Should parents be told about paedophiles living nearby?

alfablue

stevechambers34 wrote:

Alfablue I paint no scenario

I was just referring to the 30 yr old 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

Yes it is indeed emotive, and I entrely agree with your final A) and , though at present (and I really see no reason why it might change) A) requires that it fulfils .

stevechambers34

obviously sometimes things become legal which we personaly find distasteful or morally wrong, the choice is do you accept them , fight them or even just ignore them.
Other cultures already have differing ages of consent and ideas around child sexuality, who is right?
Personaly I'd keep with current UK thinking.

From my first post and having worked within the 'forensic' field for long enough I stand by my original post which I know to be true IMHO and experience.

chrisjsmith

spen666 wrote:

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

It was more than obvious. a) it was all from email comms and had his name all over it ... b) he had previous.

The technicality came from the forensics team being unable to deliver the evidence in a timely fashion due to their workload being too high. Rather than waiting it was thrown out.

Ironically, the judge in question was suspended 2 years ago for claims about taking bribes.

One re-offending situation and a ruined life later (it will happen!) and we'll see if the legal system supports society or not.

spen666

chrisjsmith wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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

It was more than obvious. a) it was all from email comms and had his name all over it ... b) he had previous.

The technicality came from the forensics team being unable to deliver the evidence in a timely fashion due to their workload being too high. Rather than waiting it was thrown out.

Ironically, the judge in question was suspended 2 years ago for claims about taking bribes.

One re-offending situation and a ruined life later (it will happen!) and we'll see if the legal system supports society or not.

So as I said there was no technicality- it was the fact there was not sufficeint evidence to show the accused had committed the crime.

That is not a technicality- that is the law or are you saying everyone who is found not guilty gets off on the technicality of insufficient admissible evidence

ademort

In the interest of the general public i feel we should all be informed when a sex offender moves into your area. At the end of the day they cannot be trusted. Its easy to say that they have served their time and are now allowed to get back to a normal life again. But lets just remember what they went to jail for in the first place. It would be better for an area and its residents to know that tom the pedo lives at number 43 and that we are all watching him than to have such a scumbag sneak into a residential area, unannounced and ready to pounce again. think of the victim.

alfablue

ademort wrote:

It would be better for an area and its residents to know that tom the pedo lives at number 43 and that we are all watching him than to have such a scumbag sneak into a residential area, unannounced and ready to pounce again. think of the victim.

The problem is that the real world isn't so idyllic as you suggest, the public won't just "watch" the offender, they will (as experiences in many towns in the UK suggest) engage in vigilantism. Faced with that the offender will dissappear and will end up in another community where neither the residents or authorities know of their existence. Where is the protection then?

Cunobelin

ademort wrote:

In the interest of the general public i feel we should all be informed when a sex offender moves into your area. At the end of the day they cannot be trusted. Its easy to say that they have served their time and are now allowed to get back to a normal life again. But lets just remember what they went to jail for in the first place. It would be better for an area and its residents to know that tom the pedo lives at number 43 and that we are all watching him than to have such a scumbag sneak into a residential area, unannounced and ready to pounce again. think of the victim.

In the interest of the general public i feel we should all be informed when a (*)violent mugger moves into your area. At the end of the day they cannot be trusted. Its easy to say that they have served their time and are now allowed to get back to a normal life again. But lets just remember what they went to jail for in the first place. It would be better for an area and its residents to know that tom the (*)violent mugger lives at number 43 and that we are all watching him than to have such a scumbag sneak into a residential area, unannounced and ready to pounce again. think of the victim.

(*) for violent mugger enter criminal of choice:
Dangerous driver
Drug addict
Burglar
Thief
Person who has committed GBH or any form of assault.
England football supporters?

Why just paedophiles.... the general public are at far greater risk from these groups, and I would certainly want these to be tracked as well. Perhaps we should simply have a local list in the Library of ALL offenders who have committed a crime sufficiently severe to have warranted a custodial sentence?

ademort

It does sound like a good idea to have a list of all criminals who live in your area posted at the local library, along with their respective crimes,however we all know that when a criminal has served their sentence they are allowed to get back to a normal life again even when thier victim(s) may never have a normal life again.

gavintc

Give each paedophile a teddy called mohamed and send them off to the Sudan for work experience.

On a more serious note, I do not agree with providing vigilantes information on the addresses of paedophiles.

Cunobelin

ademort wrote:

It does sound like a good idea to have a list of all criminals who live in your area posted at the local library, along with their respective crimes,however we all know that when a criminal has served their sentence they are allowed to get back to a normal life again even when thier victim(s) may never have a normal life again.

This is part of my problem with this suggestion. Whilst I do not underestimate the trauma, or it's effects whatsoever, the effects of being mugged on an 80 year old who then restructures their life and becomes housebound is equally traumatic and devastating.

There is no reason why we should highlight one group of offenders due to a small,but vociferous lobby group?

alfablue

Cunobelin wrote:

There is no reason why we should highlight one group of offenders due to a small,but vociferous lobby group?

I agree with your logic - other types of offences could cause equal degrees of trama and fear, but extending the idea merely extends the likelihood of vigilantism, which in my view would lead to a worse situation of civil disorder and violence (which is just as likely to be directed incorrectly at innocent people, as history shows us) and of offenders going underground.

wildmoustache

they have a "right" to anonymity (or at least not being named and shamed) if they are released from prison. to name and shame people who are not imprison to encourage vigilantiism, and implicitly admit that you haven't really rehabilitated them (well, we think he might still be dangerous, so we're telling you about him ... )

of course it's always hard or even impossible to really know that someone is rehabilitated, but that goes for all crimes. if there is a reason to believe it is different for paedophilia (i.e. that it's harder to know if someone is rehabilitated), then the sentences shoudl accordingly be longer.

releasing, and naming and shaming looks to me to be 1) trying to cut costs 2) encouraging vigilantiism

songwriter

'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 think an emotive, aggresive view on peadophiles next door is just as valid as a reasoned intelligent view.

I could think, reason, understand and forgive about it all day long but at the end of the day If a 'scum bag' touched my daughter I'd stamp on their neck.

Cunobelin

songwriter wrote:

'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 think an emotive, aggresive view on peadophiles next door is just as valid as a reasoned intelligent view.

I could think, reason, understand and forgive about it all day long but at the end of the day If a 'scum bag' touched my daughter I'd stamp on their neck.

Again why one group... or would you accept her being mugged?

ricadus

Should parents be told about paedophiles living nearby?

Maybe, but parents should be reminded that research shows that most paedophiles are either blood relations of their victims or close family associates, rather than the "sinister strangers" that get portrayed by the media.