is that not what I said?

You said that "homosexuality is 2 consenting adults"

If a man rapes another man then that is by definition, homosexual rape, and disproves that your statement.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Homosexuality

The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with the first element derived from Greek homos, 'same' (not related to the Latin homo, 'man', such as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex.

[keith_d]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

It would need to be cabled to wrist or ankle, or how would you know that the offender has left the house without it....

Note that I suggested linking it to a surgically embedded RFID chip, so it can detect whether they are present or not without the obvious stigma of having something tied to wrist or ankle....

[the_lone_wolf]

An eerily timely reminder of what happens when you combine ignorance, information and stupidity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/8405031.stm

[Drew Carey]

My thoughts are simple, firstly, no, I don't think the list should be seen. However, I think the legal process should be changed.

As per the chap who got locked away yesterday as he held a gun to a man's head hours after leaving prison. He was deemed as showing no remourse and will be held indefinately, with three years being served, with him only being released following approval by the parole board & docs etc.

If one of the main isues with repeat offenders is that they serve out their sentence, show no remourse, but are still released, then isn't this the answer?!?! All those caught, should be given a fixed term indefinate sentance (not sure what it is called?!?!). Whereby after the fixed period, they are evaluated by phycs and doctors etc. Once the docs etc are happy, they are released. Never before.

I don't know much about law etc, but having read earlier posts this doesn't seem to happen, only seems to happen at 2/3'rds. Why release after short periods anyway?!?!? If your guilty, do the time. If its because of crowded prisons, then stop corwding them with tax dodgers and petty crims who do nowt more than nick a mars bar. Least then we may have the facilities to keep those in who should be for longer periods.

Its all quite a tricky area really!!! If I have said something that is point black wrong, please correct me, as law is an area that I find interesting and would love to learn more. (I'm a Finance Accountant.....so not my comfort zone!!!)