Should people who are Paedophiles have anonymity, or should we be able to see where they live and equally important what they look like, or do you think they should be allowed to hide away to carry on with their sordid games with the full protection of the law?

I only ask because I found this American site which listed all the known sex offenders who live in that area (see below)

http://www.tnacso.net/cont/esexoffender.php

No, Paedos don't deserve protection at the Tax Payer's expense.. Name and shame 'em I say! And chop their bits off while you're at it so they can't fiddle any more innocent kiddies!

I think that we should be able to see who is living in our area especially if they are a potential threat.

Isn't prevention better that cure!!!

I know that there would be people who would take things to extremes and take the law into their own hands but I still think that we have a right to know, The police could protect Paedophiles from the above behaviour ( not that they deserve it!!!) but it's a lot harder to protect the Paedophiles next victim!!!

Look familiar?

Should we have more information about Sex Offenders? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14634&highlight=paedophile)


By none other than ...... owdlad!!

I would like to know if there were paedophiles living close to me but I wouldn't like gangs of people vandelising their property and taking the law into their own hands.

I have no sympathy for these perverts but if I knew one was living nearby I would just warn my kids to steer well clear and wouldn't get involved in any vigilante actions.

I think they should all be sent to live in shark infested waters.

Originally posted by max
Look familiar?

Should we have more information about Sex Offenders? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14634&highlight=paedophile)


By none other than ...... owdlad!!

ooopsss :blush: :blush: :blush:

Also to save someone else saying it. The search button is over there <------

If they are convicted, with absolute 100% proof (dna etc)
Post name, address and picture.

And then offer 24 hours indemnity from prosecution to whoever gets them first.......within the 24 hour period of course :D


paedophiles do not deserve to breath the same air as my kids.

And yes, I will say it to their goddamn scumbag faces - shortly followed by the proverbial blunt instrument :thumbsup:

Should Paedophile's what have anonymity, their dog? And which particular paedophile are we talking about?

More importantly, should wilful misinterpretation be made a capital offence?

Originally posted by max
Look familiar?

Should we have more information about Sex Offenders? (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14634&highlight=paedophile)


By none other than ...... owdlad!!

MERGE!

nope they shouldnt

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
MERGE!

Merge what? everything or something in particular?

Should we make not Merging a treasonable offence ;)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

More importantly, should wilful misinterpretation be made a capital offence?

In your case yes.

However, we still have to establish what possession of a particular paedophile should have anonymity. Perhaps their budgie?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
However, we still have to establish what possession of a particular paedophile should have anonymity. Perhaps their budgie?

Did you read the first posting ?;)

Yes.

I don't want marauding mobs of vigalantes tearing through my neighbourhood stringing people up and poking their eyes out because they're paediatricians (http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,361031,00.html) .

Just another thing to protect our kids from.

And no, before you all start on me, I'm not a paedophile-lover, and I'm not a PC do-gooder, and I'm not a liberal lefty do gooder. I just don't want anyone cutting off anyone elses willy on my doorstep.

Originally posted by kathythebean
I just don't want anyone cutting off anyone elses willy on my doorstep.
thank god for that

*uncovers willy*

Originally posted by melthebell
thank god for that

*uncovers willy*

:hihi:

*puts away garden shears*

this ones been done before,roughy101 got a ban for speaking her mind,later the thread was closed,there are certain persons on here who will join in and defend these perverts ,the others will condem them,it will get closed again,but my two peneth is YES show them up for what they are,vile predetory animals,

lock them away from innocents for the rest of their lives,how many times have social workers and psychologists been conned by these beasts? professionals? my back side, they are duped into believing that the swine have reformed then let them out into the community to offend again, at what cost?

some child,thats what,another stastictic, lock em away,or at least let the people know who they are

we will get the standard reply soon,what about mistaken identity,revenge attacks,vigilanties etc etc etc, if its done right with the proper photos,and addresses etc there will be none of this........shame them for the vile evil filth they are......

Originally posted by owdlad
Did you read the first posting ?;)

Yes, but I'm wilfully interpreting the thread title literally so that the nobs can string me up for crimes against bad punctuation.

How dare you!

I'm not defending paedophiles! I just don't want angry mobs tearing through my neighbourhood with pitchforks and torches!

Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say!

:rant:

Ok I'll defend them then since you are all too chicken ****. I don't buy in to this hysteria perpetrated by the media and bought hook, line and sinker by the ignorant masses.

You idiots would rather live next-door to dangerous murderers and psychopaths than paedophiles and rapists.
Haven’t we got this about face?

Grow up don’t be so paranoid.

Also, anyone that would use summery justice is worse than a paedophile in my book. ;)

Originally posted by miniminch
Ok I'll defend them then since you are all too chicken ****. I don't buy in to this hysteria perpetrated by the media and bought hook, line and sinker by the ignorant masses.

You idiots would rather live next-door to dangerous murderers and psychopaths than paedophiles and rapists.
Haven’t we got this about face?

Grow up don’t be so paranoid.

Also, anyone that would use summery justice is worse than a paedophile in my book. ;)

I'd personally rather get rid of both :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jimbob1989
I'd personally rather get rid of both :rolleyes: Firstly, before I read anymore idiocy, define a paedophile.

I slept with a 15yr old when I was 16? Who cares? But that makes me a paedophile and a rapist.

I think we know the difference between manslaughters and murderers. But paedophilia is often a non-violent crime, between consenting people, usually of the same family and usually repeating behaviours that had been past on to them.

Owlad using links to sex offenders and talking about paedophiles shows the ignorance has reach new levels on SF.

Let’s all be evolved and tolerant humans for a change. No? OK carry on reading newspapers, shagging your kids and lynching paedophiles. And you wonder why I take the **** out of you.

This is the Hillbilly thread right?

Suppose parents of these scumbags mighnt have a differant view to you pal?. Me id string em up , end of story.

Originally posted by brooksy
Suppose parents of these scumbags mighnt have a differant view to you pal?. Me id string em up , end of story.

Strangely, brooksy, lots and lots of the people that abuse their children are their parents.

So things aren't always as clearcut as you might think.

Originally posted by brooksy
Suppose parents of these scumbags mighnt have a differant view to you pal?. Me id string em up , end of story. What? The children are scumbags?

Now do it in English and joined up sentences, not Chimp! Then we can all have a laugh!!

You’ll be discovering fire next!
:loopy:

Originally posted by miniminch
I slept with a 15yr old when I was 16? Who cares? But that makes me a paedophile and a rapist.

Hang on, are you not wrong? it only counts as rape, if the girl is under 13 years of age, if she is between 13 and 16, it is just sex with a minor. Don't think this law was introduced that long ago.

Originally posted by Jimbob1989
Hang on, are you not wrong? it only counts as rape, if the girl is under 13 years of age, if she is between 13 and 16, it is just sex with a minor. Don't think this law was introduced that long ago. You’re splitting hairs which is more than I did.

Dosnt make you a rapist pal, it makes you a mug, and a bigger mug for posting it on here, :loopy:

Originally posted by kathythebean
Strangely, brooksy, lots and lots of the people that abuse their children are their parents.

So things aren't always as clearcut as you might think. parents,cousins uncles aunts, sex with a minor is still illegal,its classed as statuary rape,even if both were consenting,

just because some one didnt rip off the childs clothes or tell them they will get locked up if they tell anyone doesnt make a difference,the law says 16, thats it , all the balony about a girl is mature at 12 onwards etc doesnt wash, the law was made to protect children, until they reach 16 they are classed as just that.....a child

:confused:

Yeah...point out where I said childen weren't children? and it was ok for their families to rape them?

Originally posted by depoix
parents,cousins uncles aunts, sex with a minor is still illegal,its classed as statuary rape,even if both were consenting,

just because some one didnt rip off the childs clothes or tell them they will get locked up if they tell anyone doesnt make a difference,the law says 16, thats it , all the balony about a girl is mature at 12 onwards etc doesnt wash, the law was made to protect children, until they reach 16 they are classed as just that.....a child An amazing number of children with beards these days Detox!

The number of 16/17 yr olds lynched by you morons is going to be staggering.

And Brooksy - I went out with her from 15 to 21 so I am not a mug. She was beautiful.

Originally posted by miniminch
An amazing number of children with beards these days Detox!

The number of 16/17 yr olds lynched by you morons is going to be staggering.

And Brooksy - I went out with her from 15 to 21 so I am not a mug. She was beautiful. what makes you so special that you are above the law? dont matter which way you twist it,you were doing wrong,maybe when you have kids of your own you will realise its wrong

Originally posted by depoix
what makes you so special that you are above the law? dont matter which way you twist it,you were doing wrong,maybe when you have kids of your own you will realise its wrong Jesus Christ. I don't suppose you have noticed a small fact? The kids are ****ing!! Loads of them!! All the time!! And nothing you can moralise about will stop them. The problem is; they enjoy it!!;)

Kids, if you are reading this, stop doing IT! Despot doesn't like it:gag:

Welcome to the 21st Century, Crackpot!:loopy:

The problem isn't one of registers and such.

It's whether the degree of recidivism for child abuse is greater or less than for other serious crimes. According to a study (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/rsvo-06.asp) 75% of men who've abused 'strangers' have already been convicted - compared to 14% of people who've abused family members. Chronic recidivism in an individual is often associated with childhood abuse and neglect, drink and drug abuse.

The highest recidivism rate for other crimes is a bit above 60% for robbery.

In other words, statistically these people are more likely to re-offend than other criminals, so the common sense approach is to extend the sentences given and only release offenders on license with strict constraints on where they live - hostel accomodation or perhaps even open prisons for a few years after the end of their sentence.

And a single repeat - life imprisonment.

Publicising names and addresses is counter-productive. You need to know WHERE these people are. By ensuring that someone is placed in a relatively child free area, and then posting a general warning in the area, a medium would be achieved. Include regular trips to the local police station and, for example, random surveillance for 48 hours at a time.

If the offender is one of the 25% who don't re-offend then their license can be gradually extended and the surveillance reduced. It would be expensive - I appreciate that - but it might be worth considering.

Joe

Originally posted by miniminch
Jesus Christ. I don't suppose you have noticed a small fact? The kids are ****ing!! Loads of them!! All the time!! And nothing you can moralise about will stop them. The problem is; they enjoy it!!;)

Kids, if you are reading this, stop doing IT! Despot doesn't like it:gag:

Welcome to the 21st Century, Crackpot!:loopy: seem to have touched your concience a bit by the looks of it,you live with your morals,ill live with mine, bye the way take a look at the poll, seems your a minority
now as i have to go out with the adults i;ll wish you a good night

Originally posted by depoix
seem to have touched your concience a bit by the looks of it,you live with your morals,ill live with mine, bye the way take a look at the poll, seems your a minority
now as i have to go out with the adults i;ll wish you a good night Genius is always in the minority;) Enjoy Bingo and the lynching;)

Originally posted by miniminch
Ok I'll defend them then since you are all too chicken ****. I don't buy in to this hysteria perpetrated by the media and bought hook, line and sinker by the ignorant masses.

You idiots would rather live next-door to dangerous murderers and psychopaths than paedophiles and rapists.
Haven’t we got this about face?

Grow up don’t be so paranoid.

Also, anyone that would use summery justice is worse than a paedophile in my book. ;) i think you are the one who needs to grow up,defending peados in any shape or form is sick,as for having sex with a fifteen yr old when you were 16 is sometimes part growing up,not a sick twisted pervert who preys on very young children:loopy:

Originally posted by roughy101
i think you are the one who needs to grow up,defending peados in any shape or form is sick,as for having sex with a fifteen yr old when you were 16 is sometimes part growing up,not a sick twisted pervert who preys on very young children:loopy: I’m not defending ‘peados’(sic). I’m defending a human being his/her rights.
Isn’t life too short to be scared by everything we read by second rate ‘journos.’ You seem to speak like a Daily Mail headline.

miniminch strikes again. Yawn! Nothing new there.

No matter who you are - you have sex with someone under the legal age and you are breaking the law. You are subject to being called a paedophile. If you do not want to wear the title - then do not do it.

But who really cares?

Dragon

Originally posted by Dragon
miniminch strikes again. Yawn! Nothing new there.

No matter who you are - you have sex with someone under the legal age and you are breaking the law. You are subject to being called a paedophile. If you do not want to wear the title - then do not do it.

But who really cares?

Dragon The point I was trying to make was that 'title' doen't scare me because I am not subject to the same conditioning as you, by virtue of the fact that I refuse to believe the lies that are pumped out at me.

There are more sheep in the world, that is certain. But some people refuse to follow the herd. I will not follow. And would you really want to make someone out to be a paedophile because of something he did as a 16 yr old, with a consenting peer whom he was totally and hopelessly in utter love with. If so, I feel it quite makes the point that these lynch mobs would be an extremely bad idea. Or perhaps you believe I should be lynched too, for giving in to the woman I loved.

And Dragon if you find me so boring. Why respond like someone has rattled your little cage… ?
;)

If you sleep with a girl under the age of 16, that is illegal.

And yes, I will call you a nonce - I have a very clear cut view on this.

If you want to argue....do you have something to hide, or do you advocate sex with a minor ???

child molesting is obscene and disgusting,depraved etc and they all want f*****g hanging.....by the nads :D

And if I get banned for the above comments....what happened to freedom of speech ?

Originally posted by miniminch
I slept with a 15yr old when I was 16

When was that, earlier this year? ;)

(only joking mini) ;)

A thought crossed my mind recently regarding the little old man savagedly beaten by intruders wielding baseball bats.

Peoples reaction was rightly of horror at this abhorrent crime...

I hestitated sharing my thought then as I expected shooting down over it... BUT

Would the same people who had a rant over that issue have been so vocal IF that had been a paedophile or serial sex offender in the community tracked down and hammered by one of his victims family?

Would the consensus be "he deserved it"?
After all alittle old man is a little old man - right?

As I say, this was just a thought I had and in no way has anything to do with the motives of his attackers.

Surely the question was not about vigilantes Don_Kiddick? Having said that - if such was the case then I stil would not have a sensible comment.

Each case is different. What is raised is a grey area concerning the law and borderline cases. If a person over sixteen has sex with a consenting person close to that age then should they be treated in the same way?

Where do we stop drawing the line? 15? 14? 12? 8?

There have to be laws protecting children, and each time the age of consent may be lowered there will be borderline cases.

The entire topic goes round and round in circles.

Dragon

Good point Dragon, it wasn't about vigilantes but that would be the result of any kind of exposure or divulging of their whereabouts.

Now don't take it that I want their anonymity - I don't - and would probably be the first up with the torch n the pitchfork :thumbsup:

in my opinion if they were not let back into the community we wouldnt have to worry about people taking the law into there own hands,as for minimich if he can condone what these people do he ought to keep his opinions to himself or he may become what he calls a " DAILY MAIL HEADLINE".

Originally posted by miniminch


And Brooksy - I went out with her from 15 to 21 so I am not a mug. She was beautiful. thanx for the name calling,shows your maturity, by the way i note you say you went out with her when she was 15 to 21.

what happened when she reached 21? she get to be to old for you?

MOD: Can we please get back on topic and refrain from name calling and personal messages which would be better done in pm? Thanks.

Originally posted by max
MOD: Can we please get back on topic and refrain from name calling and personal messages which would be better done in pm? Thanks. thanx max, bit late though the name calling was done yesterday evening, but i hope he has grown up a little now

minimimch has called brooksey a CHIMP,depoix a DESPOT<DETOX and CRACKPOT and most of the forumers IDIOTS, at least max has read all the post minimich is lucky he isnt banned:thumbsup:

MOD: I'm not laying blame anywhere I'm just asking, please, that we stay on topic. Thanks.

Originally posted by JoeP
The problem isn't one of registers and such.

It's whether the degree of recidivism for child abuse is greater or less than for other serious crimes. According to a study (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/rsvo-06.asp) 75% of men who've abused 'strangers' have already been convicted - compared to 14% of people who've abused family members. Chronic recidivism in an individual is often associated with childhood abuse and neglect, drink and drug abuse.

The highest recidivism rate for other crimes is a bit above 60% for robbery.

In other words, statistically these people are more likely to re-offend than other criminals, so the common sense approach is to extend the sentences given and only release offenders on license with strict constraints on where they live - hostel accomodation or perhaps even open prisons for a few years after the end of their sentence.

And a single repeat - life imprisonment.

Publicising names and addresses is counter-productive. You need to know WHERE these people are. By ensuring that someone is placed in a relatively child free area, and then posting a general warning in the area, a medium would be achieved. Include regular trips to the local police station and, for example, random surveillance for 48 hours at a time.

If the offender is one of the 25% who don't re-offend then their license can be gradually extended and the surveillance reduced. It would be expensive - I appreciate that - but it might be worth considering.
Joe

Of all the suggestions about how to address and contain the problems involved this does seem to be a sensible strategy. I dont like the idea of people who behave in this vile manner wandering around uncontrolled. After all in its wisdom the Home Office requires "aliens" to register with the police so they can be tracked and monitored so why cant we have a similar and hopefully far more effective system for those people who are clearly incapable of controlling themselves at any cost.

You have to ask yourself is rape/paedophilia worse than murder?
Some will argue yes and some will argue no. I cant comprahend any of the above actions but if your argument is paedophiles should be on a publically available register then why not murderers? muggers? why not for every crime???

We do have something in this country called the offenders rehabilitation act for a reason.

and i slept with a 15 year old girl when i was 16 to. I suppose technically i should be on a register, but whats worse?
A 16 year old lad sleeping with a 15 year old girl, or a 40 year old man sleeping with a 16 year old girl?

Yes they should have anonymity because you can't allow tabloid justice to take hold. Judges and barristers have usually been practising law for decades. They know far more about it than some S*n reader who is slobbering over yet another manipulative, emotive headline and wants an excuse to beat someone up.

Originally posted by Daley
Yes they should have anonymity because you can't allow tabloid justice to take hold. Judges and barristers have usually been practising law for decades. They know far more about it than some S*n reader who is slobbering over yet another manipulative, emotive headline and wants an excuse to beat someone up.

i better not buy the sun today then in case i turn into some kind of avenger and seek out those who do wrong

personally if some one is arrested for a crime the names of the said person should be kept out of the papers until they are found guilty , far too many lives have been ruined by naming a person who is arrested

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dawny1
[B]I would like to know if there were paedophiles living close to me

Dawny1 have you not heard our local pedo has just been let out of jail in the past two weeks and within the two weeks of being out he has broken the restraining order he had taken out on him and is due back in court. Looks like this man will never learn his lesson!
I would name and shame this man but dont think the Mods would agree

Having read the various postings on this thread, one reflects upon how much British society has changed since the late seventies. In 1979, the Paedophile Information Exchange [or 'PIE'] shared a platform with the then Campaign for Homosexual Equality at a conference at the City Hall in Sheffield, on 'alternative sexualities'. The members of 'PIE' were not lovestruck 16 year-olds, but men predominantly in their 40s, who had a sexual interest mainly in very young children.

Nowadays, in the wake of media campaigns [some might say, 'moral panics'] in which lynch mobs attack the offices of Paedetricians, and any furtive-looking, middle-aged man in a soiled macintosh is looked upon with great suspicion, the conference might well be burned to the ground with the delegates inside.

The sexual predation of children can never be tolerated or justified. However, there are degrees of offending. A 16 year old boy [for he is not an adult man in law until the age of 18] ought to know that he is breaking the law by having sexual congress with a fellow teenager of 15. He would most certainly be very wrong to give in to temptation. However, we can surely forgive callow, inexperienced teenagers for making a mistake. There is a world of difference between what Miniminch refers to and the vile antics of the Paedophile rings, in which adult men prey upon the pre-pubescent, toddlers and babies. There is a clear difference between boyfriend/girlfriend under-age experimentation [which I do not condone], and those who rape babies.

Well, obviously, a 40 year old. Because he/she should KNOW BETTER. Don't even get me started on adults (teachers, scout leaders, etc) who abuse their positions of trust and authority. I wouldn't put a 16 year old sleeping with their 15 year old boyfriend or girlfriend in the same category.

I can't speak for England, but in the US, the Megan's Law sites (the one below is for the state of California) tells you the offenders last known address, and what they've been convicted of. And let me tell you, some of the crimes are pretty bad. There are even some women listed, although the bulk of offenders are overwhelmingly male.

http://caag.state.ca.us/megan/

Meghan's law sites are in all 50 states. Sex offenders are automatically required to register and let the authorities know their whereabouts at all times anyway. As you might expect, not all of them do.

The other reason is that compared to other criminals, child molesters have an extremely high rate of recidivism. That, coupled with short prison sentences, particularly for non violent offenders, is a recipe for disaster. After 6 or 8 months, the pervert is free to move somewhere where his neighbors are unaware of his background and start all over again.

There was a child molester living right around the corner from me that NO ONE was aware of and he has since moved away. I'm sure because of the humiliation of his neighbors knowing his background. I don't feel sorry for him, either. He has no one but himself to blame. Even before we knew about him, I thought it was strange the way he would sit on his driveway, in a lawn chair, watching the kids walk to school, and then home again in the afternoon.

And I agree with panda that someone's name should be kept out of the papers until they're found guilty. Although the people on the Megan's Law website have been tried and convicted (quite a few times, for some) newspapers in the US regularly print the names of those arrested for various crimes, unless they're minors.

:) Sierra

and megans law has allowed vigilantes the information to carry out retribution beyond the law. thats why it has not been introduced over here. America's laws are pretty flawed....
i.e. no such thing as innocent until proven guitly over there.

Jesus people.

I've had a quick look through this thread and I'm going to have to back up Miniminch here. There is a whole deal of difference between a 16 year old lad sleeping with a 15 year old girl than someone in their 40's preying on that girl.

Can you say you can tell kids ages nowardays? If I was say 18 I probably wouldn't be able to tell if girl A is 15 or 17.

Yes they should have anonymity. Why? Because we have a justice system where people go to jail, pay their dues and then get a second chance.

It seems as though it is fine for me to come round and murder someone's children and then serve time and come out again and have anonimity but if I went out, got wasted, slept with a 15 year old girl it wouldn't?

This is just another example of mass media hype's effect on people.

It seems people are fine to have Christian morals when they feel like it.

And before I get accused of "supporting the criminal" or a "pedo-apologist" I believe they have the same rights as any other criminal. I do, however, believe that the sentencing and follow up isn't long or thorough enough. That some peadophiles are mentally ill and some will never change their ways.

I'd rather have anonimity then have idiotic idiots going round trying to exact justice on pedistricians :rolleyes:

my point over the 16 year old girl and 40 year old man is that it is morally wrong but legal, but people are saying its wrong for a 16 year old lad to sleep with a 15 year old girl. in myopinion i know what is worse, the legally ok scenario..

Originally posted by liamfh
my point over the 16 year old girl and 40 year old man is that it is morally wrong but legal, but people are saying its wrong for a 16 year old lad to sleep with a 15 year old girl. in myopinion i know what is worse, the legally ok scenario.. i agree to some degree that it is almost impossible to tell girls and boys ages nowadays and yes i agree you a sixteen yr old sleeping with a 15 yr old cannot be classed perverted it is part of growing up,the people who should be named and shamed are the ADULTS who prey on young children for there own depraved satisfaction,i think we should have a sarahs law like the megans law in america and at least parents can safeguard there childrens innocence,someone said is it worse than murder, no for some it must be the same as a parent murder means you lose a child as a child you lose your innocence which can damage that person for the rest of there lives.

Originally posted by liamfh
my point over the 16 year old girl and 40 year old man is that it is morally wrong but legal, but people are saying its wrong for a 16 year old lad to sleep with a 15 year old girl. in myopinion i know what is worse, the legally ok scenario..

I agree. why should it be ok to sleep with a 16 year old girl on here birthday but not the day before? It is silly if you think about it.

I suppose society needs laws and you have to draw a limit somewhere to guard against the extremes.

Originally posted by roughy101
i agree to some degree that it is almost impossible to tell girls and boys ages nowadays and yes i agree you a sixteen yr old sleeping with a 15 yr old cannot be classed perverted it is part of growing up,the people who should be named and shamed are the ADULTS who prey on young children for there own depraved satisfaction,i think we should have a sarahs law like the megans law in america and at least parents can safeguard there childrens innocence,someone said is it worse than murder, no for some it must be the same as a parent murder means you lose a child as a child you lose your innocence which can damage that person for the rest of there lives.

tbh we should have no kind of Megan or Sarah's Law. People should have nothing to do with the implimentation of laws. We elect politicians to act on our behalf not to lamely follow public hysteria.

If it was put to a totally democratic vote then the public would vote for execution or castration for convicted peadophiles.

This is the state of our "civilised" society

Originally posted by liamfh
and megans law has allowed vigilantes the information to carry out retribution beyond the law. thats why it has not been introduced over here. America's laws are pretty flawed....
i.e. no such thing as innocent until proven guitly over there.


You betcha, liam. I don't go anywhere unless I have my loaded GUN. I can shoot straight, effin I don't have to shoot too far. YeeHaw!

Look. We deal with this in what we think is the most humane way possible for everyone. The people listed are CONVICTED HARDCORE CHILD MOLESTERS AND SEX OFFENDERS. Not a kid who slept with his/her underage partner, or a guy who likes to flash. If you go to the site and READ it, about 25% of offenders are allowed to be excluded. However, this doesn't stop them from either just not registering, or moving to another state. No one knows for sure exactly how many sex offenders are unaccounted for.

While I have sympathy for anyone who makes a mistake and is sincerely trying to straighten up and fly right, when you are CONVICTED of ANY crime in the US, it's going to cause you problems for the rest. of. your. life. There ARE consequences for your behavior. Like it or not.

AFAIK, there haven't been any cases of irate people taking the law into their own hands because of Megan's Law. If they did, it would be classified as a Hate Crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Here's something that will REALLY horrify you Brits.

There was the case of Ellie Nesler, of Jamestown, California. A former gold mining camp, not too far from where I live in Modesto. In 1993, Ms. Nesler shot and killed the man who molested her son. Daniel Driver was killed while he was sitting in the Tuolumne County court house. How the hell she got a gun past the court bailiffs, I'll never know. This was BEFORE Megan's Law was in effect.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3732/is_200007/ai_n8891862

If you're wondering what eventually became of her son, he was recently arrested for murder himself. Obviously, this young man has some problems.

http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=27750

Sad, sad situation.

:) Sierra

deleted.....link not working

I think the Catholic Church has got the right idea. They make their child abusers wear distinctive clothes and work in a church so that the local community can keep tabs on them. Doesn't work all the time as they still manage to get in some abuse but it must cut it down.

It would work even better if their bosses didn't keep moving the abusers to different parishes just as the local communitiy was getting to understand them.

Originally posted by robbie
tbh we should have no kind of Megan or Sarah's Law. People should have nothing to do with the implimentation of laws. We elect politicians to act on our behalf not to lamely follow public hysteria.

If it was put to a totally democratic vote then the public would vote for execution or castration for convicted peadophiles.

This is the state of our "civilised" society

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but what would be so wrong with castrating convicted peadophiles? If they are let out of prison, surely they would be less likely to wreck another child's life if they were castrated?

Originally posted by Bloomdido
I think the Catholic Church has got the right idea. They make their child abusers wear distinctive clothes and work in a church so that the local community can keep tabs on them. Doesn't work all the time as they still manage to get in some abuse but it must cut it down.

It would work even better if their bosses didn't keep moving the abusers to different parishes just as the local communitiy was getting to understand them.

It would be even better if the church didn't cover up the crimes of the priests by (as you say) moving them to different parishes. Once relocated in a new area it tends to be business as usual for the kiddie fiddlers.

Q. Should paedophile's have anonymity?

A. Yes, if only to protect people from themselves.

:roll:

Originally posted by Patchy
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but what would be so wrong with castrating convicted peadophiles? If they are let out of prison, surely they would be less likely to wreck another child's life if they were castrated?

I'm not an expert on these things, and generally feel that, as I said above, once you publicise these people in a particular area they will scarper and go to ground somewhere else - effectively disappearing off the map....

Anyway, with regards to castration, hormone treatment was once applied to homosexual men (Alan Turing, the guy who broke the Enigma cipher machine, was a victim of this). It didn't stop these people being homosexual.

Castration, apart form the practicalities, (the Hippocratic Oath says that a doctor should never purposefully do harm....we'd be asking medics to go down to the level of the doctors in the Middle East who remove hands from thieves) might not work at all. What do you do to the tiny number of female paedophiles?

Paedophillia is a heinous crime, and requires suitable punishment and means of preventing re-offense. That's what jails are for. Again, we have tools to punish but as society we've diluted them to the point of uselessness. By taking what we currently have in place and using the punishments effectively I think the problem could be effectively addresses.

I think there's quite a lot of well meaning people who get prevention, punishment and vicarious revenge mixed up in their heads. The media doesn't help, the legal system needs to address the problem but bottom line is that if you want to presevent these people doing harm, especially with the recidivism rate, then you either leave them inside or establish a system of tracking and surveillance that allows proper prevention of future crimes.

Once you start publicising details, talking about castration, beating them up or killing them you're not talking about justice anymore but lynch law. By denying anonymity you're not talking about prevention - you're acting in the same way as a Bishop who moves a priest to another parish - you're hoping to drive the suspect away and make him someone else's problem.

Joe

Originally posted by robbie
Jesus people.

I've had a quick look through this thread and I'm going to have to back up Miniminch here. There is a whole deal of difference between a 16 year old lad sleeping with a 15 year old girl than someone in their 40's preying on that girl.


Like Robbie, I'm going to post to give Mini some support here.

It is plain ludicrous to say that a 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is in any way comparable to, say, a middle-aged man kidnapping a child, or abusing his position of authority over that child.

ok, in a perfect world, a young couple would wait until the girl was 16, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and these things happen. For a 16/17 lad to be sleeping with a slightly younger girlfriend is effectively normal behaviour for teenagers - it's not right, but it's relatively common out there in the real world.

I'm not advocating it in any way, just not closing my eyes to what goes on.

On the other hand -

For an older adult to abuse a child/teenager is just beyond sickening, and quite rightly utterly revolts all civilised people. Whatever a person's history, it's an unforgiveable thing to do, and personally I would lock them up and throw away the key. There are some behaviours that are inexcusable, and such people don't belong living with 'normal' people.

To try to equate such people with normal teenagers is, frankly, barking.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Like Robbie, I'm going to post to give Mini some support here.

It is plain ludicrous to say that a 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is in any way comparable to, say, a middle-aged man kidnapping a child, or abusing his position of authority over that child.

ok, in a perfect world, a young couple would wait until the girl was 16, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and these things happen. For a 16/17 lad to be sleeping with a slightly younger girlfriend is effectively normal behaviour for teenagers - it's not right, but it's relatively common out there in the real world.

I'm not advocating it in any way, just not closing my eyes to what goes on.

On the other hand -

For an older adult to abuse a child/teenager is just beyond sickening, and quite rightly utterly revolts all civilised people. Whatever a person's history, it's an unforgiveable thing to do, and personally I would lock them up and throw away the key. There are some behaviours that are inexcusable, and such people don't belong living with 'normal' people.

To try to equate such people with normal teenagers is, frankly, barking.

StarSparkle i can see your point regarding the older man,the law was made to protect youngsters from gits like that,suppose he used her then coerced her into working for him etc, but theres the std,young pregnancies etc to concider,plus even if they were both serious about each other it would be just an ego trip for the man,where could he go to socialise with her,the only reason i gave mini the run around was his attitude and name calling.....havent seen much of him lately, i have three daughters so i know im over protective towards this sort of thing but i stand by what i posted, peodos have no rights to be any where near kids

JoeP, you have hit the nail on the head.

And used the word heinous.

What a guy.

Originally posted by JoeP

Once you start publicising details, talking about castration, beating them up or killing them you're not talking about justice anymore but lynch law. By denying anonymity you're not talking about prevention - you're acting in the same way as a Bishop who moves a priest to another parish - you're hoping to drive the suspect away and make him someone else's problem.

Joe

I agree with you that it would be bad if details and addresses etc were made public as when someone is released they have supposedly paid for their crime and people shouldn't take the law into their own hands.

I think if castration would make them less likely to reoffend then it should be considered as an option... but not by "the lynch mob". Castration isn't as harsh as cutting off a thief's hands, as it shouldn't stop the culprit from living a fairly normal life... ie working etc.

Note: the list is sex offenders.

Many of those listed seem to be young males found guilty of statutory rape, which could include sleeping with their equally under age girlfriend. Not many of them state sex with a minor therefore the definition of paedophile may be a little exaggerated.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with these disgusting individuals if this is the charge they are guilty of, but many sons and daughters of our fair city could be charged with statutory rape if the parents chose to press charges. Seeing as there are hundreds kids under age participating in duvet olympics all over Sheffield