h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Parents are to be given new powers to check with police whether people given regular unsupervised access to their children have convictions for paedophile offences, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said.

This will allow single parents to check out the background of a potential partner.

This, imo, is basically a good idea. However, does this set a precedent? What about checking if a partner has AIDS or has a history of domestic abuse?

Again, extrapolating rather, could this kind of information be put on an ID card and made readily accessible?

Full story - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080217/tuk-sarah-s-law-scheme-to-be-piloted-6323e80_2.html

from the article:
"However, there will need to be stringent safeguards to prevent abuse of the system by people wanting information in order to..."

This seems the key to me - how exactly is the information going to be metered out? Who is going to audit this process? How do abuses get reported?

On a related note, what if someone finds themselves on the list in error, what recourse do they have?

Bad idea.
If they think its good why not go the whole hog and just put people in prison forever if they ever get found guilty of a chrime against children...
If people who've comitted such an offence remain an eternal, ongoing and constant threat to others, then shoudl they be let out in the frist place...
Why only limit it to that which it has?; Extend it to allow people to find out if their partner/potential partner has a mental illness in their past, or chrimes other than pedophilia...

I'm not sure if I favour this level of access to infofrmation sanctioned by the state. It will almost inevitably result in the individuals affected being hounded out of jobs and becoming unemployable.

It is the role of the employer to conduct CRB checks on employees before they can work with children and vulnerable adults.

Did you see the drama on BBC One yesterday "The Last Enemy" - a good projection of the sort of state-sponsored police state we are currently sleep-walking into. http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/lastenemy/

turvy

That article doesn't say how the scheme will work. Do people just phone up with the name of their boyfriend?


I'm in two minds about this. While I do agree that people have a right to their lives once they've served their time, child sex offenders do have a high rate of reoffending. However hounding and persecuting offenders in the community just makes them go and rape someone else's child. That's not something the govt should be playing any part in.

And of course, most men sexually abusing children never get a conviction. Schemes like this reinforce myths about sexual abuse and make communities stupid when it comes to dealing with the sexual offenders that they are related to and live with already i.e. husbands, fathers, uncles, family friends etc.

If some real and useful resources were put in place to (a) support men to address sexual abuse by men, (b) help communities in general to look at who is really offending and why and what they can do about real prevention, and (c) help offenders find out if they can stop offending, then it *might make sense to have a public register of convicted offenders.

You can end up on the register because of someone making a fraudulent claim. How long before a 14 year old girl works that out and accuses a hated teacher of touching her up?

What register?

The Sex Offenders Register - http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-to-privacy/spent-convictions-and-rehabilitation-of-offenders/sex_offenders_register.shtml

>>How long before a 14 year old girl works that out and accuses a hated teacher of touching her up?<<

This already happens. I knew personally a teacher who had this happen to him. The (there really aren't the words for her kind of scum) in question has made fraudulent claims against other teachers.

I think this is a terrible idea. Anybody who needs to work with children and vulnerable adults needs to have an enhanced CRB check, and for this to come through your record has to be spotless. Anybody who works with kids should, in theory, have the form available to show to anyone who asks to see it. That should be the end of it.

This would only encourage vigilantism and paranoia between people.

So is that a register for all sexual offending?

Some might say Kea, that the clue was in the name of the register...

Kea, there's a variety of databases for different types of crime and they're refered to as a single register.

The crucial list is called List 99 as that contains all the details of people have commited sexual offenses against young people or vulnerable adults and anyone on that list is never allowed to be left alone with young people, ever.

Then there are lists of those convicted of other sexual offenses or drug offenses. Anyone on these lists would automatically fail an enhanced CRB check, but might be able to pass an ordinary CRB check, depending on the nature of their crime.

I have an allegation made against me and it will be on my record as long as I live even though my employers took no concrete action even being so shoddy as to leave me working with the accussers while I was under investigation and the police deided there was no case to answer.

Given all that I still think the system is one worth pursuing.

Having seen the number of children harmed by people acepted on trust alone once they have been invited into the family circle it would be stupid not to use the register in this way.

Id think any parent neglegent who put their child in a vulnerable situation with a babysitter or friend of the family if they didnt say "can you make proof of your clean record in this regard available to me".

Lets get this straight we are talking about a very specific sort of crime here.

Next week I'll be interviewing someone who has an assault conviction for a job as a coach. Ive previously employed people who have been in prison for burglaries and carrying offensive weapons.

Yes some orgnaistations and individuals will run a mile when they see any schedule 3 or higher offeces or even accusations on a persons record and that will be unfair on people like me and some of the people I work with, but I think that putting child protection first is worth it.

one love

<>

Yep, and I say lock 'em up forever. Unless they consent to castration (not chemical - real castration) and having a location-finding chip stuck in their bodies somewhere and are content to live their sorry lives under constant scrutiny. Because, as with other rapists, their acts aren't always to do with sexual gratification.

What? They deserve anything better than this? I certainly don't think so.

The sick scum who sexually abuse children are of an ilk that cannot be 'cured', though their behaviour can sometimes be modified. But at risk to whom? Well, to any children that happen to be near them.

Just get rid of them - they have already forfeited their right to anything by committing such a heinous crime. Let them rot.



az

Gosh, can't have a personal opinion around this place anymore? Sheesh...

az

Well I hope your previous post gets reinstated.

It would be a very effective way of dealing with the problem in terms of re-offending, but I think like all capital or corporal punishment it is utterly wrong.

Like I said there are people who can get convictions and turn their lives around. I doubt that people who are peeping toms or other no physically invasive or physically abusing people deserve what you say or that we would be served by it.

More importantly what if someone wrongfully accused like I have been were wrongfully convicted and punished?



As for not being allowed an opinion I think that we mostly are you just sometimes have to be careful how you put it

"As for not being allowed an opinion I think that we mostly are you just sometimes have to be careful how you put it "



Poacher turned gamekeeper?

Sorry to see Az's post go. Couldn't agree more.

One aspect of the Sex Offender's List that is wrong as I understand it is that someone goes on the list for a caution. What I've heard anecdotally is that this doesn't give a true picture.

For instance: Chap X is accused of looking up a schoolgirl's skirt in a shopping mall. In fact, he wasn't. He was tying his shoelaces. The police give him an option - admit it and he gets a caution & the whole thing is forgotten about. Well, apart from his being put on the Sex Offender's Register, which no-one but the police, social workers and certain employers have access to. The alternative is to deny the offence and go for a trial. In which case his name will be released to the press and in the months or years until the trial comes up he may lose his job, friends and/or marriage due to the stigma of being an alleged kiddy fiddler. Even if he is found not guilty in a court, he will always be associated with kiddy fiddling.

So you can see why he might feel pressured into admitting to a crime he didn't commit.

The Sex Offender's Register is a bit of a misnomer imo.

I think the point SWL just made about the cautions is a valid one.

I was reading an opinion peice in the paper 18 months ago when that furour over a teacher with a sex offending record came to light.

Basically it started with the premise that no one on the register should ever work with children, then gave examples to try and shake your beleif in this. It was a very interest bit and I wish I could remeber where I read it.

The best example was two 15 year olds having consensual sex and the girls family finding out, forcing the filth to investigate and the boy accepting a caution.

Good to see a proper Forum thread by the way SWL!!!