Sex Offenders' Register Review

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Potential_Officer, Apr 21, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8634239.stm

    Two convicted sex offenders have won a case allowing them to challenge their permanent inclusion on the Sex Offenders' Register.

    So is it right that a convicted Paedophile remains on the Sex Offenders' Register for life? Should convicted Rapists be marked for the rest of their lives as Rapists, or as with non-sexual offences, should there be a period of time after which a conviction is "spent"?

    Personally, I think that there is clearly some cause for some sexual predators to be marked for the rest of their lives, however, my opinion is that no one should be released from prison if they still pose a threat to society, i.e. if a parole board felt that there was a reasonable chance that a paedophile would molest children again, then that person should not be released.
     
  2. I'm currently of the belief that paedophilia is as much a variation of sexual orientation as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Neither of those are "curable" (until 1997 homosexuality was classified as a mental illness) so I don't see why paedophilia would be either. For the record, I don't see anything wrong with any sexual orientation, so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

    If a paedophile isn't going to stop being a paedophile, the answer is to remove the potential for them to cause harm and the current mechanism for that involves the Sex Offenders' Register. They should stay on it indefinitely, as long as it serves its purpose.
     
  3. Totally agree there mate.

    Arthur.
     
  4. would being of the opinion that shooting paedophiles like dogs be considered as discrimination against sexual orientaton ? ;)
     
  5. What got me was the "it ruined my life, I couldn't go on a family holiday or play rugby league" WTF?!?!

    THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED A 6 YEAR OLD BOY YOU FCUKING EVIL LITTLE [email protected]!

    Sorry about that chaps, had to vent.
     
  6. Yep, totally agree.

    Arthur.
     
  7. I could think of other ways of ruining his life. :twisted:
     
  8. Ditto. Involves the business end of a baseball bat up his rear end. Let's see how he likes being the little bitch now!!
     
  9. I,m beginning to wonder about some of these judges!!!
     
  10. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Without running the risk of being a "paedo apologist" we should apply the handbrake on the outrage bus for just a moment...

    The defendants are not disputing that they committed the sexual offence; they have both served the sentence awarded and have complied with the (current) restrictions in accordance with the SOR.

    Their argument is based on the fact that, according to the European Convention on Human Rights, a sentence awarded should have the ability to be reviewed to establish if that offencer remains or continues to be a danger to the public. It is possible that an ex-offender is reviewed and found to be a risk to others; but by the same rationale, it is possible that they are no longer a risk (e.g. a boy who has sex with his girlfriend on the night before her sixteenth birthday). Is he likely to commit other sexual offences? Well, by being placed on the SOR for life, that assumption has already been made.

    Removing the emotive nature of offences committed of a sexual nature, let's say an offender is sentenced to a period in detention for a relatively mundane offence. Under the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, there is a period of time that the offence for which they were detained may be referred to (by the judicial system, employers, etc.). By not allowing ALL offenders the same provision, the UK Supreme Court have declared that is unlawful. However they do not say that the Sexual Offenders' Register itself was illegal, underlining the judgement of the lower courts that it was entirely lawful to monitor someone for life if they were a danger to society.

    Not every person on the SOR is a rampant sex pest who hangs around schoolyards or night clubs looking for young or vulnerable victims; many (if not most) do not or have not committed again, thanks to rehabilitative programmes and careful monitoring by Home Office authorities. Their continual inclusion on the SOR (separate and inclusive of any warning markers on the Police National Computer) is secondary and, as we have found, unlawful in some circumstances.
     
  11. I doubt judges give a fair reflection of life especially reading Madam Sins book and film of her London sex club.
    She couldn't handle the amount of Judges that arrived with strange fetishes!
    Mind there was lot of Bankers and Lawyers too but I never read of many miners or steelworkers in that membership.
    Maybe too rich for them but my point is that these judges give verdicts that may be correct in their idea of the law but it's not in the area of common sense with the majority.
    Guess the fine wines,Grouse,Pheasant etc addles them a bit.
     
  12. Another triumph for the European Convention on Human Rights. :!:
     
  13. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Hmm, so by your assumption, all Judges are sex-addicted fetishists? Almost as sweeping an implied statement as "all sex offenders should remain on the Sex Offenders' Register for the rest of their life..." :?

    "Their idea of the law"? The very law that they have studied all their professional lives, rather than what others have learned from the pages of the Daily Wail, etc.?!

    Like any profession, any outsider can comment freely about the machinations of another industry with little or no understanding of the full facts or knowledge about how they actually do their job. Admittedly the media are quick to publish when a Judge makes a questionable decision, but it is up to the defendant to appeal the decision, rather than the papers and other uninformed commentators to do it for them. I mean, who wants to hear about a plumber who makes a mistake at work..?

    Reactionary and off-the-cuff remarks about Judges and the judicial system in general are all very easy when sat in the safety of an armchair, but in the case concerned (from the original post) it is clear that an appeal was submitted to the Court of Appeal and upwards to the UK Supreme Court, who upheld it - with all five Judges in agreement. I for one am inclined to believe their professional judgment, rather than uninformed and sweeping statements from others.

    The handbrake on the outrage bus is well and truly off... :roll:
     
  14. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Hmm, don't you mean "Another triumph for a legitimate and fair judicial system for all"? Or am I correct in assuming that when you are a suspect or defendant in a case, you will be relinquishing your legal human rights? 8O
     
  15. The only way they should be allowed off the S.O.R. is by castration either chemically or physically as if a person misses one injection then the sexual urge and drive it would have to be physical castration.
    Once a pedophile always a pedophile they will re offend it is just a matter of how and when. I know I will be slated for saying this but this is my view.
     
  16. I agree with the ruling, mainly as by reviewing their inclusion it means they are potentially under closer scrutiny than they otherwise would be, if they challenge their inclusion, then they are going to have to be assessed, and the people who do the assessing are not stupid people.

    For example, most of the sex offenders in Scotland, get sent to HMP Peterhead, where they have reduced reoffending rates considerably compared to having sex offenders in different prisons...why? because specialist staff are all located in one prison, meaning prisoners can be more effectively assessed and dealt with accordingly. So successful that if I remember correctly there was outcry when the idea of closing the program down was mooted, even some victims groups felt the program should be preserved due to its success.

    Other issue is some are put on the SOR for odd reasons, like urinating in an alleyway while drunk, distateful but not a sex offence.
     
  17. Try having your life ruined by rape and still be objective.

    In the case of statutory rape, once the girl is 14, she has the choice as to whether the boy/man is charged and I think that if charges are made, those cases need to be dealt with differently to other sexual offences.

    Personally, I don't believe that a rapist or paedophile has the right to a 'normal' life, they took that right away from their victim and rehabilitated or not, their lives should remain tarnished.

    But that's just my opinion *shrugs*
     
  18. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    PP: I am not disputing the abhorrent nature of any sexual offence; having been involved in many investigations of this type (including some rapes), I am familiar with the trauma of the ordeal itself and the subsequent process to trial (successful or otherwise). However the UK Supreme Court's appeal decision has nothing to do with sexual offences themselves, but the lack of a review process for offenders on the Register. (Personally I think that the judicial process for rape cases is long overdue a review itself, but that is another topic for another thread.)

    I agree with you that people convicted of serious sexual offences (violent rape, intercourse with a child, etc.) should be placed under considerably difficult restrictions for a significant period of time. Whether that means life, I cannot judge as I am not a lawyer. However some here have assumed that all people on the SOR are paedophiles and rapists; this is not the case. In the link, one defendant was 11 years old at the time of the offence. As a legally defined child when convicted, is it not likely that he had no criminal liability and should not have received an adult sentence? The second defendant was convicted of indecent assault; nothing has been posted about his offence, yet are we to assume the circumstances without knowing the facts?

    As I said in my initial post, I am not an apologist for the offenders themselves, but the Register does not necessarily prevent offenders re-offending; it is just another - very expensive - database (much like the CRB database) that compiles the nature and details of people convicted of a particular type of offence (and the Sexual Offences Act covers a multitude of relatively minor offences that might stagger some people, should they take the time to read it). Sexual offenders have been around long before the SOR was created; they will continue to be here in our society long after the Register is stopped or replaced by a more efficient means of tracking offenders.

    As mentioned previously, PNC and the work of the various Agencies are already sufficiently capable of monitoring offenders, as they have done for years. But like any monitoring process, there has to be review and evaluation checks in place to ensure that the information of those personnel on it is relevant - what is the point of a database if the data is out-of-date?
     
  19. Splendid post.

    This is, by its very nature, a highly emotive subject but hysteria gets us nowhere, and I don't doubt causes many more problems than it solves.
     
  20. It seems many are assuming that everyone who is on the SOR actually belongs on it. From what I've seen, heard and read it seems pitifully easy to end up on the SOR without really, genuinely warranting it.
     

Share This Page