Make Criminal Records Public? (Sarah's Law Poll)

OutlawPete

In the UK this week Sarah's Law has been rolled out Nationwide which will mean that parents can check to see if anyone in contact with their children is on the child sex offenders register.

However, there have been reports of offenders not been able to get accommodation and jobs as checks have been done and then they have been refused.

There have also been people in the UK who have been placed on the register who were just over 16 and slept with their underage girlfriend etc.

So do you think the public should have access to the Sex Offenders Register?

Do you even think that ALL criminal records should be available to the public and that anyone should be able to run checks on any member of the public?

Or do you think that this kind of information will be misused and will make finding housing, employment and ultimately rehabilitation for offenders an impossibility and will lead to vigilante crimes?

Or that 'stranger danger' is exaggerated as the majority of child abuse is carried out by people known to their victims?

pennylane22

I think everyone should be placed on it but a probation officer should see them every 6 months or so they can treat each person as an individual. If they are someone who slept with their underage partner then they should be taken off it within a couple of years if there is little chance they will reoffend.

Bonito

It's their own fault for committing crimes. Name and shame them IMO.

Hank_Jones

No

To be honest I'd rather a system that didn't allow fatcats and politicians to get away with things.

All this brushing under the carpet for people who really should be going to prison really is making a mockery of our judicial system.

Haughey should have been in prison then, Bertie now.

Sarah,sarah, who the fcuk is Sarah?


/wrong thread words

OutlawPete

No

Hank_Jones wrote: »

To be honest I'd rather a system that didn't allow fatcats and politicians to get away with things.

Wouldn't we all but I'm just really talking here about people who have been convicted and even done their time.

Do you really trust the public with this information.

You voted that ALL criminal records should be publicly available.

That means that your neighbors can check up on you and anyone else they wish - are you really okay with that?

You don't think their are downsides to people have access to criminal records?

Mark200

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

No, their prison sentence is their punishment. People can make mistakes. Not all people on the sexual offenders list are paedophiles... in fact, I'd imagine very few are (although I don't know).

Hank_Jones

No

OutlawPete wrote: »

Wouldn't we all but I'm just really talking here about people who have been convicted and even done their time.

Do you really trust the public with this information.

You voted that ALL criminal records should be publicly available.

That means that your neighbors can check up on you and anyone else they wish - are you really okay with that?

You don't think their are downsides to people have access to criminal records?

I'm ok with people checking up on my criminal record, seeing as how I don't have any.

I suppose I can see the negative sides of information being available, but then again I would mind knowing if I am living next door to a convicted drug dealer or rapist.

The only people this would really bother is those with criminal records.

Ri_Nollaig

Bonito wrote: »

It's their own fault for committing crimes. Name and shame them IMO.

Wasn't there a recent case of a 17 year old boy who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend in court for underage sex? Would you consider him a sex offender? Should he be named and shamed?

Bonito

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

The trouble with this sort of thing is the publicly naming of people with criminal records who aren't really criminals.

If a 17 year old was convicted of statutory rape of his 16 year old girfriend wouldn't he have his name put onto the sex-offenders register?
Hardly seems fair to publicly name and shame someone who's crime involved having consensual sex with someone who may only have been 2 months younger than them.

There'd be many arguments for that. Some along the lines of he should have waited the 2 months. How or never that's a bit petty when she is IMO of age to give consent. Perhaps it'd be a good idea for an appeals process should be set up to go hand-in-hand with this law.

PCPhoto

Mark200 wrote: »

No, their prison sentence is their punishment. People can make mistakes. Not all people on the sexual offenders list are paedophiles... in fact, I'd imagine very few are (although I don't know).

Obviously you dont know too many criminals in this country.

The system is a joke, especially this new arrangement to "protect" convicted criminals from the media.

I do think that there should be a level of convictions (ie. maybe 5 or 10) which once you go above that your record should be available , with the obvious exception being serious crimes, rape, murder, manslaughter - these should be done on a case by case basis.

I have fairly strong views on the criminal justice system (or lack of) in this country, we live in a nanny state !!!

(majority of sentences are too lenient and we dont have the space to give them proper sentences - forget remission - if a person does a crime they do the time...getting time off for good behaviour in prison is a deal done by the prison service to protect themselves from scumbags - if a criminal knows he/she wont be released until a certain date they probably wont behave and could cause problems for the prison service)

.....for some criminals life behind bars is a lot better than life outside in the real world.

some criminals are not civilised and should not be given respect in a prison - if you dont behave like a human (outside prison) why should you be treated like one (inside prison).

EDITED PART

---

ADDED ALL THIS.
If I can ask this question...... if someone moved in next door to you .... and you had young kids maybe 4/5yrs and 8/9yrs ..... would you be happy let him/her babysit or play with the kids ? .... would it make you sleep at night if you knew this person was a convicted paedophile ?

sometimes ignorance is bliss - but if there comes a time when certain people should be monitored properly - in this country we dont have ANYTHING which will correctly monitor and track convicted sex offenders.

I have recently gotten a call about a convicted sex offender, who was released early...and placed in a HSE home.... 50yards from a creche....what can I do about it...nothing (run to the media ???) ..... Does anyone think the parents should know this has happened ? or is it better to stay quiet and say he's done his time he's an innocent person again.
just to point out also - the guy in question is a convicted rapist (not a paedo)

Bonito

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Wasn't there a recent case of a 17 year old boy who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend in court for underage sex? Would you consider him a sex offender? Should he be named and shamed?

Isn't their slate wiped clean when they turn 18? Also see post below. I had sex when I was nearly 16 and my GF was older. We were both in right mind to give consent and neither of us pressured the other.

Wazdakka

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Hank_Jones wrote: »

To be honest I'd rather a system that didn't allow fatcats and politicians to get away with things.

Well Duh..
I think we'd all like Ireland as a country to be run even remotely well in any single aspect..
But you might as well be asking for a pet unicorn.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I would mind knowing if I am living next door to a convicted drug dealer or rapist.

Why?
If you were living next door to a convicted criminal, and it is on record where they are, then they have as far as the state is concerned paid the price for there crime.
They have "served there debt to society" as the yanks are such a fan of putting it.
What right do you have to take away there privacy and any hope of a normal life until the day they die?

Hank_Jones wrote: »

The only people this would really bother is those with criminal records.

I don't have a criminal record and it bothers me.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Do you really trust the public with this information.

Absolutely not.

Bonito wrote: »

It's their own fault for committing crimes. Name and shame them IMO.

You seriously believe that?
That once you have broken any law that you are a criminal and once you are a criminal you loose your right to privacy?
George Orwell would love your ass.

hooradiation

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

As i read this, you can only ask for a check if there person works with children to some degree (and then only for specific crimes), shouldn't the places hiring these people be the ones to perform the background checks, not the average cretin on the street?

While this is a stupid idea, to their credit they seem to be taking some steps towards stopping this facilitating a lynch mob.

OutlawPete

No

Wazdakka wrote: »

I don't have a criminal record and it bothers me.

I agree with all of you comments.

But, just with regards to the Sarah's Law.

You don't think parents should be able to ask the Guards whether or not someone in contact with their kids should has any previous convictions that involve children?

Bonito

Wazdakka wrote: »

That once you have broken any law that you are a criminal and once you are a criminal you loose your right to privacy?
George Orwell would love your ass.

Yes I do. Should we also stop allowing local newspapers to stop advertising bench warrants, people in court for drugs possession, being banned for drink driving etc? They have been a hazard to the general public and should be named and shamed. I'd expect the same treatment if I were ever to commit a crime.

I like the way you failed to address the point where I said an appeals process should be set up to coincide with the law.

RobbieTheRobber

WE really do not want to follow Britains lead, they are slowly(or not so slowly) eroding civil liberties in their country, and have already fulfilled many of the phrophecies as set out in orwells 1984.

You cant walk a street without being on CCTV
Next you will be branded a criminal for perhaps something as small as road traffic crimes.

And back to the CCtv are they not working on computer technology which predicts when crimes are going to happen and sends the police. It will be used with their CCTV which is everywhere.

That sounds very much like the Thought Police :eek:

monkeypants

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

I was going to vote yes absolutely, but then I thought about it. There are a lot of muppets out there who couldn't read such information correctly never mind act upon it properly (see here). Mobs are something to be feared.

We've gotten to the point where a father cannot take pictures of his own kids. Are kids really in so much danger or is it Chicken Licken syndrome?

RobbieTheRobber

Bonito wrote: »

Yes I do. Should we also stop allowing local newspapers to stop advertising bench warrants, people in court for drugs possession, being banned for drink driving etc? They have been a hazard to the general public and should be named and shamed. I'd expect the same treatment if I were ever to commit a crime.

I like the way you failed to address the point where I said an appeals process should be set up to coincide with the law.

The problem with the law in this country and in most developed countries is that its not equal you get the justice depending only on how much you can afford to pay your defense team.

In your name and shame, a man commits perhaps a crime such as careless or dangerous driving whilst 18 or 19 and for the rest of their life they should eb tarnished by that?

RobbieTheRobber

monkeypants wrote: »

I was going to vote yes absolutely, but then I thought about it. There are a lot of muppets out there who couldn't read such information correctly never mind act upon it properly (see here). Mobs are something to be feared.

We've gotten to the point where a father cannot take pictures of his own kids. Are kids really in so much danger or is it Chicken Licken syndrome?

Kids are now safer than they ever where in our parents or grand parents times but we have a media hyped culture which trys to tell us otherwise.

Wazdakka

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

OutlawPete wrote: »

You don't think parents should be able to ask the Guards whether or not someone in contact with their kids should has any previous convictions that involve children?

In the very specific area of convicted sexual crimes towards children, Yes I think that the parents should have a right to ask and be told truthfully about somebody's past.
That is the one inexcusable crime in my book where the right to privacy is severely restricted.

But a blanket question of "Is there anybody in contact with my children who might be a risk to them?" being asked to the Gardaí..
And there answer being discretionary as to what information they choose to share?

Ireland is too small a community for that,
I don't think that particular system would work.

Wazdakka

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Bonito wrote: »

I like the way you failed to address the point where I said an appeals process should be set up to coincide with the law.

I didn't see it..

Now I did and I don't understand it.
An appeals process?? To what? This master list of criminals?

Oh right.. In a community as small as Ireland that'd really work.
"No no, it's ok.. I'm not on the public list any more.. I'm a respectable citizen again"

People see, people remember..
The truth is often irrelevant as far as people are concerned.

monkeypants

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

You don't have to be a pedophile or rapist to land yourself on the Sex Offender's register. Even humping your bicycle in private can do it. I think that's damned weird, but I fail to see the offence and I really fail to see why this man should end up on a list, unless it's to protect bicycles from unsightly marks on the paintwork.

Bonito

Wazdakka wrote: »

I didn't see it..

Now I did and I don't understand it.
An appeals process?? To what? This master list of criminals?

Before the criminal is enlisted they should be given the option to appeal whether they should be put on the list or not.

Oh right.. In a community as small as Ireland that'd really work.
"No no, it's ok.. I'm not on the public list any more.. I'm a respectable citizen again"

People see, people remember..
The truth is often irrelevant as far as people are concerned.

What's to stop someone remembering "wait wasn't he/she in the paper not so long ago for being in court over something"

Whether there's a sarahs' law or not the media already plaster criminals in to full view of the public so what's the difference in having them there permanently? Sure someone could even collect cut outs of who was convicted and file them. Obviously it's a lot of effort but it can be done. With sarahs' law it's just being simplified.

PCPhoto

OutlawPete wrote: »

I agree with all of you comments.

But, just with regards to the Sarah's Law.

You don't think parents should be able to ask the Guards whether or not someone in contact with their kids should has any previous convictions that involve children?

only problem with this is the lack of communication between HSE, Prison Service, Gardai .....so the information may not be readily available.

I'd be more of a fan of repeat offenders and serious offenders being publically known - it will mean that people will be more aware of convicted paedo's and rapists, which can only be a good thing. (obviously the age of consent issue would arise and each case should be taken on its own merit)

by the time a parent is becoming aware of a possible situation with their child and an adult ....they have to act fast and not waste time dawdling down at a garda station asking if he/she is an alright person (to be around kids)

PCPhoto

Bonito wrote: »

What's to stop someone remembering "wait wasn't he/she in the paper not so long ago for being in court over something"
.

Best of my knowledge there is a 6month ban on images used of a person prior to a court case (central criminal ....not sure about circuit criminal)

monkeypants

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

If a child is more likely to be abused by a family member or someone trusted in the home, how is such a list helping? It looks more political than anything else, having to be seen to be doing something.

genericguy

No

i say we should all have a right to know if a person has committed an offence against the person, but it shouldn't matter to anybody if a person was put in jail for non-payment of a dog licence/tv licence etc.

arybvtcw0eolkf

No

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I suppose I can see the negative sides of information being available, but then again I would mind knowing if I am living next door to a convicted drug dealer or rapist.

Wazdakka wrote: »

Why?
If you were living next door to a convicted criminal, and it is on record where they are, then they have as far as the state is concerned paid the price for there crime.
They have "served there debt to society" as the yanks are such a fan of putting it.

Wazdakka, the difference between here and prison life in the USA is that in the USA prison is suppose to be about rehabilition, whereas here in Ireland its about punishing the offender by denying them their freedom.

While rehab programmes are available to sex offenders here its entirely voluntary, so in effect the sex offender here is often released back into society still a broken person.

I'd also make the case that the sex offender is a predatory creature, it a sly, devious monster waiting in the shadows for its victim's. Carefully selecting the most vulnurable and often kills its victim to cover its tracks.

So 'yes' I'd like to see a Sarah's law brought into Ireland, but since we don't have a culture of accountability here I doubt we'll get it.

ScumLord

No

There isn't enough shame in the world. There was so little crime back in the day because of all the shame, "shame on you" they'd say in the shop and the shamed would crumble before them in a miserable heap.
Now people go around doing whatever they like and have no shame, their proud of who they are and think they know it all, they've no shame at all the scummers.

Mark200

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Bonito wrote: »

I had sex when I was nearly 16 and my GF was older. We were both in right mind to give consent and neither of us pressured the other.

Still illegal....

Wazdakka

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Hazel Deep Riot wrote: »

Wazdakka, the difference between here and prison life in the USA is that in the USA prison is suppose to be about rehabilition, whereas here in Ireland its about punishing the offender by denying them their freedom.

While rehab programmes are available to sex offenders here its entirely voluntary, so in effect the sex offender here is often released back into society still a broken person.

I didn't know that...

Then maybe a system of allowances for convicts who are showing rehabilitation through a genuine will to change and progress through counselling and a reform program would work.
It's still all a bit too subjective though.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

OutlawPete wrote: »

Wouldn't we all but I'm just really talking here about people who have been convicted and even done their time.

Do you really trust the public with this information.

You voted that ALL criminal records should be publicly available.

That means that your neighbors can check up on you and anyone else they wish - are you really okay with that?

You don't think their are downsides to people have access to criminal records?

The public are too stupid to have access to this kind of information.

PCPhoto wrote: »

Obviously you dont know too many criminals in this country.

The system is a joke, especially this new arrangement to "protect" convicted criminals from the media.

I do think that there should be a level of convictions (ie. maybe 5 or 10) which once you go above that your record should be available , with the obvious exception being serious crimes, rape, murder, manslaughter - these should be done on a case by case basis.

I have fairly strong views on the criminal justice system (or lack of) in this country, we live in a nanny state !!!

(majority of sentences are too lenient and we dont have the space to give them proper sentences - forget remission - if a person does a crime they do the time...getting time off for good behaviour in prison is a deal done by the prison service to protect themselves from scumbags - if a criminal knows he/she wont be released until a certain date they probably wont behave and could cause problems for the prison service)

.....for some criminals life behind bars is a lot better than life outside in the real world.

some criminals are not civilised and should not be given respect in a prison - if you dont behave like a human (outside prison) why should you be treated like one (inside prison).

The fúck?

If I can ask this question...... if someone moved in next door to you .... and you had young kids maybe 4/5yrs and 8/9yrs ..... would you be happy let him/her babysit or play with the kids ? .... would it make you sleep at night if you knew this person was a convicted paedophile ?

That's the stupidest fcuking thing I have heard. Why the fcuk would anybody let a pedo mind their children? Either way, what dumb ass lets a stranger mind their kids?

sometimes ignorance is bliss - but if there comes a time when certain people should be monitored properly - in this country we dont have ANYTHING which will correctly monitor and track convicted sex offenders.

Only serial sex offenders should be tracked. One time offenders should not be.

I have recently gotten a call about a convicted sex offender, who was released early...and placed in a HSE home.... 50yards from a creche....what can I do about it...nothing (run to the media ???) ..... Does anyone think the parents should know this has happened ? or is it better to stay quiet and say he's done his time he's an innocent person again.
just to point out also - the guy in question is a convicted rapist (not a paedo)

The parents have no right to know any sex offender, most parents are over protective paronoid fcukwits who think they have the right to do what they like because they have children... The "system" are also in the wrong, as this sex offender should not have been put there. Either way, any sex offender is going to be put in proximity to children.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I agree with all of you comments.

But, just with regards to the Sarah's Law.

You don't think parents should be able to ask the Guards whether or not someone in contact with their kids should has any previous convictions that involve children?

Parents should be doing their job and looking after their own kids, have a bit of cop on and not be wasting the Guards time with this crap.

Bonito wrote: »

What's to stop someone remembering "wait wasn't he/she in the paper not so long ago for being in court over something"

Time.

Whether there's a sarahs' law or not the media already plaster criminals in to full view of the public so what's the difference in having them there permanently?

Everyone can access this information, if you think logically you will see that this will in turn cause more crime. Last thing we need is a bunch of imbred braindead vigilantes going around paying these criminals a "visit".

Sure someone could even collect cut outs of who was convicted and file them. Obviously it's a lot of effort but it can be done. With sarahs' law it's just being simplified.

How the hell can you compare a personal collection to a nationwide/worldwide database that can be accessed by anyone?? Seriously, wtf?

Red_Marauder

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Totally disagree with this. "Sarah's Law" has all of the hallmarks of some nasty, Sky News, Trial-by-dinner-table populist watering down of the legal system and its standing.

I have sympathy for the family of Sarah Payne but I detest the idea of a law in that girl's (or anybody's) name. The Law should stand over everybody's right to justice equally.

There should be no state participation in a scheme undermining one individuals right to his good name in relation to another's supposed right to see that name darkened once
1. the individual has paid his debt to society, and
2. there is no reasonable cause to actively expect re-offending.

There are many examples of individuals, particularly men from lower socio-economic backgrounds who got into a bit of low level crime back in their mid - late teenage years and went a bit off the rails.

In my experience these individuals who somehow pulled themselves out of a hole and got their lives in order are often highly socially aware and have typically worked very hard to build up relationships again, to hold down jobs and to become an asset to society instead of a liability.

What kind of message are we giving out if we penalise these individuals by 'naming and shaming' them on a sort of public access "google-criminals" for crimes that they have long since paid their debts for and in a way which serves no purpose but to keep them back in the hole they have struggled so hard to emerge from?

hooradiation

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Because crime is out of control and society is falling apart at the seams and we don't have a culture of accountability and unless we start handing out private information to people so they can start to take justice into their own hands - well then i think we both know our entire society will just implode and we'll all be dead.

Don't you see, if we give private information without any real context out to the people least equipped to deal with it, we'll truly be free of the shackles of reason, law and justice to finally do what we need to do, bring ourselves right the way down to the level of criminals and then beat them with sticks.

sron

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Tessa Silly Mussel wrote: »

The public are too stupid to have access to this kind of information.

Evidence: continual support of FF, Bertie, Haughey et al.

I wouldn't trust the Irish public with a safety scissors, never mind something of this magnitude.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

PCPhoto wrote: »

Obviously you dont know too many criminals in this country.

Out of interest, how many do you know? Would you call this a representative of the entire population with a criminal conviction?

The system is a joke, especially this new arrangement to "protect" convicted criminals from the media.

I do think that there should be a level of convictions (ie. maybe 5 or 10) which once you go above that your record should be available , with the obvious exception being serious crimes, rape, murder, manslaughter - these should be done on a case by case basis.

I have fairly strong views on the criminal justice system (or lack of) in this country, we live in a nanny state !!!

(majority of sentences are too lenient and we dont have the space to give them proper sentences - forget remission - if a person does a crime they do the time...getting time off for good behaviour in prison is a deal done by the prison service to protect themselves from scumbags - if a criminal knows he/she wont be released until a certain date they probably wont behave and could cause problems for the prison service)

.....for some criminals life behind bars is a lot better than life outside in the real world.

some criminals are not civilised and should not be given respect in a prison - if you dont behave like a human (outside prison) why should you be treated like one (inside prison).

EDITED PART

---

ADDED ALL THIS.
If I can ask this question...... if someone moved in next door to you .... and you had young kids maybe 4/5yrs and 8/9yrs ..... would you be happy let him/her babysit or play with the kids ? .... would it make you sleep at night if you knew this person was a convicted paedophile ?

sometimes ignorance is bliss - but if there comes a time when certain people should be monitored properly - in this country we dont have ANYTHING which will correctly monitor and track convicted sex offenders.

I have recently gotten a call about a convicted sex offender, who was released early...and placed in a HSE home.... 50yards from a creche....what can I do about it...nothing (run to the media ???) ..... Does anyone think the parents should know this has happened ? or is it better to stay quiet and say he's done his time he's an innocent person again.
just to point out also - the guy in question is a convicted rapist (not a paedo)

There's a bit of a contradiction here between who you want on such a list: "anyone with a criminal record", "those with a sexual criminal record" and "someone with 5-10 offenses"

Hank_Jones wrote: »

The only people this would really bother is those with criminal records.

Complete bull****: what about the families of those with criminal records, who have done no wrong themselves?

Guy comes out of prison, tries to go straight, finds it hard, this has no effect on people who support them?

Bonito wrote: »

Yes I do. Should we also stop allowing local newspapers to stop advertising bench warrants, people in court for drugs possession, being banned for drink driving etc? They have been a hazard to the general public and should be named and shamed. I'd expect the same treatment if I were ever to commit a crime.

I like the way you failed to address the point where I said an appeals process should be set up to coincide with the law.

Once you let the media police the state and decide who should be pulicly shamed - especailly tabloids - for unethical behaviour, it is all downhill from there.

Regarding the appeals, this is pointless. Guy is accuse of paedophilia, convicted, wins appeal. You think the Irish public are goign to say "oh that's okay then - he was safe all along!"? The HELL they are!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Kids are now safer than they ever where in our parents or grand parents times but we have a media hyped culture which trys to tell us otherwise.

I disagree with this. I don't think there's been any change - there's just more reports knocking about.

Bonito wrote: »

Whether there's a sarahs' law or not the media already plaster criminals in to full view of the public so what's the difference in having them there permanently? Sure someone could even collect cut outs of who was convicted and file them. Obviously it's a lot of effort but it can be done. With sarahs' law it's just being simplified.

Time. Papers come and go. Is it really fair for someone to be turned down for jobs if he hasn't committed a crime in 10 or 15 years?

Hazel Deep Riot wrote: »

I'd also make the case that the sex offender is a predatory creature, it a sly, devious monster waiting in the shadows for its victim's. Carefully selecting the most vulnurable and often kills its victim to cover its tracks.

Isn't that an extract from Brass Eye?

hooradiation wrote: »

Because crime is out of control and society is falling apart at the seams and we don't have a culture of accountability and unless we start handing out private information to people so they can start to take justice into their own hands - well then i think we both know our entire society will just implode and we'll all be dead.

Don't you see, if we give private information without any real context out to the people least equipped to deal with it, we'll truly be free of the shackles of reason, law and justice to finally do what we need to do, bring ourselves right the way down to the level of criminals and then beat them with sticks.

Huh??! You want to let people take the law into their own hands and give every idiot carte blanche to go after anyone he suspects of committing a crime... and you think that'll save society? This is anarchism, my friend.

Having read the rest of your post, I'm assuming sarcasm. I left the first bit in in case I'm wrong!


OVERALL?

I think people are way too IREESPONSIBLE to have this information rather than strupid, snd some of **** quoted above proves my point.

You read tabloids. You believe what you read. You get scared. You want to buy guns. You want to shoot everyone you suspect of committing a crime. What part of this sounds like a rational human being?

Moro Man

No

We could do with something like this

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateInfo/InmateInfoMenu.asp

And it doesn't just cover the inmates as you can check to see when they were released.

lugha

It shouldn't be an issue really. If a former felon poses an unacceptable risk to a community, he shouldn't be placed there. If he doesn't, then it's nobody's business. Granted the tricky bit is assessing the risk ...

CrazyRabbit

All sex offenders should have to attend mandatory treatment programmes.
Regular assessments by the therapists will determine if they are engaging in therapy or not. Their approximate level of risk can then be ascertained.

Those who do not engage in the treatment programme or who are seen to be at a medium to high risk of reoffending should be placed on a public sex offenders register.

Those who actively engage in the treatment programme and are commited to becoming law abiding people who possitively contribute to society, should be kept on a private sex offenders register viewable by social services and police. If they are at a low risk of reoffending, there is no need to put them at risk of vigilante attacks etc.

Society needs to look carefully at how it treats sex offenders.
Who is more likely to reoffend? The person who has a good job, stable adult relationship and lots of friends etc, or the person who can't get a job & is completely ostracized by society?

Giving every reason NOT to reoffend is far more important than simply threatening punishment. If someone has already lost everything after being outed as a sex offender, then punishment (prison) doesn't seem to bad anymore.

robinph

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

If the sex offenders register is doing it's job properly then the whole idea of that Sarahs Law thing is a waste of time.

It does notgive you the right for private citizens to find out the entire life history of another citizen, it's just something along the lines of you requesting that a check on the register be made regarding a certain person who may be in regular contact with kids. I'm pretty sure that you do not get the results of that check though, just they will no longer be in that position if something is found. You'll not get told what was found on the register though, and if the register is working then every single check made under the Sarahs Law idea will come back negative as people on that list will not have been allowed into such a position in the first place.

Waste of money and is just being brought out for a bit of free publicity for the UK government to make it look as if they are doing something. Strange that there is an election coming up shortly as well isn't it?

ScumLord

No

Tessa Silly Mussel wrote: »

That's the stupidest fcuking thing I have heard. Why the fcuk would anybody let a pedo mind their children? Either way, what dumb ass lets a stranger mind their kids?

I 'd say most parents let strangers mind their kids, unless their list of priority when choosing childcare include going out for drinks after work so we can get to know the staff better.

If sex offenders where coming out of prison reformed or least with some form of treatment in place then fine this law would be a step to far, but when they're being sent to criminal collage to share ideas with like minded individuals then the public has a right to defend itself from them.

lugha

Tessa Silly Mussel wrote: »

what dumb ass lets a stranger mind their kids?

Avoiding strangers won't really keep your kids safe. Most child abuse is perpetrated by people known, often well known, to the family.

dvpower

OutlawPete wrote: »

Do you even think that ALL criminal records should be available to the public and that anyone should be able to run checks on any member of the public?

Sure why not go the whole way and made all public records available, so we can all find out what others earn, what exams they passed, grants they applied for...:eek:

Mike 1972

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

All sex offenders should have to attend mandatory treatment programmes..

Like this guy ?

pennylane22 wrote: »

I think everyone should be placed on it .

Eh ?

CrazyRabbit

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Like this guy ?

Yup....it'd be the shortest stay in therapy probably. But they can check to see if there's more to this guy that just a passing interest in cartoon porn.

Mike 1972

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

lugha wrote: »

Avoiding strangers won't really keep your kids safe. Most child abuse is perpetrated by people known, often well known, to the family.

I thought most of it was perpetrated by the families themselves ?

John I am

No I don't think the public should have access to these records, it will lead to more lawlessness and I doubt very much it would contribute a smidgen to protecting children.

lugha

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I thought most of it was perpetrated by the families themselves ?

Yep. That's pretty much what I mean.

Joey the lips

Yes and make all Criminal Records public

Its a very difficult one to answer.

My instinct says yes that public access to sex offender register should be allowed. but whats the story with 15/16 year old. This age group should not be placed on it.

No matter what it is an attack on civil liberties and where do you stop. Should we have access to the drink driving list as well.

The problem is not that we dont deserve to know but refusing accomadation and jobs is madness. Doing this means we have to look after them more. They effectivly come an asylum seaker in there own country.

How does this benefit society.

Then having said that making the list public might deter the crime.....


Its no co incidence that most crimes occur per head in cities than in villages. I believe this is because in villages everyone knows everyone.


If i am thinking of myself and my kids.... Yes i would have to say make it public. But i would understand if it was not.

lugha

John I am wrote: »

I doubt very much it would contribute a smidgen to protecting children.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think it's one of these populists things that might make things worse. It could lead to sex offenders being driven underground where the authorities can't keep an eye on them. In addition, a sizable number of sex offenders, probably a clear majority, have never being caught and convicted. If you have children in your care, and with or without a Megan's / Sarah's law, you will still have to exercise a degree of care.