Oh Gods...I'm very much concerned that we were able to go so long with all these multiple registers for so long. Why did the media need to make the jump here.

The worrying thing is that I'm not overly surprised by this...

We already have it and a lot more here to tag those folks. You can even pull on the internet, your area and see if any live near by.

Map Sex Offenders

Well in my opinion that was far too long and well thought out a post to be just left hanging there. Nice point Tawel, well done.

---

5. the general public should NOT know the addresses of registered sex offenders, even the really bad ones. the disruption to public order is too great.

---

This is where I would strongly disagree. We have had many situations where children were molested, raped and/or killed by know pedifiles, but the public was not informed. I do not agree with vigilanty justice, as some on the list are trying to straighten out their lives, but, I would rather err on the protective side of the situation, and have people know where they live. Here, most of the time, there is little trouble with the public knowing the locations. Is some cases, it give a breather of releaf, knowing where they live, so as to keep the kids away. Adults here, messing with children is on the rise, and parent need all the help in protecting their children with out having to keep them under lock and key al the time.

Edited by - Finalday on 3/2/2006 4:10:58 PM

The problem with these crime statistics on spousal abuse (although mainly husbands beating up their wives), child abuse, pedophilia, and incest is that in the decades before the mid-1980s and after, these were crimes that just were not talked about in polite society nor covered in the news. The social inviolable sanctity of the home was much stronger. The police didn't push the door in except in extreme cases in which neighbors and outsiders to the family finally were forced to be more vocal about what was going on.

Today, our right to privacy, law and its enforcement, social attitudes and the general awareness of the public are such that the authorities now have more opportunity to interfere and intervene. That's why it seems ike we are surrounded by brutal people who don't deserve to be accorded respect and deference and nasty perverts. The main difference is that they are now more publicly known than before. And, of course, our population has grown so that the sheer number of them has increased.

The only fairly credible study conducted on the rate or recidivism among sex offenders produced a rate of 5.3% ... that 5.3% of sex offenders released after serving a prison sentence were likely to commit another sex crime within 3 years.
This study was conducted by the Dept. of Justice in 1994.

Included in the study were rapist and child rapists. And they were all men. What wasn't studied was where the recidivists went when they commited their second crimes. Did they go home or more elsewhere?

That is what has been the concern in my neck of the woods. There is this sense that after they are released, the guys more likely to do it a second time, or more times, relocate to the cities where they can disappear more easily. So even if only 5.3% do a repeat offense, they end up in the cities so that there is a high concentration of recidivist sex offenders in the Cities. At least, that's the theory.
And if this theory is true then I'll be d*mned if they DON'T publicize for me where these perverts live.

The location of sex offenders will be available to the public (for a small fee) from what i read on the BBC from the other day.

But it gets worse:

---

A 16-year-old convicted of having sex with a child of 15 would be on the list

---

Oookaayyy then, that's probabily about 3/4 teenagers at this current time. Since we have the highest under age teenage pregnancy rate in Europe (mind you, some countries legal age's are alot lower than ours!). Hell, that would have put ME on the ir IF my gf's parents back then had pressed for charges (she was consenting, hell, she ripped my clothes off, but that wouldn't matter would it?). I was 16, she was 15...

---

People cautioned for sex offences will automatically face a ban on working with children, not just those who have been convicted.

---

Define sex offences, because if it is like Taw states, then in the words of an old song "there may be trouble ahead..."

---

"School staff have all too frequently been the victim of false and malicious allegations."

---

Too true, sad as well, but far too true. How about that girl who cried rape the other month, and finally admitted it was only due to not wishing to tell her parents she had been out shagging all night instead of coming home? People like her get a caution, but cause muchos damage to others reputations/names etc. We crack down hard on one side, but remain lenient on the other?

---

They could be fined up to £5,000 if they knowingly take on an employee who has not undergone the new checks.

---

Great idea, I remember starting teacher training, where due to incompetant staffing and administration, nearly every single persons "clearance" to work with children was delayed. It was left up to the headmaster to decide whether to allow us into their schools before we were cleared, but if that farce happens again - then it will fubar up teacher training a right treat... and all due to a department taking far too long to make some checks. Has it improved?

---

On Thursday, Ms Kelly announced that anyone put on the sex offenders' register in future for offences against children will be banned from teaching.

---

- that sounds like the only reassuring thing I have read over the past few days. Oh wait, that could include those 16 year old sex mad nutters, whose female partners are happy with the situation/"gagging for it", yet the parents don't approve. Hmm...

The worst (and I now cannot find the article) I read yesterday. The list will be "online", and not only can employers check for peoples records, but for a fee, the public would be able to check that their pupils teachers aren't on there. Now does this mean the public can just check for names on there, therefore being able to "hunt" for paedophiles in their area?

It's funny how we are supposed to give one lot of criminals a second chance after serving their time, but others will be persecuted for life instead. I agree with it, but also find the contradiction amusing at the same time.

Edited by - Chips on 3/3/2006 12:30:53 AM

The only problem with "days in court" is that if a case has a profile, then the public do not remember the fact they are innocent at all, just the fact that they were tried for crimes.

After all, John Leslie was never named, proven, or anything else as Ulrika's "rapist", yet look what the public now think of him... Indeed, he was never convicted of anything afaik, he was cleared of anything and everything. He has no career, just like Mathew Kelly too.

I only mention those because they are widely known. Local people, from local villages, will remember cases against locals... it's just like Neighbours round here, anything happens - we all know about it. If anyone was arrested on suspision within 3 villages, it would spread like wildfire and certainly never be quashed.

i can see a point in keeping track of these people esp, if they hurt a kid i have a niece and nephews near my house and the idea that some sick person may try something with them bothers me. but i don't think it is a good idea for this info to be availible to the general public just people who have children. like it was said before you may get a person who decides to take the law into thier own hands and kill someone, as also was said word spreads fast in rural areas it took a matter of days for word to spread around my area about a person who killed a horse what kind of uproar would a child molester cause if the accidental shooting of a horse had people ready to jump the person. this regestry is a double edged sword depending on how you look at it.

What i think is most disturbing is the extremely hostile stance our culture has on sex. People, the reason we EXIST is because of it, i don't think it should be treated like such an absurdly forbiddan topic. Naturally, 9 year olds shouldn't get raped, but hiding 13 year olds from the reproductive cycle of our species is not a very wise decision, nor is discouraging any kind of sex, and in fact making it illegal to have sex when you are under 18. Maybe under 14 or 13, but 18? The facts stand that puberty is happening at earlier and earlier ages, which means kids are going to end up having sex earlier. And our culture doesn't give a ****. I wouldn't mind this list so much if a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old got you on the list. It should be a difference of 2 years, not 1, because 1 is really, really stupid. Why? because its very common to have kids a year apart in the same grade. you need a difference of 2 years, at LEAST, to be even considered for that.

And another thing is the "consent" part. Many parents don't give a **** about whether their child "consented", and press charges ANYWAY. many people fake being raped, many people get away with "consenting" with their sex partner and then sueing them later. Its horrible and its making a fool of the system.

This isn't working, plain and simple.