should the media be allowed expose child killers new life?

100gSoma

Is it right for the media to expose the 'new lives' of citizens after they have served their time for a crime and been released and rehabilitated?
Can it be argued its "of public interest" to know the new life and identity and whereabouts of someone who has served a sentence and been released.
In many cases this 'prevention of allowing the person to move on' could lead them to suicide at worst, or ruin any chance they have of a normal life at best.
I say this as the star had an 8 page spread on the new life of an Irish killer including photos of him with his new GF and friends etc. Is that unfair or justified.

NothingMan

I think in this case in particular the guy doesn't seem to be a hardened criminal likely to repeat offend and as he has served his time he should be entitled to try and make a new beginning. However my concerns would be more for his new GF and friends. How can anyone ever have a normal life when you are hiding such a major part of your life from them.

In a lot of ways I think it would be healthier to not get a new identity and work through those issues with friends and family. Although that leaves you open, especially a child killer, to being linched.

It's a tough one alright, but I would say the papers should not be allowed to expose these issues after some money and time was spent by the state to give them a fresh start.

Joey the lips

I was talking about this last week. Thinking of jamie bulger, baby P etc. I dont think anyone who is guilty of such a crime should be given a new life. If they end up getting persecuted and hounded out of places they will be an example to those who go down that road.

As a parent I would also think I have the right to know if such a person lived in my area. The police have access to a criminal record for profilling etc. We should all have the right to the same information.

soups05

if a child killer lived on my street i think i have the right to know, but look at it this way. the only differance between this guy and anyone on my street is not the crime he commited its the fact he got caught.

we could all have a killer,padeo,rapist or whatever living next door and not know it.

wudangclan

I think people,esp. the people around him, should be entitled to know about his past.

GavRedKing

Its a very red tape area, Id sure like to know if somebody like that lived on my street, not to linch them or harass them but just to know.

humanji

I think there should be a way of letting you know if there's such a criminal living nearby, but I don't think the media should be allowed to report it. They're not doing it for the good of the neighborhood, they're doing it to profit off of the scandal.

highgiant1985

100gSoma wrote: »

I say this as the star had an 8 page spread on the new life of an Irish killer including photos of him with his new GF and friends etc. Is that unfair or justified.

which Irish killer was it?

100gSoma

ok, just as I thought, this is a contentious issue. I am kind of torn myself. Obviously when someone mentioned Jamie Bulger it totally put a different spin on it for me. Yeah I would like to know if they lived near me. but this chap was charged with man-slaughter. should it be any different?
So most people seem to agree they want to know if they live near a killer, not to do anything or hassle them, but just to know.
I guess it means that killers may never get a normal life even if they serve their time. A fresh start may always elude them. maybe thats right though. maybe its the price you pay.

100gSoma

highgiant1985 wrote: »

which Irish killer was it?

not sure I can get into name etc. It was a student from cork though who killed a young boy.

highgiant1985

100gSoma wrote: »

not sure I can get into name etc. It was a student from cork though who killed a young boy.

ah got ya thanks.

Its a difficult thing people will say they just want to be safe but once that sort of information gets out there will always be some people who will then try to take things into their own hands or will constantly abuse the person.

Mossy Monk

I think any parent living in the same area is entitled to know if there is someone living close to them who has killed a child. Boo hoo if they are not able to live a normal life as a result. They will have destroyed another families lives.

seamus

Joey the lips wrote: »

I was talking about this last week. Thinking of jamie bulger, baby P etc. I dont think anyone who is guilty of such a crime should be given a new life. If they end up getting persecuted and hounded out of places they will be an example to those who go down that road.

So what's the point in prison then? Why do we bother sending criminals to prison if we're going to ignore the concept of "rehabilitation" and just punish them for the rest of their life?

As a parent I would also think I have the right to know if such a person lived in my area.

If they presented a risk of re-offending, sure. But a new identity is usually on granted in cases where the judge believes that the person present no further risk to society.

Besides, it's unfair to only single people who have committed crimes involving children. Why not just produce a public list of everyone living in your area who's committed a crime? That guy next door got 6 months for drink-driving. He might mow down your child. Burn him! The guy across the street did 2 years after getting into a drunken brawl. In ten years time he might beat up your child in a bar fight. Hound him out!
Or the guy around the corner who did five years for fraud and embezzelment. He might end up conning your child out of €5k and preventing him from buying his first house. Kill him!

I'm sick of this "as a parent" and "as a mother" bull****. Being a parent gives you no extra right to *anything*. I can produce sperm just as potent as the next man, it's not a superpower.

When I have children, I will take the steps necessary to protect my children. Knowing that the guy next door was convicted of child molesting will not make my child any safer than the precautions I would ordinarily take anyway.

You are aware that in fact it is extremely rare for a child to be randomly attacked by an adult? That the "hidden" paedophiles are massively unlikely to present a danger to your child. The fact of the matter is that it is the people that your child already knows and the people that you trust the most who present a much greater risk of abusing or intentionally hurting your child.

So instead of being scared of the boogeyman and banging on about phantom "rights" spare a moment to consider the possibility that it's a member of your family - one of your parents or one of your siblings - who is most likely to abuse your child and the only thing you can do to protect them is look out for the warning signs. Finding out about the local ex-con won't make your child any safer. Not by a longshot.

General Zod

So much for paying your debt to society.

hobochris

Personally I think It should be decided part of the Sentence, I.e. its up to the judge to decide if the media can harass the person after they have been released, so that cases like manslaughter(where the act was unintentional ) would be deemed no go for the media but a serial rapist would be fair game.

stovelid

The kid is more likely to be molested by somebody they know anyway.

Tough decision to make because of the potential dangers, but I think if you do your time, you do your time. As said here already, the concept of a a punitive sentence is meaningless if you continue to be punished after you serve it.

The authorities should be able to know the whereabouts of ex-offenders though.

abelard

hobochris wrote: »

Personally I think It should be decided part of the Sentence, I.e. its up to the judge to decide if the media can harass the person after they have been released, so that cases like manslaughter(where the act was unintentional ) would be deemed no go for the media but a serial rapist would be fair game.

Part of the job of the judge is to hand down a sentence. To, as such, decide on what punishment is necessary. To allow a judge to prescribe a measure such as media exposure is tantamount to handing over some of this power to punish to both irresponsible media outlets and irrational citizens.

It is both an oppressive, unjust and unethical measure, and (worse again) would undermine the important role of the courts in modern society. Mob justice is no justice.

AnonoBoy

seamus wrote: »

That guy next door got 6 months for drink-driving. He might mow down your child. Burn him! The guy across the street did 2 years after getting into a drunken brawl. In ten years time he might beat up your child in a bar fight. Hound him out!
Or the guy around the corner who did five years for fraud and embezzelment. He might end up conning your child out of €5k and preventing him from buying his first house. Kill him!

Knowing that the guy next door was convicted of child molesting will not make my child any safer than the precautions I would ordinarily take anyway.

You live in a really dodgy area man.

ejmaztec

If the public had 100% confidence in the legal system, the location of ex-offenders probably wouldn't concern them to a great degree. Unfortunately, with the occasional ludicrous decisions arrived at by judges, people can't be blamed for their need to know.

100gSoma

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the public had 100% confidence in the legal system, the location of ex-offenders probably wouldn't concern them to a great degree. Unfortunately, with the occasional ludicrous decisions arrived at by judges, people can't be blamed for their need to know.

thats a good point. how many times have we heard about a killer who was out on remand for rape (killing of swiss student in galway), or of a repeat rapist that was given a low or suspended sentence only to rape again.

DOC09UNAM

Mossy Monk wrote: »

I think any parent living in the same area is entitled to know if there is someone living close to them who has killed a child. Boo hoo if they are not able to live a normal life as a result. They will have destroyed another families lives.

Yeah, to be fair, why do they deserve to live in peace if they've destroyed another family, maybe even families.

they deserve the constant unrest, and fear.

Joey the lips

seamus wrote: »

So what's the point in prison then? Why do we bother sending criminals to prison if we're going to ignore the concept of "rehabilitation" and just punish them for the rest of their life?
If they presented a risk of re-offending, sure. But a new identity is usually on granted in cases where the judge believes that the person present no further risk to society.

Besides, it's unfair to only single people who have committed crimes involving children. Why not just produce a public list of everyone living in your area who's committed a crime? That guy next door got 6 months for drink-driving. He might mow down your child. Burn him! The guy across the street did 2 years after getting into a drunken brawl. In ten years time he might beat up your child in a bar fight. Hound him out!
Or the guy around the corner who did five years for fraud and embezzelment. He might end up conning your child out of €5k and preventing him from buying his first house. Kill him!

I'm sick of this "as a parent" and "as a mother" bull****. Being a parent gives you no extra right to *anything*. I can produce sperm just as potent as the next man, it's not a superpower.

When I have children, I will take the steps necessary to protect my children. Knowing that the guy next door was convicted of child molesting will not make my child any safer than the precautions I would ordinarily take anyway.

You are aware that in fact it is extremely rare for a child to be randomly attacked by an adult? That the "hidden" paedophiles are massively unlikely to present a danger to your child. The fact of the matter is that it is the people that your child already knows and the people that you trust the most who present a much greater risk of abusing or intentionally hurting your child.

So instead of being scared of the boogeyman and banging on about phantom "rights" spare a moment to consider the possibility that it's a member of your family - one of your parents or one of your siblings - who is most likely to abuse your child and the only thing you can do to protect them is look out for the warning signs. Finding out about the local ex-con won't make your child any safer. Not by a longshot.

I agree when you have children.... and I am entitled to my opinion and if your sick of something ignore it. I can show cases of liberal attitudes where the do gooders gave second chances and were proven wrong.

I will never give anyone a chance when it comes to my family and i will never give a second chance.

This is something you will understand when you have kids.

brianthebard

100gSoma wrote: »

thats a good point. how many times have we heard about a killer who was out on remand for rape (killing of swiss student in galway), or of a repeat rapist that was given a low or suspended sentence only to rape again.

I don't know how many times, could you tell us what proportion of all cases in Ireland these examples represent?

actuallylike

Joey the lips wrote: »

I will never give anyone a chance when it comes to my family and i will never give a second chance.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? If a convicted child molester has served his time and been rehabilitated (yes, it can happen) and lives down the road from you, therefore he poses no threat and he (or she) wouldn't be looking for a 'chance'. They may be just wanting to go about their business and start their life again without going after your kids?
By your slightly paranoid logic, you should home school your child where they won't be in any danger of meeting anyone who may have the capacity to abuse them (which everyone really does) and never let them out of your sight...ever!
There are dangers everywhere, be it the boogie man or swine flu, educating your child to the dangers is something you could do but don't be jumping to wild and damming assumptions about someone because you have your kid's 'best interests' in mind. By accusing people like this, you are ruining their life which you have no right to do.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

General Zod wrote: »

So much for paying your debt to society.

Society will never consider the debt repaid until blood is spilt as violently and gratuitously.

Back on topic, I think someone should ask the already over-stretched guards how they feel about this one. Because I guarantee you, the guy who's house gets robbed because the police are trying to sort out a vigilate mob will be the first one to ask where the "****ing guards" were.

ejmaztec

actuallylike wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? If a convicted child molester has served his time and been rehabilitated (yes, it can happen) and lives down the road from you, therefore he poses no threat and he (or she) wouldn't be looking for a 'chance'. They may be just wanting to go about their business and start their life again without going after your kids?
By your slightly paranoid logic, you should home school your child where they won't be in any danger of meeting anyone who may have the capacity to abuse them (which everyone really does) and never let them out of your sight...ever!
There are dangers everywhere, be it the boogie man or swine flu, educating your child to the dangers is something you could do but don't be jumping to wild and damming assumptions about someone because you have your kid's 'best interests' in mind. By accusing people like this, you are ruining their life which you have no right to do.

Where is this wondrous world of the re-habilitated child molestor?

aDeener

actuallylike wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? If a convicted child molester has served his time and been rehabilitated (yes, it can happen) and lives down the road from you, therefore he poses no threat and he (or she) wouldn't be looking for a 'chance'. They may be just wanting to go about their business and start their life again without going after your kids?
By your slightly paranoid logic, you should home school your child where they won't be in any danger of meeting anyone who may have the capacity to abuse them (which everyone really does) and never let them out of your sight...ever!
There are dangers everywhere, be it the boogie man or swine flu, educating your child to the dangers is something you could do but don't be jumping to wild and damming assumptions about someone because you have your kid's 'best interests' in mind. By accusing people like this, you are ruining their life which you have no right to do.

rehabilitation my hairy hole, nothing will drive the lust for kiddies out of them

sparkling sea

100gSoma wrote: »

thats a good point. how many times have we heard about a killer who was out on remand for rape (killing of swiss student in galway), or of a repeat rapist that was given a low or suspended sentence only to rape again.

Not that many times at all, and that is why these cases get so much media attention when they happen, the tragedy for those involved is the same; but the media exploitation of the tragedy is worse. We will never get things 100%right because no one is infallible; people get things wrong including people in the judicial system. The same would happen it people knew the were abouts of past offenders and innocent people would suffer because of this - who would be protected then

Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy and this has to balanced against the right to safety or safety of family, but once a person is released from prison the are presumed to be no longer a treat to society. Probation serves to either clarify this or not. So when should your right to privacy be infringed upon and who's interests does this invasion actually serve.

An 8 page sensationalized spread will definitely not have helped the person involved rebuild his life or be a productive member of society in anyway. It must also be upsetting for the family of the victim and these people do not deserve to have the media either covertly or overtly intrude in their life in any way, they have suffered enough. The local community it would appear were aware that this guy was living in their community, so what exactly was the purpose of the story except to sell papers and possibly cause a bit of havoc for this guy and or his girlfriend, family, etc along the way.

The media are not responsible enough nor do they have a mandate to be either judge or jury, however their irresponsible reporting which may bring about either intended or unintended consequences for all sorts of people must be subject to some sanctions. I think it is starting to get to the stage where in certain cases these could possible be punitive as the irresponsibility of the media in my opinion is sometimes criminal and can bring about incitement to hatred and all the pain and suffering that this can cause.

As for the general public, while we can in general be trusted not to act like manics, what happens say for example you have a couple of drinks at the weekend, and your inhibitions have slightly gone out the window, can you trust yourself or someone else to act in a rational way - if you've seen the way some people act towards their own friends after a night out you have to agree that people cannot in general be trusted with sensitive information about others - and it could land them in jail themselves.

actuallylike

aDeener wrote: »

rehabilitation my hairy hole, nothing will drive the lust for kiddies out of them

This reminds me of WW1 when deserters were shot for running away, accusations of been 'cowardly'. It was only after that Post Traumatic Stress was realised but by then it was too late.
Very narrow minded to just say 'nothing will change them'. Human beings after all who didn't choose to have these feelings and they should be treated accordingly. Creating this witch hunt with the main goal been to castrate the lot of them will only make anyone with these feelings to keep them secret and then they run the risk of offending as opposed to getting help. If there was some understanding towards anyone with these urges, it may encourage them to step forward and seek help. An addiction is an addiction and an addict can block out everything just to satisfy his wants...
...
Christ...
...
I'm going for a smoke!

100gSoma

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know how many times, could you tell us what proportion of all cases in Ireland these examples represent?

I made a point that we hear alot about rapists who reoffend when on remand or when released. I don't have all the facts on hand, but will find them. I'm sure you will want to see references too. Here is one example from USA

The recidivism rate for sexual offences is VERY high.
Here's a stat from 2007:
"Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge."
Source(s):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm…

here is a more general statistic. more than half of all prisoners reoffend within 1 year of release

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2685565/Half-of-all-criminals-re-offend-withn-a-year.html


I could not find specifics about Ireland, but I am sure they are available with more research.


edit: by the way, I think it was irresponsible of the paper in question to plaster this persons picture and that of his new friends and colleagues across an 8 page spread. The above post does not mean I feel people can never rehabilitate. It is a fact that certain criminals (especially violent or sexual in nature) do not rehabilitate these urges by sitting in prison for a few years.

robinph

100gSoma wrote: »

The recidivism rate for sexual offences is VERY high.
Here's a stat from 2007:
"Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge."
Source(s):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm…

Is that not 40% of those who do re-offend do so within a year, not 40% re-offend.

seamus

robinph wrote: »

Is that not 40% of those who do re-offend do so within a year, not 40% re-offend.

Correct.

Of sex offenders, 5.3% are arrested for another sex crime. So to take the two together, about 2.5% of released sex offenders will be arrested for another sex offence within a year.

The problem is that these statistics aren't broken down any further - "sex crimes" is a very broad base, and by and large your "normal" sex offender tends to be your run-of-the-mill piece of crap who's also into car theft, armed robbery, burglary etc.
Whereas child molestors tend to fit a different profile and would rarely be involved in other types of crime.

sparkling sea

actuallylike wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? If a convicted child molester has served his time and been rehabilitated (yes, it can happen) and lives down the road from you, therefore he poses no threat and he (or she) wouldn't be looking for a 'chance'. QUOTE

Sex offenders can be rehabiltated but its not very likely to happen in Ireland, and don't you know children can't vote. There are in and around 14 specialised sex offenders rehabilitation programmes available and on 7 July 2009 there were 324 prisoners in custody under sentence for offences of a sexual nature. Of these, 104 were in custody in the Midlands Prison, 99 in Arbour Hill Prison and 89 in Wheatfield Prison. Prisoners dont vote either generally

It is not a mandatory part of sentencing to partake in a rehabilitation programme and many sex offenders choose not to anyway.

The majority of sexual offenders are either family members or close family friends.Educating children on the dangers that may exist, so that they do not feel gulity or embrassed by the predatory measures used of sex offenders would appear to be a better answer then planting the offenders face all over the papers after the fact.

The problem is that these statistics aren't broken down any further - "sex crimes" is a very broad base, and by and large your "normal" sex offender tends to be your run-of-the-mill piece of crap who's also into car theft, armed robbery, burglary etc.
Whereas child molestors tend to fit a different profile and would rarely be involved in other types of crime.

With regard to "sex crimes" and as you call them "normal" sex offenders, what research are you basing your opinion on, I'd really like to read it, I have never come across this research

Joey the lips

actuallylike wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? If a convicted child molester has served his time and been rehabilitated (yes, it can happen) and lives down the road from you, therefore he poses no threat and he (or she) wouldn't be looking for a 'chance'. They may be just wanting to go about their business and start their life again without going after your kids?
By your slightly paranoid logic, you should home school your child where they won't be in any danger of meeting anyone who may have the capacity to abuse them (which everyone really does) and never let them out of your sight...ever!
There are dangers everywhere, be it the boogie man or swine flu, educating your child to the dangers is something you could do but don't be jumping to wild and damming assumptions about someone because you have your kid's 'best interests' in mind. By accusing people like this, you are ruining their life which you have no right to do.

What do you want me to do. Be in agreement with you? Its not going to happen. I agree that it may be paranoid as you put it

But that is my right.

I am not happy with the rehabilitation stats and in fact I dont believe the true figure is presented.

actuallylike

Joey the lips wrote: »

What do you want me to do. Be in agreement with you? Its not going to happen. I agree that it may be paranoid as you put it

But that is my right.

I am not happy with the rehabilitation stats and in fact I dont believe the true figure is presented.

Been paranoid is okay, you're also been cautious with your children which is very admirable and it's good to see but what you are suggesting you have the right to do is just wrong.

Joey the lips wrote: »

I dont think anyone who is guilty of such a crime should be given a new life. If they end up getting persecuted and hounded out of places they will be an example to those who go down that road.

As a parent I would also think I have the right to know if such a person lived in my area. The police have access to a criminal record for profilling etc. We should all have the right to the same information.

You clearly shouldn't have the right to know if such a person lives in your area as you have just expressed that they should be persecuted and hounded.

If you don't believe in rehabilitation, that does not give you the right to 'hound' people out. As was said before, this is not Minority report, you can't accuse someone of something they may or may not do.

100gSoma

just to bring this back on point guys.
Knowing an ex-criminal lives in your area is one thing, but do you agree with the manner of this exposure yesterday. 8 page sensationalist spread in a tabloid exposing the person and their new life and friends. Thats wholly different to being able to look up if ex-sex offenders live in your area.

DazMarz

Sex offenders should never be released. They are individuals with something inherent in them which makes them want to do the same acts over and over again. They feel no remorse, pity or regret in what they do. Rapists, paedophiles etc. are all incredibly dangerous people who, paedophiles especially, can never be rehabilitated. They cannot be re-entered into society for they are too much of a threat.

However, in the case of murder/manslaughter, apart from the few deranged individuals for whom killing provides pleasure etc., many people who commit this act will never do so again, especially if they have served their sentence in prison (usually anywhere between 10 to 30 years). Once they have served their sentence, they will hopefully be able to be re-entered into society.

Many people froth at the mouth when considering the case of the murder of James Bulger (2 years old at the time of his death). What a lot of people do not care about is the fact that, as grisly as his death was, the killers were only children themselves, both aged just 10.

These boys were also heavily abused themselves and had incredibly harsh lives. (There was some speculation that one or both of the boys had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers). They lashed out at a target of opportunity.

Their actions were heinous and absolutely wrong on every level, but the fact remains that they were only children and were also under the age of criminal responsibility. That they were dragged through court and that the general public was baying for them to be hanged was nothing short of disgusting in itself.

Had it been two adults who had perpetrated this crime, yes, such anger would be 100% justified. But for two young boys (one of whom kept trying to be let go home from the police station, not realizing the gravity of what he had done) to be the targets of such a vitriolic hate campaign is sickening.

There is no black and white answer in this case; for evil scum like Ian Huntley, Ian Brady, et al., yes, they deserve everything society can muster, for they were adults who knew what they were doing was wrong and sadistic. For two young, abused schoolchildren, such as Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to be thrown into prison at ''Her Majesty's Pleasure'' at the age of 11... something almost criminal in itself.

Say what you will to this (I'll probably get called a liberal bleeding heart and so on), but I believe that when a society starts treating small children as equals to adults we are not only stopping progress, we are taking a giant step backwards.

actuallylike

100gSoma wrote: »

just to bring this back on point guys.
Knowing an ex-criminal lives in your area is one thing, but do you agree with the manner of this exposure yesterday. 8 page sensationalist spread in a tabloid exposing the person and their new life and friends. Thats wholly different to being able to look up if ex-sex offenders live in your area.

Sorry, back on point. Of course it's wrong, I think it's been brought up by other posters previously as to why it's wrong. Their reasons are obvious, it's nothing to do with keeping people informed. Although, I would generally disagree with tabloids on principle.

Oh and...

DazMarz wrote: »

They feel no remorse, pity or regret in what they do.

,,,em, lies!

kippy

seamus wrote: »

So what's the point in prison then? Why do we bother sending criminals to prison if we're going to ignore the concept of "rehabilitation" and just punish them for the rest of their life?
If they presented a risk of re-offending, sure. But a new identity is usually on granted in cases where the judge believes that the person present no further risk to society.

Besides, it's unfair to only single people who have committed crimes involving children. Why not just produce a public list of everyone living in your area who's committed a crime? That guy next door got 6 months for drink-driving. He might mow down your child. Burn him! The guy across the street did 2 years after getting into a drunken brawl. In ten years time he might beat up your child in a bar fight. Hound him out!
Or the guy around the corner who did five years for fraud and embezzelment. He might end up conning your child out of €5k and preventing him from buying his first house. Kill him!

I'm sick of this "as a parent" and "as a mother" bull****. Being a parent gives you no extra right to *anything*. I can produce sperm just as potent as the next man, it's not a superpower.

When I have children, I will take the steps necessary to protect my children. Knowing that the guy next door was convicted of child molesting will not make my child any safer than the precautions I would ordinarily take anyway.

You are aware that in fact it is extremely rare for a child to be randomly attacked by an adult? That the "hidden" paedophiles are massively unlikely to present a danger to your child. The fact of the matter is that it is the people that your child already knows and the people that you trust the most who present a much greater risk of abusing or intentionally hurting your child.

So instead of being scared of the boogeyman and banging on about phantom "rights" spare a moment to consider the possibility that it's a member of your family - one of your parents or one of your siblings - who is most likely to abuse your child and the only thing you can do to protect them is look out for the warning signs. Finding out about the local ex-con won't make your child any safer. Not by a longshot.

Excellent post Seamus.

brianthebard

Joey the lips wrote: »

I am not happy with the rehabilitation stats and in fact I dont believe the true figure is presented.

Speaking as a parent you feel figures aren't what the say they are? is that correct?

Herbal Deity

Joey the lips wrote: »

I agree when you have children.... and I am entitled to my opinion and if your sick of something ignore it. I can show cases of liberal attitudes where the do gooders gave second chances and were proven wrong.

I will never give anyone a chance when it comes to my family and i will never give a second chance.

This is something you will understand when you have kids.

What if the criminal was one of your children?

sparkling sea

100gSoma wrote: »

The recidivism rate for sexual offences is VERY high.
Here's a stat from 2007:
"Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge."
Source(s):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm…

The USA is a very big place I am sure you'll agree and its impossible to get accurate information from these statistics.
Further three strikes and your out applies in some states, up- tarffing in other states, and a wide varity of other models in other states, so the law of the land and sentencing procedures differ greatly within the USA. The sentencing practices within the USA also differ greatly from Ireland.

Ireland departs from the world wide view when sentencing as not only should the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the crime but the circumstances of the accused must also be considered. The gravity of the offence is decided by the amount of harm caused and the offender’s culpability.

From studying Irish research it can be seen that prison does not work according to ‘simple recidivism criteria’ meaning, the chronic tendency toward repetition of criminal or antisocial behaviour patterns. A study carried out in Mountjoy prison revealed that in the main an offender serving a sentence had up ten previous terms of imprisonment: with almost all serving at least 8 terms; so the recidivism rate for all crimes is very high, and highest among the more minor offences. Based on these figures a 40% reoffending rate even within a one year period would on the face of it appear to be lower then average

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Correct.

Of sex offenders, 5.3% are arrested for another sex crime. So to take the two together, about 2.5% of released sex offenders will be arrested for another sex offence within a year.

The problem is that these statistics aren't broken down any further - "sex crimes" is a very broad base, and by and large your "normal" sex offender tends to be your run-of-the-mill piece of crap who's also into car theft, armed robbery, burglary etc.
Whereas child molestors tend to fit a different profile and would rarely be involved in other types of crime.

Is that sex offenders full stop, or those committing crimes against children? Or those committing sexcual crime against children?

Bearing in mind that the Bolger case, sex offenses were not an issue.

Dun laoire

100gSoma wrote: »

Is it right for the media to expose the 'new lives' of citizens after they have served their time for a crime and been released and rehabilitated?
Can it be argued its "of public interest" to know the new life and identity and whereabouts of someone who has served a sentence and been released.
In many cases this 'prevention of allowing the person to move on' could lead them to suicide at worst, or ruin any chance they have of a normal life at best.
I say this as the star had an 8 page spread on the new life of an Irish killer including photos of him with his new GF and friends etc. Is that unfair or justified.

if you're a child killer i think that should wave your rights of ever having a normal life away. In my opinion they deserve nothing. Ever

Joey the lips

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What if the criminal was one of your children?

You got me on that one i guess. So i have a closed opinion.... What can i say I am not normal

Ziggurat

No, I don't believe they should. Further, I don't agree with sex offender registers.

100gSoma

Ziggurat wrote: »

No, I don't believe they should. Further, I don't agree with sex offender registers.

you don't agree with registering sex offenders. wow. controversial.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doesn't really achieve much that a criminal record doesn't.

Dankoozy

100gSoma wrote: »

you don't agree with registering sex offenders. wow. controversial.

not a great incentive to live a normal life, if you realise where ever you go everyone is going to hate you anyway. might as well rape a few more kids then and get sent back to jail to hang out with all your fellow paedo buddies

once someone hasn't caused trouble for a couple of years they should be taken off it. like 2-5 years maybe

Ziggurat

100gSoma wrote: »

you don't agree with registering sex offenders. wow. controversial.

I wasn't trying to sound controversial. In future you can spare me the jaded sarcasm.

wudangclan

I was just reading there where O'Donoghue had been given a new identity prior to going to England.
So,the paper has gone there,they've interviewed some of his fellow students, and letting them know what he'd done.
I don't see much point in the government giving out new identities if newspapers are allowed to go about exposing them.