should the media be allowed expose child killers new life?

seamus · 16-11-2009 01:41PM

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 · 16-11-2009 01:45PM

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 · 16-11-2009 01:54PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:04PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:15PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:18PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:25PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:30PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:34PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:38PM

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 · 16-11-2009 02:42PM

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 · 16-11-2009 03:17PM

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 · 16-11-2009 03:28PM

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 · 16-11-2009 03:31PM

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 · 16-11-2009 04:48PM

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

100gSoma · 16-11-2009 04:50PM

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 · 16-11-2009 04:54PM

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

Dankoozy · 16-11-2009 05:08PM

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 · 16-11-2009 07:14PM

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 · 16-11-2009 08:27PM

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.

Acid_Violet · 16-11-2009 09:44PM

And like that, the hacks reach another new low. If only the editors of these newspapers could be held responsible for such articles. I know there are extremely strict journalistic protocols regarding writing about suicide, for example. I'm in favour of freedom of speech but why can't there be such similarly strict protocols with regards to these type of subjects aswel?

carlybabe1 · 16-11-2009 09:58PM

actuallylike wrote: »

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

I see your point, you make a good one

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.

It may be very narrow minded, but realistically
1) if a child molester has been caught, then its highly unlikely that he was caught on his/her first time and
2) they certainly dont get rehabilitated in jail, the resourses just aren't there,and the legal system is just giving the public what they think the public wants. A lot of these sentences are ludicrously low because theres just no room for them in prisons.My opinion of course.

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

Im pretty sure that witch hunts dont encourage these people to offend, in fact I would bet that they have offended before they have been caught, so this doesn't really make sense to me

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...

Im trying not to be offended by this, I was a smoker, I seriously doubt that my urges could be placed on the same level as paedophile.
I doubt a lot of these people go for help before they damage a child in some way shape or form, I can kinda understand that, with the way society feels about them

Notorious · 16-11-2009 10:18PM

In this case, will the Sun Scum get a slap on the wrist for exposing the guy? I can imagine they've sold enough copies to cover a fine, but could anything really come of this?

100gSoma · 16-11-2009 11:17PM

Ziggurat wrote: »

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

I'll spare you the 'jaded sarcasm' if you spare us the trolling.

Mike 1972 · 16-11-2009 11:43PM

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.

How does this benefit you in any way ?

Scenario 1: In response to your query Mr Monk we can confirm that there are no known child killers (yet) living within 300 metres of your address.

Doesnt really tell you much. There could be child killers living 301 metres from your house. There could be child killers that they dont know about or there may be individuals with an inclination towards child killing who have yet to act on it ? How do you know a child killer wont move into your area subsequenty ?

Scenario 2: In response to your query Mr Monk we can confirm that there are is/are a child killer/s living within 300 metres of your address.

What are you going to do ? Move to another area ? How much do you think you would get for a three bed semi D convenient to schools, shops, bus stops and child killers ?

Lone Stone · 16-11-2009 11:55PM

I think it really should come down to the person in question, Some people are just scum and always will be , but some people just make a bad decision and shouldnt have to have to have the media invading there rebuilt life.

A guy down the road from me just got sentenced for a tiger kidnapping of a family total filth people like that should locked up for good.

stovelid · 17-11-2009 12:17AM

It would be just a few papers that would be active in this. And I have to laugh at some of the pond-life who will be setting themselves up as the moral arbiters in these cases.

Dudess · 17-11-2009 12:33AM

To be fair, I think the "as a parent"/"you wouldn't understand - you're not a parent" thing is reasonable in this kind of context, seeing as it's more than a little relevant. It's when it's trotted out patronisingly in situations where it has little or no bearing (e.g. in relation to office furniture) that it's unwarranted.

seamus wrote: »

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.

He's not talking about his ability to father children, he's talking about actually being a father.

Fago! · 17-11-2009 02:23AM

I totally agree. He served his time so let him be ffs.

I was mad pissed off looking at that. GRRRR.

orourkeda · 17-11-2009 02:54AM

soups05 wrote: »

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.

Why do you have the right to Know?

should the media be allowed expose child killers new life?

Comments