Should parents be told about paedophiles living nearby?

Hotblack Desiato

I'm currently researching this topic for a short presentation I have to deliver.

I have found that most people who are against a UK version of Megan's Law seem to present a more reasoned debate than those in favour of it ,who tend to be much more emotional and stick to the "peadophiles are scum and should have no right to protection' argument.

I'm really just after a yes or no poll, but feel free to present your arguments either way.

Personally I'm against the idea as I feel that successfully rehabilitated offenders have the right to a safe future and anonymity from their past offences.

.

rrsodl

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

I
Personally I'm against the idea as I feel that successfully rehabilitated offenders have the right to a safe future and anonymity from their past offences.

.

Well tell that to somebody that has not experienced the pain of being abused.... I don't want to say anymore but I would rather know who lives in my neighbourhood.

Can I ask you if you have a relative or a close friend that has been a victim?

Rick

Hotblack Desiato

No, fortunately I do not know anyone who has been a victim of a paedophile.

I do however know victims of murder, assault and robbery. Should they be made aware of previously convicted murderers and thieves in their area?

.

rrsodl

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

No, fortunately I do not know anyone who has been a victim of a paedophile.

I do however know victims of murder, assault and robbery. Should they be made aware of previously convicted murderers and thieves in their area?

.

I wonder if you would still think the same if a close relative of yours was a victim of a paedophile.

Rick

Hotblack Desiato

Possibly not, but I'm not in that position.

.

Cunobelin

The problem is with the "otherwise law abiding" public.

When the News of the World was stirring up trouble a few years ago there were riots localiy in Portsmouth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

There was also an attack on another innocent person..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6624237.stm

Hpwever the real reason is people like who organised a sustained attack on a hostel for the mentally handicapped on the grounds that they "must be paedophiles"

Smashing the windows with bricks, urinating through the letterbox and daubing graffiti on the walls. The residents were also physically and verbally abused by the gang.

If it could be guaranteed the individual would be safe then "Megan's Law would wwork, but whilst the likes of the abaove are acting like this, we cannot take the risk.

[/url]

Mike Healey

In the US, with Megan's Law, some 25% of 600,000 sex offenders on register have gone underground.

The UK figure is about 5%.

It must be pretty terrible to have been a victim, but Megan's Law only works for those who register with the police, so you have a 1 in 4 chance of not knowing who the local paedophiles are.

One of the first cases of vigilante action I remember reading about resulted in an arson attack on the home of a suspected paedophile. Result: a 14yr old girl died in her bedrom at the top of the house.

Then there was the attack on the home of a woman paediatrician. She left the area.

And, of course, an offender may report to his local police, but range further afield in an area where they're unlikely to have been notified.

Crapaud

It's always a difficult one this, as it's a very emotive subject. I voted 'no' because of mob justice. The mob is pretty stupid and will run with any suspicion or rumour. They may even be just plain illiterate as evidenced by this article in The Guardian:

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.

I wouldn't trust any form of vigilanteism (sp?).

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

No, fortunately I do not know anyone who has been a victim of a paedophile.

I do however know victims of murder, assault and robbery. Should they be made aware of previously convicted murderers and thieves in their area?

Also, as Hotblack hints at, where do you stop?

A final thought, which I don't have an answer for: How would the victims feel about being continually reminded of their ordeal through a constant 'advertising' of paedophiles whereabouts? Shouldn't they be given the 'freedom' to heal and recuperate?

Having just written the last paragraph, I wonder if this is a suitable subject for an on-line forum (about cycling).

alfablue

1) Victims of crimes are not best placed to determine policy or practice regarding offenders. Whilst not underestimating the personal suffering a victim endures, they are obviously not objective. A justice system based on victims wishes would not offer genuine justice.

2) Disclosure of the whereabouts of offenders would lead to vigilantism, this would frequently be disproportionate or misplaced, and would encourage lawlessness.

3) Disclosure would (as pointed out above) drive offenders underground, leading to far less safety for the public.

4) most offenders are relatives of their victims, and are undetected by the legal system. In every "lynch" mob incited by the News of The World, there will be people who would be better placed examining their own families if they want to secure the safety of their children.

5) Securing the safety of children is more to do with parental supervision of those children. In any given street there will be potential offenders (whether or not previously identified or convicted). Parents need to consider all strangers as representing a potential risk to their children, unless and until they know better. For every known offender, there will likely be several more unknown offenders living within our midst.

6) Unless there was a system that incarcerated offenders for life without parole (and that is a separate argument), we have to accept they must return to live in society at some stage. There is no mileage in adopting the "Not in my back yard" attitude, they will have to live in someones "back yard". It would offer far greater safety to the public if such offenders were rehabilitated to the best that services can achieve, and given the opportunity to live under supervision and scrutiny of the authorities, rather than forcing them to evade scrutiny because they are in fear for their lives.

7) It occurs to me that some of the people who are the most vehement amongst the braying mob are people who are engaging in reaction formation, as they subconsciously fear their own disordered sexuality.

8 ) Just what would people do with the information? I can see two scenarios, firstly they would ensure their children avoided unsupervised contact with the offender, but then that should apply to all unknown adults; or secondly, they will abuse attack and harass said offender so that they leave town, go underground, or maybe ultimately they would seek to injure or kill them - summary justice. If we were to believe the community would do solely the former (and evidence of the lynch mob suggests otherwise) then children are no safer than if parents took proper care of their children in any case, so the information is pointless.

9 ) Bottom line, if you really want children to be safe, parents must take the responsibility for supervising their children, and offenders must be able to live in safety and in anonymity in the community, under close supervision of the authorities.

Just for the record, I was molested as a child (by a local "pillar" of the community, who was a member of what I now realise was a celebrity paedophile ring); I have also worked in a key position in rehabilitating sex offenders from the special hospitals, and that included repatriating said offenders to live in the community in which I was bringing up my own kids - in complete safety!

spen666

alfablue wrote:

1) Victims of crimes are not best placed to determine policy or practice regarding offenders. Whilst not underestimating the personal suffering a victim endures, they are obviously not objective. A justice system based on victims wishes would not offer genuine justice.

Agreed - the system of Sharia law springs to mind

2) Disclosure of the whereabouts of offenders would lead to vigilantism, this would frequently be disproportionate or misplaced, and would encourage lawlessness.

I would say vigilantism as described here is ALWAYS misplaced.

3) Disclosure would (as pointed out above) drive offenders underground, leading to far less safety for the public.

When taken in conjunction with point 2 this is something I agree with

4) most offenders are relatives of their victims, and are undetected by the legal system. In every "lynch" mob incited by the News of The World, there will be people who would be better placed examining their own families if they want to secure the safety of their children.

I agree whole- heartedly

5) Securing the safety of children is more to do with parental supervision of those children. In any given street there will be potential offenders (whether or not previously identified or convicted). Parents need to consider all strangers as representing a potential risk to their children, unless and until they know better. For every known offender, there will likely be several more unknown offenders living within our midst.

The fear of paedophiles is out of proportion to the risk of your/any child meeting one outside the family/friends circle

....

8 ) Just what would people do with the information? I can see two scenarios, firstly they would ensure their children avoided unsupervised contact with the offender, but then that should apply to all unknown adults; or secondly, they will abuse attack and harass said offender so that they leave town, go underground, or maybe ultimately they would seek to injure or kill them - summary justice. If we were to believe the community would do solely the former (and evidence of the lynch mob suggests otherwise) then children are no safer than if parents took proper care of their children in any case, so the information is pointless.

i agree with this view

9 ) Bottom line, if you really want children to be safe, parents must take the responsibility for supervising their children, and offenders must be able to live in safety and in anonymity in the community, under close supervision of the authorities.

again I agree

Just for the record, I was molested as a child (by a local "pillar" of the community, who was a member of what I now realise was a celebrity paedophile ring); I have also worked in a key position in rehabilitating sex offenders from the special hospitals, and that included repatriating said offenders to live in the community in which I was bringing up my own kids - in complete safety!

Very brave of you to admit this and I salute you for it.

alfablue

Thank you Spen!

nasahapley

Alfa, thanks for posting one of the more well-reasoned, lucid and indeed brave posts on soapbox. I agree with you entirely, and it's your point 8 that most strikes a chord with me - what exactly would people do with such information?

I can't see how it would make kids any safer as only a fraction of paedophiles would be on such a register, and as you have already said a child is far more at risk of being abused by someone they already know and trust than a stranger. It would only serve to increase anxiety and act as a directory for knuckle-dragging, NOTW reading vigilantes.

But I'm not adding anything to what you've already said, so cheers again.

alfablue

Thank you nasahapey, we are of the same mind on this

Mike Healey

Thanks Spen.

There is also the fact that paedophilia spans a fairly wide range of actions from the relatively unharmful to the most appalling. I was a "victim" of a primary school headteacher who was at the lower end of the scale and, altho' I thought he was yucky and he was reported by another pupil shortly afterwards, none of us (quite a few) were any the worse for it.

The police questioned us all in what was, in retrospect, a sensitive manner, he went to the local mental hospital as a voluntary patient, lost his job (natch) and we all went on perfectly happily.

And there was no report on it in the papers (I'm talking circa 1950)

Nowadays, we would be counselled to a fare-thee-well and, I suspect, would be much more bothered (traumatised?) by the whole thing. In fact, some of us whowent on to the same grammar school talked about it a few years later with some amusement about the variety of alternatives for penis the police had on their list.

I saw the head a few years later, a very sad and destroyed man.

There is something to be said for 1950s reticence

Cunobelin

I do not intend to belittle, or devalue the suffering of the victims here, but as Crapaud pointed out it is an emotive subject....


If we accept or support "Megan's Law" where do we go next?

There is a real danger of pressure groups expanding this policy to other offences.



Statistically I am more likely to be the victim of a number of other crimes:

I am more likely to be mugged..... Can I know where all convicted muggers are in my area?

I am more likely to be burgled - Can I know here all burglars are?

I am at risk from dangerous driving - Can I Know where all drivers convicted of a driving offence are?

In fact - can I know where any driver who has points on their license is?

Hotblack Desiato

Alfablue,

Great post.

As I mentioned in my OP, those against a UK version of Megan's Law seem to present a more reasoned debate than those in favour of it.

.

Richard_D

Thanks for the stats about those going underground I will use it next time some of my colleagues across the pond start pushing it as a wonderful idea. My guess is also that the missing 25% are most probably from the more severe end of the spectrum.

Monty Dog

Considering that the largest threat to children are their own families and close associates - but nobody wants to admit that do they? This is the same mindset that justifies the making of firearms of legal on the pretence of 'protecting' their families from strangers. I don't have massive faith in the authorities in providing an appropriate level of protection, but I still find it preferrable to mob-rule and mis-guided vigilantism.

chrisjsmith

Each to their own.

After having dealings with one in the past (found enough crap on his computer to secure a conviction but it was thrown out by the judge on a technicality), they deserve what they get. The stuff was found after he'd been released to the community after (only!) 4 years inside. The guy now lives next to a school.

And the judge wanted me to sign a fucking NDA (which you can tell I and my solicitor said screw it to).

Bastards need to be shot.

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

Each to their own.

After having dealings with one in the past (found enough crap on his computer to secure a conviction but it was thrown out by the judge on a technicality), ....

The technicality being there was not sufficient admissible evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt ( criminal standard of proof) that the accused was guilty.

So - rather than a technicality- it was thrown out because the prosecution could not prove he was guilty. Or is not being guilty seen as a technicality

portuguese mike

Couldn't agree more with Alfablues well reasoned, eloquent argument.

stevechambers34

No point in telling parents it would only give them more to worry about and besides most children are abused usually by a relative or family 'friend'.
1. most paedophiles WILL have them selves have been abused, but it doesn't (always) follow that they WILL them selves abuse others.
2. where ever there are children there WILL be paedophiles watching .
3. Paedophiles CANNOT be rehabilitated, it is their sexuality anybody who thinks they can is
A.) wrong
B.) mistaken
C.) self interested
4. the only real way to 'treat' paedophiles is to
A.) euthanasia (cheap)
B.) lock them up for ever(expensive)
5. The thing that really worries me is that as other sexualities have now become acceptable could the same thing happen with paedophiles?

alfablue

stevechambers34 wrote:

5. The thing that really worries me is that as other sexualities have now become acceptable could the same thing happen with paedophiles?

I think this worry is unfounded, "other sexualities" involve consensual sex, paedophilia does not.

stevechambers34

Not too sure, but surely a 30 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old would be Paedophilia???

spen666

stevechambers34 wrote:

No point in telling parents it would only give them more to worry about and besides most children are abused usually by a relative or family 'friend'.
1. most paedophiles WILL have them selves have been abused, but it doesn't (always) follow that they WILL them selves abuse others.
2. where ever there are children there WILL be paedophiles watching .

Apart from random scaremongering- have you any evidence whatsoever to back this invented claim up?

3. Paedophiles CANNOT be rehabilitated, it is their sexuality anybody who thinks they can is
A.) wrong
B.) mistaken
C.) self interested

again- there is no evidence to back this up. There is no more reason why a paedophile can't change their ways than a thief can

4. the only real way to 'treat' paedophiles is to
A.) euthanasia (cheap)
B.) lock them up for ever(expensive)

you could make the same inaccurate comment about any group of criminals. What about red light jumpers?

Treatment is not always what is needed- sometimes punishment is what is needed- that is punishment not retribution

5. The thing that really worries me is that as other sexualities have now become acceptable could the same thing happen with paedophiles?

alfablue

stevechambers34 wrote:

Not too sure, but surely a 30 year old having consensual sex with a 14 year old would be Paedophilia???

I think this would not be consensual as a 14 year old is below the age of (legal) consent - the only one legally consenting is the 30 year old, so it would be rape (IMHO). Sex with a child over the age of 13 may not be deemed as paedophilia by psychiatric diagnostic criteria, though may be considered as such by the public.

stevechambers34

Yes unfortunately I have 'worked' with some offenders over a period of many years within I add the Mental health system and quite frankly I really worry. Up until afew years ago many offenders who ordinarily would be in prison were 'detained' in secure or semi secure 'hospitals' (because of low IQ or a 'mental health or learning disability).Now because of the HRA and Supporting people many of them ARE living within the community, because of various interpretations of the HRA and access to advocates many long term staff have been moved/lost (often due to nothing more than grudges on the 'clients' behalf) leaving new staff uninformed of clients pasts etc which could cause problems

stevechambers34

Alfablue that is partly the point I am trying to make, the age of consent of children, the age of criminal responsiblity etc is frequently under test from various areas, years ago children were children now they are often seen as young adults in charge of their own destinies albeit only when it suits so how long before it becomes THEIR choice.

alfablue

Well there is a grey area where young teenagers between the ages of 13 and 16 might technically be committing sexual offences but are unlikely to be prosecuted where it is mutually consensual (even though 16 is the age of consent), but for one party to be substantially above the age of 16 this would still be likely to result in prosecution. I don't think there is any acceptance of the scenario you paint, in society, but this grey area is intended not to unnecessarily criminalise youngsters.

stevechambers34

Alfablue I paint no scenario I am just voicing a concern, it is as has been said a very emotive issue and the problem is if you put your head above the parapet it gets shot at, other sexualities that were once seen as socially, religiously and morally abhorent (this is where I get shot at) are now accepted and in some cases put forward as a lifestyle choice all in 40 years approx!
I hasten to add I couldn't care less what anybody else does as long as it is :
A.Legal
B.)Consensual

spen666

stevechambers34 wrote:

Alfablue I paint no scenario I am just voicing a concern, it is as has been said a very emotive issue and the problem is if you put your head above the parapet it gets shot at, other sexualities that were once seen as socially, religiously and morally abhorent (this is where I get shot at) are now accepted and in some cases put forward as a lifestyle choice all in 40 years approx!
I hasten to add I couldn't care less what anybody else does as long as it is :
A.Legal
B.)Consensual

Steve - the last sentence in your thread seems to run counter to the concerns you raise.

You rightly raise a concern re "age of consent" and consent- you appear to worry that effectively if practices/ morals change then sex between a say 13 year old and a 30 year old will be acceptable.

however from your last sentence, it appears you would be happy if someone changed the law and made it legal for a 13 and 30 year old to have consensual sex. This appears to be the point you were arguing against before

i am a little confused