Should people accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity?

Death and Taxes · 03-05-2013 11:19AM

Corkbah wrote: »

I'm only saying that I believe the system should publish images convicted "sex offenders" - to protect the larger public.

if someone has "done their time" and was a convicted paedophile or pedarist would you like if they moved into your neighbourhood or would you let them mind your kids while you popped to the shops ?

I'm advocating a system where the public are aware of who is in their area and if they choose to take precautions or not its upto the public to do, would you let a convicted rapist give your wife/girlfriend a spin home from pilates ? same thing applies, if rapists and paedos want to be treated normally within society ...then don't abuse and rape.

You are missing the the essential point, over 90% of rapes/sexual assaults are carried out by people who have NO criminal history. Over 80% of children who are sexyually assaulted are abused by a family member or close family friend.
It's not the one who have been convicted you need to worry about, they have the lowest recidivism rate of all offenders in Ireland , its the ones who have never been convicted that pose the danger.

Shenshen · 03-05-2013 11:21AM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You are missing the the essential point, over 90% of rapes/sexual assaults are carried out by people who have NO criminal history. Over 80% of children who are sexyually assaulted are abused by a family member or close family friend.
It's not the one who have been convicted you need to worry about, they have the lowest recidivism rate of all offenders in Ireland , its the ones who have never been convicted that pose the danger.

I had actually been thinking the same thing... I'd be less worried about the neighbour who was convicted of sexual assault, has served his punishment and is now in psychological treatment than I would be of the quiet, mentally unstable neighbour who hasn't offended yet but very well might.

Swarlez · 03-05-2013 12:10PM

Lone Stone wrote: »

I would be for anonymity but then their are cases like the jimmy savil where the reporting helped more people come forward, so its a double edged sword in that sense.

True, but they could report it once the person has been proven guilty. A sexual offence accusation is something that sticks in peoples minds, even if proven innocent.

hatrickpatrick · 03-05-2013 12:35PM

Lone Stone wrote: »

I would be for anonymity but then their are cases like the jimmy savil where the reporting helped more people come forward, so its a double edged sword in that sense.

Jimmy Saville is a good example. The man's dead, he'll never have a trial, will never have the opportunity to defend himself - and yet in the eyes of the media and the public he is guilty until proven innocent. As he has never been found guilty in court, we shouldn't be talking about him as a monster but as a potential monster. But nobody is.

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 03:16PM

Corkbah wrote: »

I'm only saying that I believe the system should publish images convicted "sex offenders" - to protect the larger public.

if someone has "done their time" and was a convicted paedophile or pedarist would you like if they moved into your neighbourhood or would you let them mind your kids while you popped to the shops ?

I'm advocating a system where the public are aware of who is in their area and if they choose to take precautions or not its upto the public to do, would you let a convicted rapist give your wife/girlfriend a spin home from pilates ? same thing applies, if rapists and paedos want to be treated normally within society ...then don't abuse and rape.

i believe in rehabilitation by the time they come out of prision they should not pose a threat to the public. yes I know that this is hard to achieve byt what you suggest would be much worse seeing as any boy who has sex underage is considered a sex offender what good would it do to publicise that to everyone, or for example when Larry Murphy was released some fine lads threatened his brother.

it should only be made public if they still pose a threat to the public

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 03:43PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

i believe in rehabilitation by the time they come out of prision they should not pose a threat to the public. yes I know that this is hard to achieve byt what you suggest would be much worse seeing as any boy who has sex underage is considered a sex offender what good would it do to publicise that to everyone, or for example when Larry Murphy was released some fine lads threatened his brother.

it should only be made public if they still pose a threat to the public

unfortunately thats one of the things which is wrong with our system ???

criminals go through the system without having to engage or try to rehabilitate and get released early (automatic remission)....and don't get me started on the huge amount of suspended sentences for people with multiple previous convictions ...just mind boggling !!

as far as I'm concerned if a convicted criminal is put into prison they should earn remission by doing courses and educating themselves to better integrate into society upon release.

As regards the Larry Murphy example ... he has not offended in this country since his release !! He has not shown remorse nor participated in any rehabilitation programs - yet he was released before the full-term of his prison sentence.

My idea is simple in that at the time of conviction the image is released to the media who then publicise it (if they deem it a newsworthy story), for the vast majority of convicted sex offenders (or any convicted criminal) the public will forget the pic/story unless its a fairly serious one ...in which case the pic is better to be out there, in my opinion the public is better served if they are aware of them.

lets seperate things up into really nasty assault/rape type cases or the teenager underage sex cases - in the case of the really nasty assault rape cases ..... do you think the public is better served knowing this person is capable of doing this (regardless of prison time served etc)

in the case of underage sex - if an image is publicised what harm can it do, even the media covered the romeo-juliet case because of its legal ramifications not because it was a sex offender in the eyes of the law - it was to point out how ridiculous the laws are in this country ...so if a person involved in underage sex (ie. both parties underage), any publication of an image would not have the effect of a which-hunt by the public/media.

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 03:47PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You are missing the the essential point, over 90% of rapes/sexual assaults are carried out by people who have NO criminal history. Over 80% of children who are sexyually assaulted are abused by a family member or close family friend.
It's not the one who have been convicted you need to worry about, they have the lowest recidivism rate of all offenders in Ireland , its the ones who have never been convicted that pose the danger.

so would it not be safer for the public in general if an image is made available upon conviction - when this person is released parents in his/her area could be aware of his/her past and take precaution when dealing with him/her.

almost all court cases where family members are involved do not name/publicise the attacker to protect the identity of the victims - the ones which we do get to see the convicted person are ones where the victim waives his/her right to anominity.

* = apologies for the spelling errors

Holsten · 03-05-2013 03:54PM

Corkbah wrote: »

As regards the Larry Murphy example ... he has not offended in this country since his release !! He has not shown remorse nor participated in any rehabilitation programs - yet he was released before the full-term of his prison sentence.

Exactly, he has NOT re-offened, regardless of if he chose to take part in any programs. That is what the prison system is meant to be about, stopping re-offending. In this regard Larry Murphy is a good example of a released prisoner, he just wants to get on with his life.

Corkbah wrote: »

My idea is simple in that at the time of conviction the image is released to the media who then publicise it (if they deem it a newsworthy story), for the vast majority of convicted sex offenders (or any convicted criminal) the public will forget the pic/story unless its a fairly serious one ...in which case the pic is better to be out there, in my opinion the public is better served if they are aware of them.

Why is the public better served? As another poster said, the chances of them doing anything again is VERY low. It's the people who have not been convicted that you need to be aware of, your brother, your auntie, your uncle, your teacher... these are more likely to commit a crime than the person who's picture you want so badly. People should not be punished for the rest of their lives.

Corkbah wrote: »

in the case of underage sex - if an image is publicised what harm can it do, even the media covered the romeo-juliet case because of its legal ramifications not because it was a sex offender in the eyes of the law - it was to point out how ridiculous the laws are in this country ...so if a person involved in underage sex (ie. both parties underage), any publication of an image would not have the effect of a which-hunt by the public/media.

How would you like it if your photo was there for the rest of your life that anyone can look at any time they want because of one mistake you made? Stupid.

hatrickpatrick · 03-05-2013 03:56PM

Not to drag the thread off topic, but to be honest I'll only support the sex offenders registry if the definition of rape is narrowed to exclude consensual sex between minors, and consensual drunken sex where someone wakes up with regrets.

That perfectly decent human beings can have their lives destroyed by either of the above scenarios is ridiculous.

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 03:57PM

Corkbah wrote: »

unfortunately thats one of the things which is wrong with our system ???

1)criminals go through the system without having to engage or try to rehabilitate and get released early (automatic remission)...

2)As regards the Larry Murphy example ... he has not offended in this country since his release !! He has not shown remorse nor participated in any rehabilitation programs - yet he was released before the full-term of his prison sentence.

if you quote me then refer to the points I made m'kay
1)fix the system then don't go making more problems by making the public some form of vigilantes

2) I mentioned Larry Murphy's brother being threatened I dont no what you were on about. no one has the right to threaten someone because they are connected to a criminal

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 04:14PM

Holsten wrote: »

Exactly, he has NOT re-offened, regardless of if he chose to take part in any programs. That is what the prison system is meant to be about, stopping re-offending. In this regard Larry Murphy is a good example of a released prisoner, he just wants to get on with his life.

but ... is his non-re offending due to his image being printed and him being unable to be a sexual predator or is it due to rehabilitation, the gardai seem to think he is a high risk of re-offending... I'm inclined to believe that he has been unable to re-offend due to his high profile.

Holsten wrote: »

Why is the public better served? As another poster said, the chances of them doing anything again is VERY low. It's the people who have not been convicted that you need to be aware of, your brother, your auntie, your uncle, your teacher... these are more likely to commit a crime than the person who's picture you want so badly. People should not be punished for the rest of their lives.

Victims suffer for the rest of their lives ... are you advocating that a criminal should be allowed to continue with their life as normal if they serve a (in most cases in Ireland) light jail sentence (if any jail sentence).

Have you any experience dealing with the victims of Rape, sexual assault, indecent assault ...even victims of robbery suffer severe paranoia.

Holsten wrote: »

How would you like it if your photo was there for the rest of your life that anyone can look at any time they want because of one mistake you made? Stupid.

one mistake ?? a sexual offence is usually not a mistake and if so, you do the crime you should deal with the consequences.

let me turn that around on you do you think that criminals should get their criminal history wiped because they have been crime free for X amount of years ??

Legs.Eleven · 03-05-2013 04:16PM

Accused before being found guilty????? Abso-bleedin´-lutely.

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 04:18PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you quote me then refer to the points I made m'kay
1)fix the system then don't go making more problems by making the public some form of vigilantes

2) I mentioned Larry Murphy's brother being threatened I dont no what you were on about. no one has the right to threaten someone because they are connected to a criminal

apologies for the Larry Murphy example - I jumped from what you said (and had an imaginary conversation in my head about the Larry Murphy case and then I posted my reply)

as regards the first part ... you said

i believe in rehabilitation by the time they come out of prision they should not pose a threat to the public. yes I know that this is hard to achieve

and I picked up on the "should" not pose a threat and expanded as to my belief as to why some are still a threat.

did that clarify my point ? (I was still keeping in line with your post but veering slightly away)

Gatling · 03-05-2013 04:20PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Accused before being found guilty????? Abso-bleedin´-lutely.

So if say woman/or a man even came on to boards and other outlets such as twitter and Facebook claiming they were raped by an individual/s naming them and so on ,
Yet it was never reported to the gardai the person/s deserve to have there lives ruined off a baseless aligation

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:22PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not to drag the thread off topic, but to be honest I'll only support the sex offenders registry if the definition of rape is narrowed to exclude consensual sex between minors, and consensual drunken sex where someone wakes up with regrets.

That perfectly decent human beings can have their lives destroyed by either of the above scenarios is ridiculous.

the law does not define that as rape. and as with sex between minors, the law is the law. a 16 male should not be free to have sex with a 12 year old girl just because she is convinced its ok.

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 04:25PM

PucaMama wrote: »

the law does not define that as rape. and as with sex between minors, the law is the law. a 16 male should not be free to have sex with a 12 year old girl just because she is convinced its ok.

try googling about the romeo and juliette case which went to the High Court, Supreme court and possibly the European Courts.

both people underage ...boy is found to be guilty of an offence the girl is not !

EDIT: Heres a link !! (incase you cant find it)
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/romeo-and-juliet-sex-law-is-unfair-court-told-26592289.html

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 04:26PM

PucaMama wrote: »

the law does not define that as rape. and as with sex between minors, the law is the law. a 16 male should not be free to have sex with a 12 year old girl just because she is convinced its ok.

what about two 16 year olds
or a 16 year old girl and a 12 year old boy
or one 16 and on 17 year old

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:29PM

Corkbah wrote: »

try googling about the romeo and juliette case which went to the High Court, Supreme court and possibly the European Courts.

both people underage ...boy is found to be guilty of an offence the girl is not !

as i said the law is the law. its illegal for a male to have sex with underage female. they do no this beforehand. so they shouldnt do it.

strobe · 03-05-2013 04:30PM

Gatling wrote: »

So if say woman/or a man even came on to boards and other outlets such as twitter and Facebook claiming they were raped by an individual/s naming them and so on ,
Yet it was never reported to the gardai the person/s deserve to have there lives ruined off a baseless aligation

Pretty sure she was agreeing that someone should not be named if not yet found guilty.

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:30PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

what about two 16 year olds
or a 16 year old girl and a 12 year old boy
or one 16 and on 17 year old

the law is there for a reason.

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 04:36PM

PucaMama wrote: »

the law is there for a reason.

the law needs revising (that does happen now and then for example marital rape was not always illegal)
so in your view it is ok that when two 16 year olds have sex only the boy commits a crime

yes or no answer please

Corkbah · 03-05-2013 04:39PM

PucaMama wrote: »

the law is there for a reason.

like most laws in this country - they remain until they are challenged and changed.

didn't they change the law to stop begging on the streets, this was challenged by two beggars and overturned ...so the law changed (again)

the law is not always correct - the current law says its perfectly legal to beg on the streets, outside shops, pubs, ATM's etc etc ...tell me again the law is there for a reason !!

tritium · 03-05-2013 04:40PM

PucaMama wrote: »

the law is there for a reason.

And what reason would that be so ?

I'm afraid that's the same closed mindset that left women to rot in Magdeline laundries and criminalised people for loving someone of their own gender.

If the laws an ass it should be changed. It's not 1950, unfortunately as a nation we far too often need to have this pointed out to us.

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:41PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

the law needs revising (that does happen now and then for example marital rape was not always illegal)
so in your view it is ok that when two 16 year olds have sex only the boy commits a crime

yes or no answer please

:rolleyes:

well yes actually and he has plenty of warning beforehand, he nos its illegal. is it ok for them to drink underage? or to smoke? so why should underage sex be ok? do u think the girl is at the the right age to carry a child at 16? (a common result of sex remember) because what 16year old boy is going to walk into a chemist to buy condoms? lets leave it down to the girl to take the pill then. and possibly deal with the side affects of said pill for a very long time :mad:

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:43PM

tritium wrote: »

And what reason would that be so ?

I'm afraid that's the same closed mindset that left women to rot in Magdeline laundries and criminalised people for loving someone of their own gender.

If the laws an ass it should be changed. It's not 1950, unfortunately as a nation we far too often need to have this pointed out to us.

were they not because of the church too?

edit i dont think we can use magdeline laundries as a reason to allow underage sex.....

eviltwin · 03-05-2013 04:47PM

PucaMama wrote: »

:rolleyes:

well yes actually and he has plenty of warning beforehand, he nos its illegal. is it ok for them to drink underage? or to smoke? so why should underage sex be ok? do u think the girl is at the the right age to carry a child at 16? (a common result of sex remember) because what 16year old boy is going to walk into a chemist to buy condoms? lets leave it down to the girl to take the pill then. and possibly deal with the side affects of said pill for a very long time :mad:

Do you not think it would be fairer to take each case on its individual merits?

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 04:48PM

PucaMama wrote: »

:rolleyes:

well yes actually and he has plenty of warning beforehand, he nos its illegal. is it ok for them to drink underage? or to smoke? so why should underage sex be ok? do u think the girl is at the the right age to carry a child at 16? (a common result of sex remember) because what 16year old boy is going to walk into a chemist to buy condoms? lets leave it down to the girl to take the pill then. and possibly deal with the side affects of said pill for a very long time :mad:

I proudly bought condoms at 16 but thatsnot the point so I'll leave the contraceptive thing in its corner for now

why is it not a crime in your eyes for a 16 year old girl to have sex (believe it or not women can be the instigators of sex.... tis shocking I know someone should call Joe)

PucaMama · 03-05-2013 04:52PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

I proudly bought condoms at 16 but thatsnot the point so I'll leave the contraceptive thing in its corner for now

why is it not a crime in your eyes for a 16 year old girl to have sex (believe it or not women can be the instigators of sex.... tis shocking I know someone should call Joe)

its illegal for a man to have sex with her....what he does is the illegal bit. the act without going into detail.

and of course women instigate sex. dont remember saying they dont.

laoch na mona · 03-05-2013 05:03PM

PucaMama wrote: »

its illegal for a man boy to have sex with her....what he doesthey do is the illegal bit. the act without going into detail.

and of course women instigate sex. dont remember saying they dont.

so you can see that if a 16 year old girl seduces a 16 year old boy (wouldn't take much but hey) then she is at least as guilty as the boy

Amirani · 03-05-2013 05:03PM

PucaMama wrote: »

its illegal for a man to have sex with her....what he does is the illegal bit. the act without going into detail.

You obviously haven't had a very broad range of sexual experiences if you believe it can only be the man who "does" the illegal action in intercourse.

Should people accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity?

Comments