NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of a recent tragedy in Perth, WA, Australia, (wherein a little 8 year old girl was brutally raped and murdered in some public toilets), there has been a public push for something similar to California's "Megans Law" to be passed in Australia. In California all convicted paedophiles are placed upon a public register detailing their name, address, and photo. The law was named after the victim of a paedophile.

The little girl was named Sophia Rodriguez, and the tragedy has rocked the nation. I saw a recent poll on TV showing 91% of voters in favour of the law. I must say I am torn. Paedophiles are the lowest of all scumbags, and as such, do they deserve civil rights? However, it is always the least popular people who lose their rights first. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope? Will there be a public petty theft register one day on this precedent? Should laws be made in such a reactionary way?

Currently, the police have a register of all convicted paedophiles in Australia. Is that sufficient? Civil Libertarians have argued a public register would push Paedophiles underground, making the situation worse (as now even the police do not know where they are). Further, they argue a public register would inspire vigilante attacks of the said individuals.

Those in favour of the register propose that such a register would be invaluable in the prevention of this kind of crime. So that parents in the area of a convicted paedophile would take extra care. However the crime in which the movement is naming itself after would most probably not have been prevented even if there were a register in place at the time (due to the random nature of the attack).

Sophia was snatched when she went to the toilets in a shopping mall. After a couple of minutes her brothers went looking for her and even knocked on the door of the disabled toilet in which she was being raped (unknowing of the fact). Later, Sophia's 14 year old brother found her lifeless and mutilated body, naked and abandoned in the toilets. Does such a horrific crime demand a response?

News link:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19603041-421,00.html?from=rss

First of all, pedophiles have no civil rights anymore. Human beings get certain rights granted them just for being human beings. When you take someone else's rights away, you are effectively forfeiting your own. If you kill someone in cold blood, with no other reason except that you wanted to, do you really deserve life yourself?
Victims of rape - children, in particular - are emotionally scarred and, often, it is impossible for them to fully recover from such a horrifying experience. You have impaired their ability to live life as they want, since people are sometimes so afraid of tragedies reoccurring that they will become something equivalent to agoraphobic and just remain inside their homes as often as they can.
This particular man killed the victim he had already ravaged...and, to make matters so much worse, she was so young.
I'm fine with you being attracted to whomever you are attracted to...it's "hardwired" in for some people, but you have to know that, if consent is not being given, it is wrong. Likewise, you must know that people of a certain age and/or innocence (including people with mental handicaps) should never be pressured into sexual relations of any kind. I'm sure we've all seen someone we knew to be very much uninterested in us/taken by another/off-limits for whatever reason and wished we could have them...sexually or no. But we don't act upon those wishes...that's the key difference.
In short, you can think about children while you masturbate if you want...I'll think you a sick and deranged person, but you're not harming anyone. As soon as you act on that impulse, however, you've crossed the line and lost all rights afforded you through the simple act of being a human.

Something you have to consider, too, is the severity of the act. Someone caught masturbating to child pornography, for instance, is still a criminal (for having the illegal material on his computer/on video/whatever), but not so dangerous or far-gone as the man who rapes a child and then leaves her, dead, in a public restroom.
Should convicted rapists (not just pedophiles, mind you) be listed on a registry for the public to see? Sort of. Only some of them. There should be a rating system...if you are above a certain level on that scale, then...yes. A parent has every right to know that a convicted pedophilic rapist is living across the street.
The places a released (but found guilty) rapist is allowed to live should be limited. E.g. no living across from schools.
If a person is a particularly dangerous or violent offender (or repeat offender), I say lock them up and throw away the key. If you molest an innocent - especially a child, for crying out loud - you are no longer fit to remain in society. If you rape and kill a child, you should be put to death because you are a) a menace and b) no longer human in any sense of the word.
I have no pity for people of this kind. Self-control does wonders, and if you cannot handle that, you don't belong in a lawful society where you can do harm to others. Again, I'll repeat, specifically small children.

Another topic I just have to breech: statutory rape. What are your thoughts? I'd tell you mine right off the bat, but I've ranted enough...and I don't want to influence any answers. Curiosity, you know.

How about we register RAPISTS, regardless of their sexual preferences?

How about we register RAPISTS, regardless of their sexual preferences?

Actually, that's precisely what I'm in favour of.
Phyrexia...I know someone of that name. You wouldn't happen to've once had a mohawk, would you? x)

There should be no public registration. Period.

There should be no public registration. Period.

Just wondering...why? Not meant to offend or anything; I'm genuinely curious.

How about we register RAPISTS, regardless of their sexual preferences?

Agreed, rapists and perverts are the problem - the sexual preference is not something they can help, acting on it is. Paedophilia is not something I agree with, but at the same time it's something that I know is not necessarily the paedophiles' fault. They can't help it. But raping... that can be helped and should be stopped.

Just wondering...why? Not meant to offend or anything; I'm genuinely curious.

It's a violation of their right to privacy, it makes a lot of people avoid them... basically, they become an unwanted thing. Plus, like the OP said, it could also bring vigilantes.

How about we register RAPISTS, regardless of their sexual preferences?

isn't there already a sex offenders register?

A list is a useful tool. I would rather they be in the open.

People abuse the lists as in locating and assulting these people; the lists will be eliminated.

It's a violation of their right to privacy, it makes a lot of people avoid them... basically, they become an unwanted thing. Plus, like the OP said, it could also bring vigilantes.

They have no right to privacy after they have violated (raped) another person...be it a man, woman, child, etc. They lose the right to hide something if that something is a thing that harmed innocent people.

My view on registration is that it's a half-measure, used by weak people who want to have things both ways.

If someone's a danger to society, here's an idea, don't let them back into society. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand?

Once you let someone back into society, you're saying, essentially, that they're rehabilitated now, and thus aren't any more a threat than anyone else in society. If that isn't the case, I repeat, don't let them back into society.

Registration is a bad idea from both angles. If you believe the people on the register are rehabilitated, these registers foster discrimination againt people trying to make a living, and you make it harder for them to reintegrate into society. If you believe that these people are still dangerous, YOU LET THEM OUT OF JAIL.

For the moment, I'll ignore my viewpoint on what should and shouldn't be a crime, because that really is for another thread. I'll assume that you're really going to put "the worst of the worst" on such a register.

The problem with registration is that it doesn't work. It doesn't make anyone safer. Most sex crimes are committed by first time offenders, and registration doesn't do a damn thing to protect anyone against them. All registration does is lull the public into a false sense of security ("I just have to keep my kids away from this perv and they'll be safe.") and at the same time makes it harder for these people who SERVED THEIR TIME to reintegrate and become productive members of society again.

Go ahead and advocate for execution. I don't give a shit if you want to demand mandatory life sentences. But registration is the most worthless system ever devised. It makes the public less safe than either the lenient or the strict alternatives, and should never be used by anyone with an ounce of sense.

Oh, and if you'd like to read more I have an article I found a while back that talks about the myths people have about sex offenders, and how the existence of these myths makes us less prepared and puts us in greater danger.

Enjoy:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_2.htm

My view on registration is that it's a half-measure, used by weak people who want to have things both ways.

If someone's a danger to society, here's an idea, don't let them back into society. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand?

Once you let someone back into society, you're saying, essentially, that they're rehabilitated now, and thus aren't any more a threat than anyone else in society. If that isn't the case, I repeat, don't let them back into society.

Registration is a bad idea from both angles. If you believe the people on the register are rehabilitated, these registers foster discrimination againt people trying to make a living, and you make it harder for them to reintegrate into society. If you believe that these people are still dangerous, YOU LET THEM OUT OF JAIL.

For the moment, I'll ignore my viewpoint on what should and shouldn't be a crime, because that really is for another thread. I'll assume that you're really going to put "the worst of the worst" on such a register.

The problem with registration is that it doesn't work. It doesn't make anyone safer. Most sex crimes are committed by first time offenders, and registration doesn't do a damn thing to protect anyone against them. All registration does is lull the public into a false sense of security ("I just have to keep my kids away from this perv and they'll be safe.") and at the same time makes it harder for these people who SERVED THEIR TIME to reintegrate and become productive members of society again.

Go ahead and advocate for execution. I don't give a shit if you want to demand mandatory life sentences. But registration is the most worthless system ever devised. It makes the public less safe than either the lenient or the strict alternatives, and should never be used by anyone with an ounce of sense.

Oh, and if you'd like to read more I have an article I found a while back that talks about the myths people have about sex offenders, and how the existence of these myths makes us less prepared and puts us in greater danger.

Enjoy:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_2.htm

I'm all for the execution of violent, repeat offenders, but it wouldn't fly here in the States at this time. It's the same way I'm all for certain laws to be completely obliterated, but - seeing as how most of politics is a slow, compromising ordeal - I have to settle for partial victories rather than ones that would constitute a party on my part.
You're not alone in believing that rehabilitation is pretty much useless in so many cases (most, if not all)...but, until that gets through people's heads, I'd settle for something a little more effective than just releasing them...compromise is hard to deal with, at times, but it's just better than nothing.

I'm all for the execution of violent, repeat offenders, but it wouldn't fly here in the States at this time. It's the same way I'm all for certain laws to be completely obliterated, but - seeing as how most of politics is a slow, compromising ordeal - I have to settle for partial victories rather than ones that would constitute a party on my part.
You're not alone in believing that rehabilitation is pretty much useless in so many cases (most, if not all)...but, until that gets through people's heads, I'd settle for something a little more effective than just releasing them...compromise is hard to deal with, at times, but it's just better than nothing.
You don't seem to understand. I feel that even as crappy as the "hold and release" system is, it's still superior to the "registration" alternative.

Registration is the worst system we could possibly use because it takes the worst aspects of both extremes and integrates them into a single, cohesive whole of a fucked up system.

Accepting registration as a compromise is foolish if your goal is removing them from the population. Registration is a tool the politicians use to quiet your views and the views of the bleeding hearts out there who think criminal behavior is just the criminal begging for a hug. In many ways it's more cruel than execution, and it's less effective than that hug. Worst of all, the politicians then get to say "We have a register, and it's working. There's no need to hand down harsh sentenses, because we have a register."

As bad as pedophiles may be, you have to remember that any justice system is imperfect. Particularly in sexual crimes, there are large numbers of wrongful convictions, because it so often comes down to "He said, she said." My friend's dad (a wonderful person, loved by everyone who knows him) is in prison essentially because there were two "She Said"s and one "He said".

What you have to keep in mind in your rush to strip pedophiles and rapists of all their rights is that you will inevitably affect some innocent people. "It is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than condemn one innocent man" is a principle that I don't think anybody really agrees with anymore, but we should try to keep it in view.

As bad as pedophiles may be,

While I know you mean to say child molesters, I've really let this go on too long in this thread. Pedophile is not a synonym for child molester. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to children. Child molesters are people who rape children. Much as you don't go out and rape the people you're attracted to, pedophiles aren't generally out there raping children. Please separate the two terms in your mind.

you have to remember that any justice system is imperfect. Particularly in sexual crimes, there are large numbers of wrongful convictions, because it so often comes down to "He said, she said." My friend's dad (a wonderful person, loved by everyone who knows him) is in prison essentially because there were two "She Said"s and one "He said".

I agree with you completely. My uncle lost his kids and has to register as a sex offender after some charges that came up in a messy divorce. I don't believe a word of the charges, not because I know my uncle that well (I never liked the guy) but because the story itself was so inconsistent I was surprised any jury could follow it, let alone believe it.

It seems that the greater the crime a person is accused of, the less chance a jury is going to be willing to take of letting the accused go. Part of the reason prosecutors spend so much time talking up how horrible the crime is well before the time comes for the jury to consider sentence.

What you have to keep in mind in your rush to strip pedophiles

Again, I know you haven't had the chance to take my advice yet, but please, use the term child molester instead. Pedophiles aren't all child molesters.

and rapists of all their rights is that you will inevitably affect some innocent people. "It is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than condemn one innocent man" is a principle that I don't think anybody really agrees with anymore, but we should try to keep it in view.
I agree that stripping people of their rights needlessly is a problem, and I fail to see the need (or sense) behind a program of registration.

Further we have a major problem with maintaining the due process rights. You see, while it may be that a person who commits a crime volentarily gives up certain rights when they commit a crime, the right to due process can't be taken away on those grounds.

"It is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than condemn one innocent man" is a principle that I don't think anybody really agrees with anymore

I agree with it.

The problem with public registration is, it sends them underground. Rather than have people know who they are and where they live, they run. Then instead of having them where the police know where they are, no one knows where they are, and it's worse for everyone.

The problem with public registration is, it sends them underground. Rather than have people know who they are and where they live, they run. Then instead of having them where the police know where they are, no one knows where they are, and it's worse for everyone.

very good point

This law is irrelevant. There is no need for it because there is no reason why a convicted paedophile should be out of prison, or even alive.

They have no right to privacy after they have violated (raped) another person...be it a man, woman, child, etc. They lose the right to hide something if that something is a thing that harmed innocent people.
They have a right to privacy if the right is necessitated by threat of vigilante "justice."

First of all, pedophiles have no civil rights anymore.Human beings get certain rights granted them just for being human beings. When you take someone else's rights away, you are effectively forfeiting your own. If you kill someone in cold blood, with no other reason except that you wanted to, do you really deserve life yourself?
Incorrect. All people have certain rights, even horrible people. That's what the system of laws is all about.

Victims of rape - children, in particular - are emotionally scarred and, often, it is impossible for them to fully recover from such a horrifying experience. You have impaired their ability to live life as they want, since people are sometimes so afraid of tragedies reoccurring that they will become something equivalent to agoraphobic and just remain inside their
homes as often as they can.
Agreed. This is why the law should make the punishment for such a crime a serious deterrent. Perhaps the idea that their photo and private details will be posted on a website for all to see, and that their future movements will be monitored for the rest of their lives once they are released from prison will be a deterrent.
This particular man killed the victim he had already ravaged...and, to make matters so much worse, she was so young.
I feel it would be horrible whether she was eight, thirty, or ninety-nine.

I'm fine with you being attracted to whomever you are attracted to...it's "hardwired" in for some people, but you have to know that, if consent is not being given, it is wrong. Likewise, you must know that people of a certain age and/or innocence (including people with mental handicaps) should never be pressured into sexual relations of any kind. I'm sure we've all seen someone we knew to be very much uninterested in us/taken by another/off-limits for whatever reason and wished we could have them...sexually or no. But we don't act upon those wishes...that's the key difference.
In short, you can think about children while you masturbate if you want...I'll think you a sick and deranged person, but you're not harming anyone.
Studies have shown that it's not generally about attraction; it's about power.

As soon as you act on that impulse, however, you've crossed the line and lost all rights afforded you through the simple act of being a human.
Incorrect. Humans have human rights, no matter how disgusting a specimen we find them. The state, however, has the right to imprison and punish one for a crime under the guidelines it's worked out as appropriate to the situation. At least, that's the way most civilized countries handle it.

Something you have to consider, too, is the severity of the act. Someone caught masturbating to child pornography, for instance, is still a criminal (for having the illegal material on his computer/on video/whatever), but not so dangerous or far-gone as the man who rapes a child and then leaves her, dead, in a public restroom. Agreed.

Should convicted rapists (not just pedophiles, mind you) be listed on a registry for the public to see? Sort of. Only some of them.
Why only some? Is the act any less damaging for a 21 year old or a 99 year old? I believe that all sexual offenders should be publicly outed so that one can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to live near them.

There should be a rating system...if you are above a certain level on that scale, then...yes. A parent has every right to know that a convicted pedophilic rapist is living across the street. I would disagree in that I think that everyone should know that a convicted sex offender lives in their neighborhood.

The places a released (but found guilty) rapist is allowed to live should be limited. E.g. no living across from schools. Or across from wherever their preferred victim is found -- such as bingo halls or shopping malls.

If a person is a particularly dangerous or violent offender (or repeat offender), I say lock them up and throw away the key. If you molest an innocent - especially a child, for crying out loud - you are no longer fit to remain in society. If you rape and kill a child, you should be put to death because you are a) a menace and b) no longer human in any sense of the word.
I have no pity for people of this kind. Self-control does wonders, and if you cannot handle that, you don't belong in a lawful society where you can do harm to others. Again, I'll repeat, specifically small children.
While viscerally, the idea of child rape is more upsetting, I will again state that I believe whatever punishment you are advocating for child rapists should be across the board for all rapists. The crime is substantially the same: using force to overpower and force yourself on another.

Another topic I just have to breech: statutory rape. What are your thoughts? I'd tell you mine right off the bat, but I've ranted enough...and I don't want to influence any answers. Curiosity, you know.
Not really the same topic but: if we're talking about an 18 year old and a 16 year old, the punishment for statutory rape (if any) should be substantially less than a thirty year old having sex with a 16 year old. In one case, although one is considered an adult and the other a child, substantially they are in the same age group. But I believe that when a person in an older age group is with a person who is legally a child, there are issues of authority and power that cannot be ignored.

It's a violation of their right to privacy, it makes a lot of people avoid them... basically, they become an unwanted thing.

Perhaps then they should have chosen not to violate someone ELSE'S right to privacy and the security of their person?

What about repeat offenders? Should they also enjoy the cloak of anonymity so they can continue to prey on others once they've done their time?

People abuse the lists as in locating and assulting these people; the lists will be eliminated.

People who abuse the lists to locate and assault these people should be charged with assault, attempted murder, or whatever is appropriate, and placed in the prison system.

I agree with it.

People often do, until the victim of a violent crime is related to them. Then their perspective often changes.

Since passage of Megans law it is really eye opening to see how common these people are and how nearby they live.

People often do, until the victim of a violent crime is related to them. Then their perspective often changes.

Agree 100%

So, does this publication of a sex offenders list also include the cases of the 18 yr old having consensual sex with his almost 17 yr old partner?

Stat. rape I believe, and also child sexual abuse.

So, does this publication of a sex offenders list also include the cases of the 18 yr old having consensual sex with his almost 17 yr old partner?

Stat. rape I believe, and also child sexual abuse.

I've already posted my opinion on that, and I believe that many if not most jurisdictions recognize the difference between two teens and someone who is clearly an adult and another who is clearly not.

So, does this publication of a sex offenders list also include the cases of the 18 yr old having consensual sex with his almost 17 yr old partner?

Stat. rape I believe, and also child sexual abuse.

You can check on the various websites but yes it would include 18 year olds who were convicted of any rape of any sort. 18 year olds are by far the least of them around here though. Mostly 40s and older at a guess.

check for yourself


http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/disclaimer.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

You can check on the various websites but yes it would include 18 year olds who were convicted of any rape of any sort. 18 year olds are by far the least of them around here though. Mostly 40s and older at a guess.

check for yourself


http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/disclaimer.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

But there's enough to warrant a re-examination of the procedure. Which would probably result in it falling flat on its face.

I know Kat, I was directing it towards the OP, not your good self ;)

But there's enough to warrant a re-examination of the procedure. Which would probably result in it falling flat on its face.

I know Kat, I was directing it towards the OP, not your good self ;)

How many did you find?

It's a violation of their right to privacy, it makes a lot of people avoid them... basically, they become an unwanted thing. Plus, like the OP said, it could also bring vigilantes.
Good. If these people are sick enough to violate somebody else's rights in such a vile way, they deserve to be tracked for the rest of their lives. Parents should know. This should be all rapists in general, not just pedo. (Well, actually I think you should get life in prison or death for rape, but, can't help that).

How many did you find?
One case is enough for the law to be re examined.

One case is enough for the law to be re examined.

Did you find any?

Well, I'm against such a list and I'm glad we don't have such a list in my country. If they're released from prison they should be considered rehabilitated. And if they're not they shouldn't have been released. These lists only serve to stigmatize people who have paid their dues and vigilante justice is waiting around the corner when they're out in the open.

Good. If these people are sick enough to violate somebody else's rights in such a vile way, they deserve to be tracked for the rest of their lives. Parents should know. This should be all rapists in general, not just pedo. (Well, actually I think you should get life in prison or death for rape, but, can't help that).

There was a huge story in Britain where 1,000s of people were mistakenly given criminal records. Alot of innocent people were unable to get jobs because of it. Just imagine if it happened with this sex offender register, innocent people could be completly ostracised from their communitys for doing nothing wrong.

Did you find any?
You do realise that Megan's Law is not the only one of its kind in existence, don't you?

The UK mulled over such a legal matter recently, as did Ireland.

Until someone pointed the above loophole. Then the legislatures went "Oh shit. Thats a good point. Time for a redraft".

As for your question, yes- I have infact seen such cases arise.

There was a huge story in Britain where 1,000s of people were mistakenly given criminal records. Alot of innocent people were unable to get jobs because of it. Just imagine if it happened with this sex offender register, innocent people could be completly ostracised from their communitys for doing nothing wrong.

Since it happened in Britain without a list then list is bad?

Since it happened in Britain without a list then list is bad?
Lets see.

Thousands of innocents are put on a sex offenders list and their names, faces and address are publicised in the National newspapers...... hmmmmm....

Is that a 'bad thing'....? Let me think....

You do realise that Megan's Law is not the only one of its kind in existence, don't you?

The UK mulled over such a legal matter recently, as did Ireland.

Until someone pointed the above loophole. Then the legislatures went "Oh shit. Thats a good point. Time for a redraft".

As for your question, yes- I have infact seen such cases arise.

My question was not "have you seen such cases arise?"

My question was have you seen any on the Megan's law list.

Lets see.

Thousands of innocents are put on a sex offenders list and their names, faces and address are publicised in the National newspapers...... hmmmmm....

Is that a 'bad thing'....? Let me think....

gizza source guvner

My question was not "have you seen such cases arise?"

My question was have you seen any on the Megan's law list.

Considering the Thread is called "Sophia's Law" and not "Megan's Law", my assertion that such cases do and have arisen is still correct regardless.

gizza source guvner
A source to what? The hypothetical situation that would arise if such a list existed in the UK?

Just imagine if it happened with this sex offender register

First of all, pedophiles have no civil rights anymore. Human beings get certain rights granted them just for being human beings. When you take someone else's rights away, you are effectively forfeiting your own. If you kill someone in cold blood, with no other reason except that you wanted to, do you really deserve life yourself?
Victims of rape - children, in particular - are emotionally scarred and, often, it is impossible for them to fully recover from such a horrifying experience. You have impaired their ability to live life as they want, since people are sometimes so afraid of tragedies reoccurring that they will become something equivalent to agoraphobic and just remain inside their homes as often as they can.
This particular man killed the victim he had already ravaged...and, to make matters so much worse, she was so young.
I'm fine with you being attracted to whomever you are attracted to...it's "hardwired" in for some people, but you have to know that, if consent is not being given, it is wrong. Likewise, you must know that people of a certain age and/or innocence (including people with mental handicaps) should never be pressured into sexual relations of any kind. I'm sure we've all seen someone we knew to be very much uninterested in us/taken by another/off-limits for whatever reason and wished we could have them...sexually or no. But we don't act upon those wishes...that's the key difference.
In short, you can think about children while you masturbate if you want...I'll think you a sick and deranged person, but you're not harming anyone. As soon as you act on that impulse, however, you've crossed the line and lost all rights afforded you through the simple act of being a human.

Something you have to consider, too, is the severity of the act. Someone caught masturbating to child pornography, for instance, is still a criminal (for having the illegal material on his computer/on video/whatever), but not so dangerous or far-gone as the man who rapes a child and then leaves her, dead, in a public restroom.
Should convicted rapists (not just pedophiles, mind you) be listed on a registry for the public to see? Sort of. Only some of them. There should be a rating system...if you are above a certain level on that scale, then...yes. A parent has every right to know that a convicted pedophilic rapist is living across the street.
The places a released (but found guilty) rapist is allowed to live should be limited. E.g. no living across from schools.
If a person is a particularly dangerous or violent offender (or repeat offender), I say lock them up and throw away the key. If you molest an innocent - especially a child, for crying out loud - you are no longer fit to remain in society. If you rape and kill a child, you should be put to death because you are a) a menace and b) no longer human in any sense of the word.
I have no pity for people of this kind. Self-control does wonders, and if you cannot handle that, you don't belong in a lawful society where you can do harm to others. Again, I'll repeat, specifically small children.

Another topic I just have to breech: statutory rape. What are your thoughts? I'd tell you mine right off the bat, but I've ranted enough...and I don't want to influence any answers. Curiosity, you know.

For that matter, I would like all convicted felons, regardless of the crime, on a national register available to the public. Further, I think all convicted felons should have to report in like child molesters do, whenever they change their address.

Lets see.

Thousands of innocents are put on a sex offenders list and their names, faces and address are publicised in the National newspapers...... hmmmmm....

Is that a 'bad thing'....? Let me think....

Actually, from what I understand, they are not published in the papers.
There is a website to go to. Does everyone go? Well, I haven't, so I'd have to say no, not everyone goes to look.

Those who have an important interest (parents, day care providers) should be more likely to investigate, I should think. And the penalties for using any such list for vigilantism should be swift and harsh.

If one were allowed a one way trip to a child molester's colony, where no rights, except the right to leave, were restricted, how many child molester's would go? It seems like an alternative to castration. Exile.

There should be no public registration. Period.

Why?

If one were allowed a one way trip to a child molester's colony, where no rights, except the right to leave, were restricted, how many child molester's would go? It seems like an alternative to castration. Exile.


Shall we do that to all extremists?

Why?
Because they've served their sentence and should be considered rehabilitated?

Actually, from what I understand, they are not published in the papers.
There is a website to go to. Does everyone go? Well, I haven't, so I'd have to say no, not everyone goes to look.

Kat, you've missed it totally.

It didn't happen. It could have happened much like the criminal records story, if it was published.

I was dealing with a "What if they were published" scenario.

I'll do my best to be objective...
First of all: everybody HAS civil rights...Whatever they do... You know "born free and EQUAL in RIGHTS"...That's, at least, what French law says. If we want to judge them, they MUST to have rights. I consider that justice is the only thing on earth that is able to judge anyone. Even though the crime is horrible, even though we can't bear it, we have to be objective, respect laws and consider all human people as human people. I consider pedophiles as mad people. They have to be judge, locked in an hospital, and stay in for the rest of they sentence, unless if they have a doctor with them to introduce them again into active life... Everybody has a second chance... For me... You'll maybe say that I'm a crazy girl, but I REALLY think that...

About the register: I think it's not a bad idea. We have to TRY, isn't it? And, as said my grand grand mother "A crazy idea is better than no idea at all". It's maybe a first step, and maybe not very usefull, but, in the future, we will find more and more strategy to identify pedophiles and follow them everywhere...
Well I think it's a good idea ONLY if we've identified people on the register as true pedophiles...

Just a little story: when I was a child, one of my friends was manipulated by her mother to say that her father raped her. That was false. The judge wanted me (i was 5 years old) to say what I saw when i was at her home. The truth was taht i saw nothing, and that the attitude of her father was just a father attitude...That was normal...The girl told me, one day, that she only told that she was raped because her mother wanted to. Imagine what would have happened if her father was on a public register...He was innocent but the procedure was during about 3 years. Imagine what people would have think? Most of them would have remembered of the old proverb "There's no smoke without fire" and they would have been thinking he was a pedophile, and he wouldn't have been able to find a job after that...We have to be careful of what we say, what we write...Don't let innocent be gulity, that would be horrible too...

I hope you all understood what I said (sorry...english is not my language..)

I hope you all understood what I said (sorry...english is not my language..)

I understood perfectly (and am sure most here did), and you needn't apologize. You expressed yourself much better in English than I am sure I would in French.

Actually, from what I understand, they are not published in the papers.
There is a website to go to. Does everyone go? Well, I haven't, so I'd have to say no, not everyone goes to look.

Those who have an important interest (parents, day care providers) should be more likely to investigate, I should think. And the penalties for using any such list for vigilantism should be swift and harsh.

The link to CA's website is in post 30. Before you can enter the bit with the sex offenders list they explain a bit about what can happen to vigilantes and you must click on an agreement that you read that and will adhere to it.

A source to what? The hypothetical situation that would arise if such a list existed in the UK?

How about a source for this then?

As for your question, yes- I have infact seen such cases arise.

The link to CA's website is in post 30. Before you can enter the bit with the sex offenders list they explain a bit about what can happen to vigilantes and you must click on an agreement that you read that and will adhere to it.

Well, of course. Assault is a crime.

Well, of course. Assault is a crime.


As it should be.

What? No poll?

This isn't a slippery slope, it's about a fitting punishment for a horrible crime. I'm in favor of chemical (or, you know, real) castration, myself. As for registration, yeah, go for it. ...that jerk.

Considering that the Childrens Society recently published a report claiming that up to 1 in 4 girls under 12 have, or will be sexually abused (in the UK), quite frankly I don't think we could cope with the revelation of just how many convicted pedophiles there are in our communities.

Also, to deny the rights of an individual, however reprehensible they may be, is to deny their humanity. To effectively deal with the socially deviant, you have to accept them as the darkest part of our communities and seek to educate and rehabilitate (however much we all want to inflict every punishment we can imagine upon them).

Exposure will only raise the stakes, making pedophiles more dangerous to our children as they attempt to silence their victims or seek out the most vulnerable, rather than most appealing.

However, I cannot help but feel that yes, there should be some form of screening - with the level of spending on civil servants, health and rehabilitation services, you'd think that there would be a system in place to stop the idiotic mistakes that occur in the UK. For example, a halfway house, (policed/paroled housing) for pedophiles was placed in the same street as a primary school. A man convicted of offences against young girls alllowed to teach Sports at a girls college. I can understand why parents are out for blood.

What? No poll?

This isn't a slippery slope, it's about a fitting punishment for a horrible crime. I'm in favor of chemical (or, you know, real) castration, myself. As for registration, yeah, go for it. ...that jerk.


Except that as previously noted, rape is not about attraction as much as it is an exercise of power through violence. Castration will not work simply because the show of that power will be made in other ways such as using an item to sodomize or merely showing your power by torture and murder.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/student_why.htm
http://www.mhc.edu/sports/studentlife/counseling/myths.asp
http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/crimes_n.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4170963.stm

They have no right to privacy after they have violated (raped) another person...be it a man, woman, child, etc. They lose the right to hide something if that something is a thing that harmed innocent people.


Men and women can usually defend themselves, or are at least required to.

Kids are not - by nature and by statute.

Therefore, it behoves us to deal with enemies of children with speed and ruthless prejudice.

First, considering that he is a murderer first and foremost, he shouldnt be living anywhere except prison.

Second, does anyone know if this law actually works? The guy has to be convicted first. A pedophile who has never been convicted can just waltz into a town without anyone knowing.

Registration of sex offenders is a very flawed idea.

First – most cases of child abuse do not come from some random stranger but from someone known to the child (such as a family member or friend of the family).

Secondly – this only gives a false sense of security because even if nobody on the list is in your neighborhood that does not mean someone could come into your neighborhood.

Thirdly – this does nothing against someone who has never been caught and convicted.

Fourthly – this opens the door to vigilantism, ostracizing, and discrimination against the individual. This would only serve to make matters worse.

Fifthly – the effects of an innocent (or inappropriately convicted) individual getting listed would be devastating. In many cases even a blatant lie of an accusation can have seriously damaging results.



I have known 2 people who have been convicted of rape – neither of whom should have gone to jail but now will forever be listed as a sex offender.

The first was 19 and had been dating a girl for more than a year when they had sex. Her parents (who were overly protective) were very pissed off when they found out (by listening in on the girls phone calls) and since she was a 2 months shy of 18 at the time, had him arrested for statutory rape. Thus a very respectable member of society was thrown in prison and has his life forever tarnished and will be persecuted by society because of this rather despicable incident (the arrest, not the sex).

The second was out at a party with some friends and met a girl who is well known as the town slut. She asked him to take her home, which he did (they didn’t even have sex). When the boyfriend (who was the insanely jealous and abusive type) found out that she was at a party and asked a guy to take her home, he was lividly pissed off – so she lied to him. She said that she was drunk and wanted to go home and nobody else would take her but when they got back to her place that she didn’t want to sleep with him and he raped her (the boyfriend refused to believe that a guy could be in her apartment without having sex with her – so it was either consensual or rape). Unfortunately he forced her to press charges. The prosecutor and the public defender (who should have been fired for such behavior) convinced him to plead guilty because they were going to make sure he got the maximum sentence if it went to trial. So he had to take the choice of 5 years by pleading guilty or something like 25 years if he refused. He was a scared 22 year old who got rather harsh treatment from everyone (including his defender) so after a few weeks of this finally caved and pleaded guilty.

So a sum total of 2 people I have met have had their lives ruined because of the accusation of rape. Neither of which should have gone to jail. So I am just a little biased in this matter, but with just cause.

In light of a recent tragedy in Perth, WA, Australia, (wherein a little 8 year old girl was brutally raped and murdered in some public toilets), there has been a public push for something similar to California's "Megans Law" to be passed in Australia. In California all convicted paedophiles are placed upon a public register detailing their name, address, and photo. The law was named after the victim of a paedophile.
Pass it.

This is just one more reason I could never run for public office: I would push for a mandatory death penalty for pedophiles.

I think the public registration is an inexcusable violation of civil rights, whether of pedophiles or anyone.

The question I have is this: since we know that these people cannot be rehabililtated, why are they released in the first place?

Wait, wait. If this is like Megan’s law, than they won’t be just listing pedophiles, but all sex offenders, including men who merely solicit prostitutes. Is that what you want?

What kind of act actually qualifies one to get on the list? I've heard of people being charged as sex offenders for streaking at sporting events. Should they be on the list? Would Janet Jackson qualify? What about Pee-Wee?
What if your just accused but were found innocent?

For that matter, I would like all convicted felons, regardless of the crime, on a national register available to the public. Further, I think all convicted felons should have to report in like child molesters do, whenever they change their address.
Why don't we put people in high-risk-potential-felon brackets on a register too? You know, lower socio-economic background, black/hispanic (In US). Also, homosexuals and paedophiles should go on the list, because both groups show a higher rate of sexual offence than the heterosexual majority. Maybe we should even consider putting atheist on the list, because they have no values. Or maybe all non christians? Perhaps christians who don't attend church? I also think we should put dissidents and those who speak out against the government on the list (they are more likely to perform a terrorist attack, and parents have the right to know if their kids are near potential terrorists). {/SLIPPERYSLOPEFALLACY]

First, considering that he is a murderer first and foremost, he shouldnt be living anywhere except prison.

Second, does anyone know if this law actually works? The guy has to be convicted first. A pedophile who has never been convicted can just waltz into a town without anyone knowing.
Exactly. The registry idea would only hold some level of merit if it contained people who would most likely commit sexual offences sometime in the future. However this is impossible to accurately predict, and opens the door to the slipperiest slope I can imagine.

Pass it.

This is just one more reason I could never run for public office: I would push for a mandatory death penalty for pedophiles.
That might be the first statement I actually agree with from you, Eut.

The question I have is this: since we know that these people cannot be rehabililtated, why are they released in the first place?

Because they've served their sentence.

If one were allowed a one way trip to a child molester's colony, where no rights, except the right to leave, were restricted, how many child molester's would go? It seems like an alternative to castration. Exile.
You do realise that most child molesters molest their own children, right? You do realise that both male and female child molesters exist, right? I can't help but feel your proposal isn't taking into account something important.
Pass it.

This is just one more reason I could never run for public office: I would push for a mandatory death penalty for pedophiles.
Do you not diferentiate between thought and action, or are you genuinely ignorant that the term for someone who sexually abuses a child is "child molester" not pedophile?

Do you not diferentiate between thought and action, or are you genuinely ignorant that the term for someone who sexually abuses a child is "child molester" not pedophile?

I suppose in your delusional fantasy world, child molesters are never pedophiles?

I suppose in your delusional fantasy world, child molesters are never pedophiles?
Maybe it does, but he's right. A pedophile doesn't have to have acted upon his desires to be a pedophile.

I've avoided wading into the multitude of topics like this because it's simply not healthy, but here I am.

Megan's Law has helped me in this manner:

I was recently able to discover that the "old-fart-who-should-by-all-means-have-suffered-a-horrible-death-by-now" aka "the sick fuck" lives less than 5 miles from me. I have moved here from the state in which I grew up, only to find out 25 years later that I live very closely to the person who molested me and several other girls.

I now know where he lives, what he drives and what he currently looks like. It's just a matter of a 3-minute drive...

I suppose in your delusional fantasy world, child molesters are never pedophiles?
Actually, what I said was that the two terms are different.

In fact, I know there are pedophiles who are child molesters. About 10% of child molesters according to FBI statistics are pedophiles. (As to the other 90%, I'll leave that to you to figure out.)

I've avoided wading into the multitude of topics like this because it's simply not healthy, but here I am.

Megan's Law has helped me in this manner:

I was recently able to discover that the "old-fart-who-should-by-all-means-have-suffered-a-horrible-death-by-now" aka "the sick fuck" lives less than 5 miles from me. I have moved here from the state in which I grew up, only to find out 25 years later that I live very closely to the person who molested me and several other girls.

I now know where he lives, what he drives and what he currently looks like. It's just a matter of a 3-minute drive...
I should probably point out that the idea of vigilante justice is actually one of the arguements against such laws. You aren't helping your case.

I should probably point out that the idea of vigilante justice is actually one of the arguements against such laws. You aren't helping your case.

I'm not making a case. I would like to also point out that I have known this information since the end of last year. If I had any true intent of being a vigilante a) I wouldn't be mentioning anything about my knowledge of his whereabouts, and b)he would have been "gone" already. I would say it's comforting to know exactly where he is, but it's not.

More or less, I think the law is mostly good for keeping people paranoid. Face it. You can't act upon the information aside from moving away or spying on the person to report any unusual activity. The most good that can come from it is allowing neighbors of the offender to remain cautious and alert in the hopes of preventing a repeat offense.

I'm not making a case. I would like to also point out that I have known this information since the end of last year. If I had any true intent of being a vigilante a) I wouldn't be mentioning anything about my knowledge of his whereabouts, and b)he would have been "gone" already. I would say it's comforting to know exactly where he is, but it's not.

More or less, I think the law is mostly good for keeping people paranoid. Face it. You can't act upon the information aside from moving away or spying on the person to report any unusual activity. The most good that can come from it is allowing neighbors of the offender to remain cautious and alert in the hopes of preventing a repeat offense.
Keeping people paranoid is exactly what these lists do, but that paranoia isn't healthy, and it doesn't make anyone safer. It's just a way to keep people scared and dependent on their "government".

As I said before, registration is a bad solution no matter what "side" you're on. If you think criminals who have served their time should be reintegrated into society, then these lists make that harder for the criminal to accomplish, and thus increase recidivism rates. If you don't think a person is rehabilitated, you shouldn't be letting them out of prison in the first place. Either way, registration is a bad idea.