Sarah's Law

Originally Posted by 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

Agreed, if you take the story at face value it shows that publishing details of sex offenders is likely to lead to some people having unease with offenders in their area, however, it's just more empty BBC reporting to me, full of information that can be interpreted any way you want. It doesn't tell us anything about the state of Mr Davies' health prior to the allegations, it doesn't tell us why the girls might have wanted to sleep over at the Davies' house in the first place, etc, etc. The BBC's news 'stories' are so full of holes it's ridiculous.

[Bibio]

Scenario:
boy meats girl (boy is 16 girl is 15). boy gets girl pregnant. boy gets done with having under age sex with girl and gets put on sex offenders list. 9 months later girl is 16 and gives birth to the baby, both get a council house, live together as married/couple. word gets around that boy (now father of baby) is a sex offender and get 'done in' by local lynch mob. baby grows up without it's real father.

i think that any list has to be more specific as to what 'offence' was committed.

Originally Posted by Bibio

boy meats girl

I hope that pun was deliberate

[yorkie_chris]

Freudian slip FTW :P

[Bibio]

nop jsut dislexik.

should have said beefed.

Originally Posted by leedsmatt7

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.

As said already, the trouble is if they are sentenced to 10 years and have served 10, at the moment they have to be released. Also it may be impossible to rehabilitate an offender whilst in prison. If you think of it like a mental illness, and compare it to somebody who cuts themselves, you may think they are cured when in a hospital and away from any knives, but as soon as you let them home with a kitchen draw full they start cutting themselves again. If rehabilitation can be achieved by psychiatric care, then it needs to start in prison and continue after they are released.

A panorama type programme on this showed that some offenders had developed an attraction to children because they themselves were abused as a child, surely this condition should be fixable with therapy? There were others who were just 'wired up wrong' sickos who can't be cured, and I think these should just be made to live in a secure unit for life. (or I wouldn't be against more drastic action such as castration, if you took away the testosterone would you take away the problem?)

Originally Posted by keith_d

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....

Fair enough, didn't think about any kind of radio signal between the two

[gruntygiggles]

It doesn't matter what we do to monitor sex offenders, if they are going to reoffend, there is precious little anyone can do to stop it. We can't keep them locked up for life because they "may" reoffend. Whether we want to do that or not is totally irrelevant. We can only act with what we have, not what we want to have and at the moment, offenders serve their time and are released. That's the law, it won't change easily and it probably shouldn't either. It can be greatly improved of course, but we can't have a minority report world. EDIT: I do agree that we should be able to keep remorseless offenders or those deemed unsafe locked up indefinately.....but we are not dealing with what we want here.....so I am basing my reply on the situation as it is.

So....we are left with the knowledge that sex offenders are living in our society and so what to do? Release their information, hell no. Not to anyone. Joe Public cannot be trusted not to engage in vigilante justice and that would cause so many more problems. I don't think that there should be a case for releasing the information of only the more serious sex offenders as it is all the same when it comes to the reaction of the public. Communities should pull together to protect children and the vulnerable by looking out for one another, not by uniting in hatred and breaking the law themselves.

So again.....what to do? Look after your children and teach them what is right and wrong!!!
In the case of the Soham Murders (not necessarily sexually motivated, but a good example) Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were on the way home from going to buy sweets. They walked past the house of Ian Huntley and he invited them in, saying that Maxine Carr was also home. Now.......My mum told me and my sister that we were never allowed to talk to strangers, never allowed to get in a car with anyone, even if we knew them, without asking her or dad first and never allowed to go into anyones house...even a friends house without asking her or dad first. My mums best friends lived in the same street and we weren't even allowed in their house unless we asked mum or dad first!

She made it perfectly clear that these were the rules and she also told us the parts of the body that some people like to touch, but that they were not allowed to. She called these people silly people and told my sister and I that if anyone touched us in those places, we would have done nothing wrong at all and should tell her or dad so that they could tell those people not to be silly anymore. She made it clear that it would never ever be our fault and that we could always tell her or dad.

So....when my sister was asked outside school to go and feed treats to a litter of puppies, she shouted at the man so loud that the teachers made a citizens arrest. When I was flashed at once, I ran home and told mum straight away. When my best friend wasn't home, I'd just wait outside for her and draw pictures on the kerb with a stone and some spit rather than wait in the house because mum said I wasn't allowed to do that!

Simples.......the most effective way to protect your children is to arm them with the knowledge of what is right and wrong and the confidence to say no to people and tell parents/teachers if someone does something they shouldn't. I don't think school is the best place for these things to be taught as in school, it is done later, when children also have the ability to abuse the imformation, take a dislike to someone and make a false accusation which can literally ruin lives.
It should be taught by parents at home and as soon as child understands. It's as simple as, "Don't talk to strangers"

I'm not saying it's the parents fault when children become victims of crimes like these, but we can't rely on anyone else to protect our children for us. I think parents have to do what they can to ensure the safety of their children and not let them grow up too soon.

There are plenty of parents on this forum that have found the right balance and given ther children the confidence, knowledge, love and support to see them grow up into wonderful people. They'd know better than me how to do it because I haven't had children yet....but I'm so so glad I had the parents that I did, because it is what they taught me and my sister that kept us out of trouble!

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

she also told us the parts of the body that some people like to touch, but that they were not allowed to. She called these people silly people and told my sister and I that if anyone touched us in those places, we would have done nothing wrong at all and should tell her or dad so that they could tell those people not to be silly anymore.

i like your mums way of thinking. but your first sexual encounter must have been a bit weird for you... 'my mum said your not allowed to touch me there'

The law is an ass and there is no one simple answer; but there is a simple problem - people.

When somebody is convicted, do we want them punished or rehabilitated? If we want rehabilitation then what measure do we use? People are compulsive; I can't stop eating chocolate which is not a crime in itself, but still a compulsion. People have sexual compulsions too and they don't always mesh with the social mores of the time.

In answer to the question, I don't know what can be done, but I agree that victims shouldn't be directly involved in law making as it becomes eye-for-an-eye. The gun laws brought in after Dunblane are a classic example of knee-jerk law making; well intentioned but ultimately flawed and affecting the law abiding citizen more than the criminals.

[Bibio]

what's classified as paedophilia in this country is classed as ok in others. e.g. jerry lee lewis married his 13 year old cousin. and lets not even get started about some places in africa.