should the media be allowed expose child killers new life?

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.

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.

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?

So much for paying your debt to society.

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.

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?

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.