Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sex offenders' register online
Options
-
02-02-2012 3:32pm#1Watching a US cop show [yes it's fiction] and the neighbours ganged up on a convicted child rapist, shaved his head and then wrote labels on him with permanent marker.
When the cops got involved he said "I've served my time, my sentance is over", something like that and so he should be free to walk around as the next person.
Later on his house got burnt down and just like Spartacus the film, all the neighbours claimed they did it so realy nobody was going to be prosecuted.
What I didn't know until afterwards was an online registry exists for convicted sex offenders in the USAThe National Sex Offender Public Website—coordinated by the Department of Justice—enables every citizen to search the latest information from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and numerous Indian tribes for the identity and location of known sex offenders.
So I'm wondering, is this something people would want to have in Ireland?
Would show who is in your area, who can be highlighted.
At the same time it might lead to vigilante attacks.
Or something stupid like you're coming home from the pub, go for a piss down an alley, a garda patrol spots you and does you for public exposure/indecency [not sure of the exact legal term] and boom, you're on a sex offenders list.
I was a bit undecided but thinking about it, I'd be against having something like this in Ireland. Too many drawbacks.
But maybe a parent will think differently to me, I don't know, looking for all opinions
Could be a decent debate, do you want such a register in Ireland and open to the public so anyone with the internet can search their neighbours?0
Comments
-
sex offender registry in America seems to cover a lot of offences.
"KINGSTON - Starting next year, urinating in public could land you on the sex offender registry."
http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1876416971/Lawmakers-Public-urination-shouldnt-lead-to-sex-offender-status
"In many states, registration covers everyone convicted of a sexual crime, which can range from child rape to consensual teenage sex, and regardless of their potential future threat to children."
http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good
"Every American state keeps a register of sex offenders. California has had one since 1947, but most states started theirs in the 1990s. Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers."
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
"Florida Banishes Man for Public Urination
It's no secret that some convicted sex offenders are guilty of nothing more than being a teenager and messing around with a slightly younger teenager. See here, and here, and here, and here. But as travesties of justice go, I just learned of an even more incredible one.
Juan Matamoros's full bladder is going to cost him. Twenty-one years ago, he had too much to drink, and was caught when he urinated on a street in Essex, Massachusetts. Matamoros was charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior" — which apparently got him classified as a sex offender. He currently lives in Deltona, Florida, with his wife and two young sons, but he's been ordered to pack up and move.
Deltona's ordinance, stricter than those of the state and neighboring cities, prohibits sex offenders and sexual predators from living within 2,500 feet of a school, bus stop, day-care center, park or playground. Matamoros lives on Brady Drive near three city parks, including Dewey Boster Park and a child-care facility.
The 49-year-old took the stand before Volusia County Judge Peter Marshall in DeLand on Monday to say he never molested anyone back in 1986, but just got drunk and urinated at the side of a car along a Massachusetts street when three people passed by and saw him. He requested he not have to move his two young sons to an area with a concentrated number of sex offenders.
Judge Marshall claims there's nothing he can do — the law is the law. He found Matamoros guilty without adjudication (the man's record does not contain a finding of guilt) and ordered him to move no later than July 1.
The county's sheriff, Sgt. Erik Eagan, doesn't feel the least bit sorry for the guy, because Matamoros received prior notice of the sex-offender law's enactment, and besides, Matamoros allegedly violated probation for a drug offense. Never mind, apparently, that a probation violation has never been known to trigger an order to move.
It's worth noting that some actual child rapists are probably getting a better deal.
Sex offenders and sexual predators who lived within 2,500 feet of the restricted areas before the new law was enacted are grandfathered in."
http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html0 -
i dont think information like this should be available online
it would lead to a lot of vigilantism against people who are mentally unwell , thier is a lot of people with severe mental problems who have offenses against them which has resulted in them being put on the sex offenders list , they dont put people like that in institutions anymore so the public has to live with them in thier communitys0 -
Maybe if the crime was listed aswell (I'm not sure if it is). Or else a coded system or something, where a code 4 is a minor sexual offence and code 1 a serious one.
This may help prevent "vigilante" attacks or that story above where the man had to move house.0 -
I think people who are deemed "reformed" (or whatever word youd like) should be able to live in peace. We can all make mistakes in life- and we can all learn from our mistakes.
Whereas those who are deemed as possible re-offenders, I think people should have a right to know that are living close by.
Instead of maybe giving the exact address/name/phone number etc, maybe just alert people how many "dangerous"/"at risk" sex offenders are living in the area. Maybe in a 10/20 mile zone (or depending on how populated the area is).
THat way the average person can say: "ok I know there are 3 dangerous sex offenders living somewhere, it could be my next door neighbour or it could be some guy living in a street Ive never even heard off thats a 20 minute drive from here- but I know they are 3 of them close by so I better take precautions"
Obviously that system isnt without flaw, but I think it would be better then whats currently on offer.0 -
I think people who are deemed "reformed" (or whatever word youd like) should be able to live in peace. We can all make mistakes in life- and we can all learn from our mistakes.
Whereas those who are deemed as possible re-offenders, I think people should have a right to know that are living close by.
Instead of maybe giving the exact address/name/phone number etc, maybe just alert people how many "dangerous"/"at risk" sex offenders are living in the area. Maybe in a 10/20 mile zone (or depending on how populated the area is).
THat way the average person can say: "ok I know there are 3 dangerous sex offenders living somewhere, it could be my next door neighbour or it could be some guy living in a street Ive never even heard off thats a 20 minute drive from here- but I know they are 3 of them close by so I better take precautions"
Obviously that system isnt without flaw, but I think it would be better then whats currently on offer.
of course public safety must be paramount but i reiterate , a lot of people with sex crime records have serious psychiatric problems , time was theese people were placed in institutions where they could do no harm , no one is sent to institutions indefinatley anymore unless they litterally kill someone and are found guilty but insane , the system is now run by liberals who oppose incareceration0 -
Advertisement
-
In the interests of child safety I would probably agree with such a public registrar, except for the fact that people are idiots. Such is the hysteria and ignorance on the subject that such a registry would likely end up in nonsense like this.0
-
irishh_bob wrote: »of course public safety must be paramount but i reiterate , a lot of people with sex crime records have serious psychiatric problems , time was theese people were placed in institutions where they could do no harm , no one is sent to institutions indefinatley anymore unless they litterally kill someone and are found guilty but insane , the system is now run by liberals who oppose incareceration
Society has to be protected from dangerous individuals whether the root of the danger is psychiatric illness or not.
I take your point on the lack of safe care for the ill, but very few people with psychiatric illnesses are actually dangerous. I believe thats a common misconception and source of stigma for the mentally ill.0 -
Society has to be protected from dangerous individuals whether the root of the danger is psychiatric illness or not.
I take your point on the lack of safe care for the ill, but very few people with psychiatric illnesses are actually dangerous. I believe thats a common misconception and source of stigma for the mentally ill.
thier is a very wide spectrum when it comes to the area of mental health from run of the mill depression to outright deranged psychopaths , unfortunatley , whenever you try and suggest that those on the extreme end of the scale should be kept in a controlled enviroment , the pc liberals jump up and down and accuse you of wanting to lock up mary from mullingar who is suffering with post natal depression , the homeless and prison population increase can be directly linked to the policy change when it comes to incarceration , while the idea of locking people up in institutions is unpleasant , the reality is that some people cannot cope in the real world and thier familys and society dont have the skills to deal with them and shun them , it might make the liberals feel good to close down institutions but its just another example of out of sight , out of mind , thier are several murders each year which are a direct result of the liberal policys surrounding institutionalisation for the lack of it nowadays0 -
I know the registering of sex offenders in the states is a component of Megan's Law, although the list is publicly accessible most law enforcement officers encourage the public to leave the list up to community leaders and law enforcement. This is because the crimes of the people on the list are not recorded alongside their name, so you could have someone who's' arrested and charged with lewd behavior (no children involved, drunk, peeing in the street) on the same list as a convicted rapist or child molester.
I can see the benefits to such a list, but it's a double edged sword. I think it creates a blind panic that people can search the database and then blanket bomb their neighborhoods with notices saying "Pedophiles in the area' when in reality the person is on the list of soliciting a (legal age) prostitute.
I'm not sure of the legalities of publicizing someone's crime, possibly it infringes on their rights, and also I don't think it would work here in our legal system due to confidential nature of these court proceedings, conceivably you could be 'outing' someone who has been abused by simply putting their abusers name on the list.
I'm sure there are valid cases for and against, but personally I think the system would be open to too much abuse by the public, such lists should be maintained by the Gardai and they should disseminate the information.0 -
irishh_bob wrote: »of course public safety must be paramount but i reiterate , a lot of people with sex crime records have serious psychiatric problems , time was theese people were placed in institutions where they could do no harm , no one is sent to institutions indefinatley anymore unless they litterally kill someone and are found guilty but insane , the system is now run by liberals who oppose incareceration
So I take it you are in favour of locking people up indefinitely on the grounds that they have mental issues?
Its a hard argument. If somebody is that "mentally derranged" (for want of a better term) then its not really fair to release them into a society were its not a case of "if" but a case of "when" will the next victim be.
Then again is it really fair to lock someone away for the rest of their lives just because they were born with some mental issues...?
If you were going to lock them up for the rest of their lives the least you could do is give them the option of lethal injection.
It really isnt an easy decision and thankfully not a decision I'll ever have to make.0 -
Advertisement
-
So I take it you are in favour of locking people up indefinitely on the grounds that they have mental issues?
Its a hard argument. If somebody is that "mentally derranged" (for want of a better term) then its not really fair to release them into a society were its not a case of "if" but a case of "when" will the next victim be.
Then again is it really fair to lock someone away for the rest of their lives just because they were born with some mental issues...?
If you were going to lock them up for the rest of their lives the least you could do is give them the option of lethal injection.
It really isnt an easy decision and thankfully not a decision I'll ever have to make.
like the vast majority of people , you will never come close to seriously mentally ill people
i myself have relatives who live with such a person and thier life is a hell as a result of the states modern days policys
i never said everyone should be incarecerated , their is a wide scale when it comes to the severity of condition but believing that everyone no matter how disturbed can live in the community is naive in the extreme0 -
Can we exclude other disturbed individuals from the community then? Borderline personality types? Antisocial and histrionic types?irishh_bob wrote: »i never said everyone should be incarecerated , their is a wide scale when it comes to the severity of condition but believing that everyone no matter how disturbed can live in the community is naive in the extreme0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Can we exclude other disturbed individuals from the community then? Borderline personality types? Antisocial and histrionic types?
Men with beards?
0 -
-
In Pennsylvania at least, they DO list the offense in the registry:
http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/Main.aspx
I've always thought that Megan's Law lists were a cop-out. If a guy is dangerous enough that you have to warn his neighbours about him, then he is too dangerous to not be locked up.
As for the story about the guy in Florida having to move, he was a victim of inconsistency between different states' laws. He was put on the registry based on Massachusetts' liberal definition of a sex crime, and now is being subjected to restrictions based on Florida's more serious definition.0 -
I mentioned before about the idea of using a kind of "penalty points" system for the sex offenders register.
Since there's a big drive on to list everything remotely related to nudity as a "sex offence", then it's clearly the wrong thing to do to list a flasher alongside a vicious rapist as a sex offender.
So you have a graded system whereby "points" are issued for "sex offences". Reach 6 points and you get on the register for five years. Reach 12 points and you go on it permanently. So minor things like flashing or "lewd behaviour" get one point. More serious offences like common sexual assault get 4 - 6 points (judge can decide), and serious crimes like rape or violent sexual assault (anything which carries a 3 year prison sentence or longer) get you 12 points instantly.
IMO, this would seem to solve the issue of listing people as a sexual predator for innocent crimes, while ensuring that those who do present a public risk are adequately recorded.0 -
I don't agree with a public register...for one thing it can result in offenders being harangued and chased until they drop off police monitoring systems and also because I think it clearly fails in its purpose as a system for letting people know that they or their children safe based entirely on the willingness of convicted sex offenders to supply there whereabouts and/or targeting their neighbours.
In terms of pointing or puting a time-limit on offences, it's also worth noting that those who are found guilty of relatively minor sexual offences can be on the start of a trend of escalating behaviours and so gauging potential future risk is not as simple as grading past crime.0 -
and serious crimes like rape or violent sexual assault (anything which carries a 3 year prison sentence or longer) get you 12 points instantly.
The only problem is that it seems to me that in a lot of cases of rape its very hard to determine was it or wasnt it consensual. Unless he dragged her down an alley and stabs her with a broken bottle its very hard to know whos lying and whos telling the truth. Id hate to think people were being found guilty and named for life as a "dangerous sex offender" just because the girl had a better solicitor then the guy.
And more importantly, I was reading somewere recently enough that (in Ireland anyway) a lot of rapes go un-reported and even the ones that do get reported never make it the whole way to court, which in my opinion is a far bigger issue then the online database. Afterall, if we cant get these people to court what good is an empty database?0 -
I really do get the feeling that the World has gone quite mad on this topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17274848Council bans daughter contact over child images
A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months.
Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November.
As a result social services said he "should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children".
He said he was "totally innocent". No arrests or charges have been made.
Mr Robinson, 43, recalled how on discovering the images he discussed the situation with his wife and immediately called police to report the incident.
Shortly after his call the police and East Riding social services came to Mr Robinson's house to take statements from him.
During the meeting social services requested Mr Robinson did not have unsupervised access with his child.
A council statement said: "The council's social care team considers that, on the information it presently has about this case, it is a proportionate response to request that Mr Robinson should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.
"The council will keep the case under review but cannot comment further as this is an on-going investigation."
The police took the laptop away for investigation and said it could be a year before it is returned, Mr Robinson said.
Humberside Police said: "We are conducting an investigation that has resulted in the confiscation of a laptop in order for the relevant enquiries to take place - standard procedure for this type of investigation.
"The laptop is sent away to be examined and, as this forms the basis for a number of different investigations, Humberside Police have no control over the amount of time it takes for the laptop to be returned."
Mr Robinson said: "It makes you feel as though you shouldn't have reported it in the first place."
He added it would have been "a lot easier" to just throw the machine in the bin.
Mr Robinson said the restrictions on seeing his daughter had come to a head after his wife had returned to work.
When his wife works late, as regularly happens, Mr Robinson's daughter goes to his mother-in-law's home.
He goes round to see his daughter and them comes home on his own.
He said the experience was "very stressful for the family".0 -
A family acquaintance was speaking to me about this case.
He's a police officer who works in this area, and his input was that it occasionally happens that this sort of scenario occurs when someone who's been downloading prohibited images panics if they think for some reason they're being tracked or observed, and come up with a pre-emptive excuse for it. Not often, but often enough to be considered a risk.
Of course the great likelihood is that its not the case in this case, but if its not unknown to happen I can see how erring on the side of caution while the investigation is completed would be considered as a lesser of two evils option, if there are children in the home.
That is not to minimise the trauma or horror for the innocent father, or the whole family. Its a ghastly situation that has terrible consequences if the wrong course of action is taken. Ideally it would take a lot less time than four months plus to determine a persons innocence.
I feel very sorry for innocent people caught up in this sort of nightmare, simply for trying to do the right thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
In that case it's probably acceptable that the police stop and check any black guy driving an expensive car as it occasionally happens that it may be stolen...He's a police officer who works in this area, and his input was that it occasionally happens that this sort of scenario occurs when someone who's been downloading prohibited images panics if they think for some reason they're being tracked or observed, and come up with a pre-emptive excuse for it. Not often, but often enough to be considered a risk.
I disagree. Other than the question of profiling, not to mention the quasi-presumption of guilt involved and personal harm it can cause innocent people, what does it do in real terms?Of course the great likelihood is that its not the case in this case, but if its not unknown to happen I can see how erring on the side of caution while the investigation is completed would be considered as a lesser of two evils option, if there are children in the home.
It sends the message out to men that if they do come across something of this nature on the Web by accident they should get rid quietly of it and not report it, despite the importance that such information on where it is available represents to law enforcement.
For example operation amethyst, which in 2002 resulted in the breaking of an international child pornography ring and in Ireland alone saw the taking of the computers of 130 people, originated from the discovery by a Web host of such content on one of their servers. He reported this and the FBI were able to monitor traffic over a period of time enabling them to identify not only the organizers, but also those trading in such material.
If that host thought he would likely end up being the one investigated, I can guarantee that the chances of him not reporting it and instead closing down the account and scrubbing the hard disk would have been extremely high. And then all the aforementioned child pornography ring would have done is moved onto another host and no one would have been caught.
It's not every day you see both paranoid over-reaction and self-defeating stupidity all rolled up into one tidy bundle.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »In that case it's probably acceptable that the police stop and check any black guy driving an expensive car as it occasionally happens that it may be stolen...
Quite.
I neither recommend nor support it as a course of action, simply putting it forward as it was presented to me, as the possible reasoning behind the actions in this case.0 -
I didn't attack you, only the reasoning you presented.I neither recommend nor support it as a course of action, simply putting it forward as it was presented to me, as the possible reasoning behind the actions in this case.
I suspect the real reasoning has probably more to do with short term arrest targets than long term tackling of the issue.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I suspect the real reasoning has probably more to do with short term arrest targets than long term tackling of the issue.
Perhaps also a fear of litigation. If they send an actual abuser back into the home before an investigation is completed the legal consequences could be very costly.
The possible damages may be of greater concern than the stability of the family.0 -
I think you're grasping at straws here. Who would sue? The family who have not only not denounce him, but supports him and reject the charges?Perhaps also a fear of litigation. If they send an actual abuser back into the home before an investigation is completed the legal consequences could be very costly.
The possible damages may be of greater concern than the stability of the family.
I think it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the more likely scenario is that he will sue for significant damages once he is cleared formally. So the opposite of what you say is true.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I think you're grasping at straws here. Who would sue? The family who have not only not denounce him, but supports him and reject the charges?
Maybe I've read too many tabloid front pages at newsstands, but I was thinking along the lines of the child suing, once adult.
''Police Sent Dad Back To Abuse Again''
A standard News of The World headline.:)0 -
TBH, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you mentioned tabloids.Maybe I've read too many tabloid front pages at newsstands, but I was thinking along the lines of the child suing, once adult.
In reality, what we have here is a wildly disproportionate reaction for something that, by your admission, only occurs in a small number of cases. Put in context, it's like confiscating the passport of a witness to a murder, without him or her even being charged, on the basis that in a small number of cases the murderer reports the crime.
Given this I don't know if the child would have much of a case as an adult, even if the parent was an abuser because it is more unreasonable to consider the parent a threat than benign given the evidence.
Even if the adult child did have a case, consider a scenario where out of ten similar cases, say, only one turns out to show the parent was an abuser. 'Erring on the side of caution' would this in reality expose the state to nine false positive cases while avoiding litigation in only the one valid case. So if your only consideration is litigation, the maths are against you.
Overall, for this and the above other reasons, it really makes no sense, so why do it?
Which brings us to tabloids and the hysteria that surrounds this issue today. Between airlines adopting policies whereby men are no longer allowed to sit next to unrelated children on planes and mobs fire-bombing the homes of paediatricians, we've completely lost sight of reason. As a result law enforcement, under political pressure for results, appears to be more interested in going after the low hanging fruit - regardless of whether it's even ultimately guilty, just to look as if they are doing something.
And, as so often happens when mob mentality dictates policy, we end up curbing civil freedoms, punishing the innocent and actually harming any campaign to catch the real perpetrators.0 -
We are supposed to live under the rule of law. One of the principles of our legal system is that prison serves as both a deterrent and a mechanism through which an individual can reform himself and be re-admitted to society as a law abiding person.
We mock these principles if we permanantly label someone as a sex offender.
Why bother with prison or a legal system at all? Clearly the people advocating this would rather a vigilante system where perverts are lynched.0
Advertisement