child sex offenders database. [Archive]

Nickademus

16th October 2001, 13:33

its absolutely ridiculous.
this is a whole battle about the rights of the offender vs. ther ights of society. i personally feel that the sex-offenders should be given a chance to live their life because it is often the discrimination in society that leads them back to criminal behaviour. Having said that, there is a lot more that the judiical system could be doing to actual help these offenders. i'm in a rush so if anyone wants clarification on these points i'll expand later.

CPK

16th October 2001, 15:47

it's sickening. that's it.
from evidence offenders don't usually stop.
they keep on repeating their acts until they get thrown in the slammer for life.

Nickademus

16th October 2001, 16:25

Quote: from CPK on 4:47 pm on Oct. 16, 2001
it's sickening. that's it.
from evidence offenders don't usually stop.
they keep on repeating their acts until they get thrown in the slammer for life.

that's because the system doesn't rehabilitate them. this should be the focus. throwing them in jail is not goign to help them

CPK

16th October 2001, 16:30

ok...how can you rehabilitate a sex offender?

rebel7609

17th October 2001, 01:18

You CAN'T. That's why there should be a database telling everyone about these people. They should put a neon sign above the filthy criminal's house that says ""Piece of Filth Child Molester Lives Here- Keep Away!" They should have to wear clothing or something that identifies them on sight as child molesters.

RedCeltic

17th October 2001, 02:59

hmmm yes and while your at it a scarlet letter for an adulteress, a pink triange for queers, a yellow star for jews... oh ... doesn't this sound like...uh... NATZI GERMANY?!

Come on... the reason it doesn't work is because they don't want to spend the money required to fully rehibilatate anyone... so simply marking them is cheeper.

rebel7609

17th October 2001, 03:14

RC, you are comparing gays to child molesters?
And last time I checked, adultery wasn't against the law. Sounds like you are arguing for the right to privacy for child molesters. If you are so sure that they should have these rights, should we let YOUR daughter or sister or cousin be left unsupervised with such a sex crime offender? Because I sure won't let them near mine.

RedCeltic

17th October 2001, 04:04

Rebel, I was making an exagerated point... I don't mean to compare sex offenders to gays... which would eather mean that I think sex offenders have a right to have sex with childeren, or that gays don't have a right to have sex with other consendting adults... That wasn't my point...

I agree that it is a dispicable act which is conducted upon childeren... and offenders should be punnished by all means. However, once one pays their debt to society they should be given the right to rehibilitation, and to re enter society and show they can become a productive member.

Marking these people I feal is a violation of their rights. It seems all to easy to give up on rehibilitation and say, " well there's no hope... they can't be rehibilitated... so stick a big neon sign on their front door saying ' PERVERT' ".

very

17th October 2001, 04:07

It wouldn't feel right posting a big sign in front of a ex-con's house, as it would lead to more discrimination. People would start raising hell about his house and discriminating against him because of his past. If we are going to rag on the past, then this site should just be filled with complaints about various follied "communists" who took advantage of their new position.

This idea sounds similar to a proposed plan that would force a "D" symbol that convicted Drunk drivers were going to be asked to display in the back window of their cars in Vancouver about a year back.

A system of rehabilitation instead of a system of slap on the wrist (as is the case in Canada) would be better, if there are no signs of rehabilitation, it (rehab) will continue until rehabilitation is complete.

Nickademus

17th October 2001, 05:08

Quote: from CPK on 5:30 pm on Oct. 16, 2001
ok...how can you rehabilitate a sex offender?

i personally dont' know and i don't know if anyone knows because that hasn't been the focus of our criminal system. in order to do that we have to study these people not throw them in jail

Chancho

17th October 2001, 08:49

Rehabilitation should be the number 1 goal of any so-called 'justice' system.

Having said that, I am not convinced that those who are capable of sexually assaulting a child should not also be watched every moment of every day.

It is a question of balancing rights and when you put the civil liberties of the sex offender up against the rights of children - there is no competition. No freedoms are absolute.

Our first duty should be to protect children.

(Edited by Chancho at 11:12 am on Oct. 18, 2001)

Drifter

17th October 2001, 11:45

se, my views are that this sort of thing sounds great at first,
so we all get used to these buggers being tracked every minute of the day, fine.
so hell, why not attatch it to murderers, it will have to be mandatory, regardless of the facts of the trial but what the hell.
we get used to that too, hey why not have all criminals tracked? better yet! everyone in the country tracked, if your not a criminal why should you have a problem with it?
NO
no databases,
will this be an effective deterent?, probably not,
and what if it is shown that it is ineffective, scrap it?
will that happen? i'd be suprised to see that happen.
no freedoms are absolute, hell, why have any freedom at all.
this won't protect the children any more that imposing a mandatory sentence of execution would.

ViktorPravda

17th October 2001, 14:42

The problem with labeling these people for life is a little thing called wrongful conviction. It happens more often than people seem to realize. There is also the problem of mitigating circumstances. Believe it or not, these exist in every situation. I don't believe that it is right to allow an open database for all the world to see. It is the duty of the law enforcement people in the area to keep track of these people. Not track them, keep track of them. If you have a known offender in the area, someone rapes a child, you go to the offenders house and question him. If there is a database then he will be assumed guilty by the public before the guys ever gets questioned. Another possibility of a problem exists in that if there is a known child sex offender in the area and a horny sixteen year old (or anyone else, just making a point) in this area has that info then it would be to his advantage. The locals would assume the known offender guilty and in the meantime the actual rapist gets off scot free. Too many flaws in the logic. I have to disagree with the database.

CPK

17th October 2001, 15:57

i remember a couple years ago.
a child molester was released from prison.
the newspaper revealed his name and address.
to prevent further crimes.
was this right?

CommieBastard

17th October 2001, 16:44

I dont know where you're from CPK, but in the UK the child sex offenders that are released from prison are placed in special housing where they are under good police surveillance to ensure no further crimes.
When a newspaper in the UK recently started publishing a long list of sex offenders, mobs started going round hunting them. All this did was make the sex offenders run away, out of the police surveillance, where they were a greater risk.
Not to mention such acts also lead to the mobs doing such stupid acts as bricking the windows of a Pediatrician's house, mistaking it with the word Paedophile.

rebel7609

17th October 2001, 16:55

> If there is a database then he will be assumed guilty by the public

If he molests a child and is in the database the he IS guilty.
CB- Yay for the mobs in your town. I wish I had a medal for them. Sex offenders SHOULD be constastly tracked. They gave up their rights to a normal life when they decided to start attacking children. They are sick, disgusting people. If I found out one moved into my neighborhood, I would fight tooth and nail to get him out. So those of you who support the rights of the child molesters had better not move by me. Although the pediatrician thing...... you can't be serious. A person, literate or not, isn't going to see a pediatrician office and think it says pedophile.

CommieBastard

17th October 2001, 17:06

you cannot conclusively prove someones guilt, you cannot necesarily say that someone definately molested a child.

as for the comment about the mobs, you are blatantly someone who doesnt think very much... dont you see? by driving them out, you create GREATER risk of reoffense...
and yes, i am serious about the pediatrician, i am sorry to say this, but you cannot possibly support mobs, they are an inherently stupid thing.
You cannot excuse such action, because there is too great a risk of 'collateral' damage.
Might i also point out that they were publishing a list of people that the police holds, which is those with offences AND those suspected of having commited offences, AND those who are in contact with those who have commited offences.
justifiable? i think not...

RedCeltic

17th October 2001, 17:30

Quote: from rebel7609 on 11:55 am on Oct. 17, 2001
> If there is a database then he will be assumed guilty by the public

If he molests a child and is in the database the he IS guilty.
CB- Yay for the mobs in your town. I wish I had a medal for them. Sex offenders SHOULD be constastly tracked. They gave up their rights to a normal life when they decided to start attacking children. They are sick, disgusting people. If I found out one moved into my neighborhood, I would fight tooth and nail to get him out. So those of you who support the rights of the child molesters had better not move by me. Although the pediatrician thing...... you can't be serious. A person, literate or not, isn't going to see a pediatrician office and think it says pedophile.

There's just nothing more for me to say on this... as I can't have a normal conversation with someone who would talk like this.

Moskitto

17th October 2001, 18:43

What Commie Bastard said about the News of the World is True.

After a 8 year old girl was murdered (by someone who I don't think was on the sex offenders register anyway) The Newspaper started saying it wasn't going to happen again and began publishing pictures and addresses of Sex Offenders.

First of all one man had a mob outside his house throwing rocks at him whenever he left and calling him paedophile because he looked like one of the photos.

Annother man was confused with a sex offender because he wore a next brace.

Thousands of real sex offenders left the country

In Paulsgrove in Portsmouth a violent mob began attacking everyone. and waving signs saying "Get out or Get in" with a coffin on them.
- A marriage was broken up because they accused the husband of being a paedophile because he was convicted of a non-sexual offence when he was 15.
- A 17 year old was accused of being a Paedophile for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend (which although illegal isn't paedophillia.)
- A Car was firebombed
- Petrol was poured through a letter box and burnt down a house

On man hung himself.

Then there were the really stupid people who made the Paediatrician go into hiding because they thought "Paed" meant someone who has sex with children rather than something to do with children.

Then there was a case in Norfolk where a house had bangers shoved through the door because 13 years ago a paedophile was convicted and the local newspaper published his address.

Rebel - you cannot be serious about praising these people. They didn't attack the right people, and actually endangered children because of the numbers going into hiding. And they endangered the general public.

A sex offenders database is a good idea but it should only be used by people like scout masters, sports coaches and other jobs involving children who should be able to use the database to check if a prospective employee is a sex offender or not, Otherwise we will just get vigilanteism.

(Edited by Moskitto at 7:55 pm on Oct. 17, 2001)

rebel7609

17th October 2001, 19:24

About the pediatrician and the neck brace thing- obviously I don't praise that. Attacking people due to mistaken identity. I said that I support tracking down the offenders. I will never support the rights of child moleters or ANY sex crime offenders. You will never sway me. I will never sway you.
RC- It bothers me that it doesn't bother you to have people like this in public so I guess we're even.

one girl revolution

17th October 2001, 20:18

I find it very intriguing that some people here argue for the rights of the molester over the rights of the innocent child. If the molester was convicted and jailed for the crime, then I see no reason that his name should not be registered where people can find out if there is a molester living in the same neighborhood as their children.

I was watching a program the other night about a local Super-Max prison. One of the inmates interviewed was a molester. He said that there is "no such thing as a rehabilitation program. You either want to change or you don't. And even then, sometimes we just can't control ourselves."

So if a molester himself is saying that, how then do you propose that these monsters be rehabilitated and sent out into the world again? Personally, I don't think they should ever be free again.

As far as the person (I can't remember who, I'm sorry) who said that these people shouldn't be jailed, they should be studied... that doesn't make much sense to me. They committed a crime. A hateful, awful, despicable crime, and should be jailed. Study them in jail if you want to try and figure out what went on in their warped mind. I don't believe for one minute (at least I hope this is the case) that you really believe monsters like that should not be in jail.

Moskitto

17th October 2001, 20:31

Ok so are you suggesting that big mobs should stand outside innocent peoples houses throwing bricks at them?

Are you suggesting that real paedophiles should go into hiding because a big angry mob knows where they are and endanger other children?

People who support a publicly accessable database should look at what happens when the media likes to twist public opinion to do stupid things.

Ever heard the saying "Never underestimate the danger of very stupid people acting in large groups"?

RedCeltic

17th October 2001, 20:50

Rebel, Just because I think it's a violation of the ex convicts rights to have public access on a database to their names and location, doesn't mean that I'm not upset at their existance in the community.

To me... it's like this... I think society should be able to protect childeren from potental repeat offenders by all means. However, public access to databases is in a sence giving punnishment without a trial. Just because the greater percentage of people who commit these crimes do it again, doesn't mean that they should have unjustly amounted punnishment, and make their lives miserable.

But then... it someone truly can't be rehibilitated... how can they be placed into society willy nilly? Certenly a limited form of control needs to be implemented.

vox

17th October 2001, 21:18

If these people are such a risk, so much so that a public database is formed that induces vigilanteism, then the question becomes why are they free in the first place, right?

After all, by creating a public database the State is saying that these people are dangerous, watch out for them.

That doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

vox

Drifter

18th October 2001, 09:10

WAIT!
oh my god, i've just had a brainwave after reading something on the middle ages,
this is so simple, and way better than any database, yeas, why don't we just ttake a red hot iron in the shape of an S and brand their face?
cheap, simple and they'll be dead within two minutes of setting foot out doors.
not bad hey?

Chancho

18th October 2001, 10:11

CB - the question of proof will vary with every case.

I think the intention of the Aus database is for the police to have access only (of course this will be violated sooner or later) and to ensure that such people don't work with children - paedophiles commonly get themselves involved in groups and occupations involving children.

There must be psychological help for offenders and any civilised society that wants to increase a restriction on someone's freedoms must have sound ethical justification. I think that convicted paedophiles meet the criteria for increased restrictions on freedom. As vox so eloquently stated, doing that via a database is a fundamentally flawed policy.

Mob violence is wrong and unjustifiable. But that is a side issue here.

The main issue is one of balancing rights. To protect an offender's rights absolutely may be to endanger children. To protect a child's rights absolutely may be to unduly impinge on the offender's rights. Let us have sound ethical reasoning and common sense. To defend civil liberties ad infinitum is not reasonable and gives no attention whatsoever to the rights of children (and parents seeking to protect).

When I say no freedoms are absolute, that is a statement of reality. Think of each 'freedom' you believe you have in your society and then think about the limits placed upon such freedoms. Restrictions are all over the place - some are perfectly reasonable - some are unjustifiable infringements. But there can be no doubt that there must be limits in order for society to function. Again, in my opinion, it is ethically justifiable to restrict the freedoms of convicted paedophiles - how you do that ethically is another question.

At the age of 12 I had my own personal encounter with an offender - one who had left another school after being sacked for sex offences that were not able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He then came to my school - no questions asked. He is still there today for lack of evidence.

(Edited by Chancho at 11:23 am on Oct. 18, 2001)

Nickademus

18th October 2001, 14:19

Quote: from one girl revolution on 9:18 pm on Oct. 17, 2001
I find it very intriguing that some people here argue for the rights of the molester over the rights of the innocent child. If the molester was convicted and jailed for the crime, then I see no reason that his name should not be registered where people can find out if there is a molester living in the same neighborhood as their children.

I was watching a program the other night about a local Super-Max prison. One of the inmates interviewed was a molester. He said that there is "no such thing as a rehabilitation program. You either want to change or you don't. And even then, sometimes we just can't control ourselves."

So if a molester himself is saying that, how then do you propose that these monsters be rehabilitated and sent out into the world again? Personally, I don't think they should ever be free again.

As far as the person (I can't remember who, I'm sorry) who said that these people shouldn't be jailed, they should be studied... that doesn't make much sense to me. They committed a crime. A hateful, awful, despicable crime, and should be jailed. Study them in jail if you want to try and figure out what went on in their warped mind. I don't believe for one minute (at least I hope this is the case) that you really believe monsters like that should not be in jail.

first of all that statment about rehabiltation is ONE prisoner. there are some out there who are really remorseful and want to change and they try very hard to stop themselves. does this mean they should bebranded for life and their attempts destroyed because people won't give him/her a second chance

second it was me that said they should be studied. i didn't say they shouldn't go to jail. they need to be punished somehow but we can't stop them from becoming recidivists if we don't understand them

third. the def'n of sex offender various. in canada an 18year old that sleeps with a 16 year old (even if there is consent) is a rapist. similarly a 21 year old gay man who sleeps with a 17 year old gay man is also a sex offender (this is relatively normal in the GLBT community for reasons i won't go into). these people are not dangerous to society and yet they will be branded for life.

there has to be a better way out there to help these people.

Nickademus

18th October 2001, 14:20

Quote: from Chancho on 11:11 am on Oct. 18, 2001
CB - the question of proof will vary with every case.

I think the intention of the Aus database is for the police to have access only (of course this will be violated sooner or later) and to ensure that such people don't work with children - paedophiles commonly get themselves involved in groups and occupations involving children.

There must be psychological help for offenders and any civilised society that wants to increase a restriction on someone's freedoms must have sound ethical justification. I think that convicted paedophiles meet the criteria for increased restrictions on freedom. As vox so eloquently stated, doing that via a database is a fundamentally flawed policy.

Mob violence is wrong and unjustifiable. But that is a side issue here.

The main issue is one of balancing rights. To protect an offender's rights absolutely may be to endanger children. To protect a child's rights absolutely may be to unduly impinge on the offender's rights. Let us have sound ethical reasoning and common sense. To defend civil liberties ad infinitum is not reasonable and gives no attention whatsoever to the rights of children (and parents seeking to protect).

When I say no freedoms are absolute, that is a statement of reality. Think of each 'freedom' you believe you have in your society and then think about the limits placed upon such freedoms. Restrictions are all over the place - some are perfectly reasonable - some are unjustifiable infringements. But there can be no doubt that there must be limits in order for society to function. Again, in my opinion, it is ethically justifiable to restrict the freedoms of convicted paedophiles - how you do that ethically is another question.

At the age of 12 I had my own personal encounter with an offender - one who had left another school after being sacked for sex offences that were not able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He then came to my school - no questions asked. He is still there today for lack of evidence.

(Edited by Chancho at 11:23 am on Oct. 18, 2001)

chanco you really sound like a lawyer :) am i going to be that way in my last year of law school as well? :)

CPK

18th October 2001, 15:41

Quote: from CommieBastard on 6:06 pm on Oct. 17, 2001
you cannot conclusively prove someones guilt, you cannot necesarily say that someone definately molested a child.

so you mean that everyone is not guilty?
(witnesses, logical evidence, cameras, etc. etc.)

CPK

18th October 2001, 15:44

CommieBastard

18th October 2001, 16:35

You can NEVER conclusively prove someone's guilt. But that is beside the point, many people are convicted of such things without even reasonable evidence. Not to mention that merely being involved in a case, whether it be proven you are innocent or not, will get you attacked when the mobs are out.
Take rape, for example, Craig Charles was accused of rape a while ago, proved his innocence, and ever since he has been reduced to doing "Robot Wars"...
(Craig Charles is a UK actor, who played Lister in the infamous Red Dwarf)

RedCeltic

18th October 2001, 16:45

Red Dwarf? I used to watch the reruns of that on PBS... friday nights are Brit-com nights on WLIW (Long Island NY's PBS station)... I'm not a big fan of tv, but enjoy brit-coms.

Is that what ended the show?

CommieBastard

18th October 2001, 17:22

lord no, what ended the show was in series *thinks* 7 i think when they started to pander to what they thought an american audience would want, and they shitted it all up :(

RedCeltic

18th October 2001, 17:31

Oh I see... and to think the whole apeal of British Comedy on PBS is that it's NOT American TV.
And as I recall it did start to get quite lame. I think they still play it on PBS... however I hardy have time to catch much tv (as I'm always on Che-Lives).

Sorry for breaking away from the subject...

(Edited by RedCeltic at 12:34 pm on Oct. 18, 2001)

CommieBastard

18th October 2001, 17:42

also, when they started to get a bigger budget, they quit on comedy and storyline and went for stupid and pointless SFX...

altho the first episode in the shite series wasnt bad, thats the JFK assassination one...
all the ones after that SUCKED tho

(Edited by CommieBastard at 6:44 pm on Oct. 18, 2001)

very

19th October 2001, 02:02

I haven't seen that show for ages! Last time I remember watching it was when I was 13. I don't remember the American series though... Any fillers?

Speaking of Britcoms... Anyone ever remember Absolutely Fabulous?

RedCeltic

19th October 2001, 02:37

Uh oh... I think we're getting way off topic...

But I can't resist... yea I remeber that show too... I actually had a girlfriend like the daughter... more mature than her mum.

Blue mars

19th October 2001, 17:06

Why merely child sex offenders, Why not all sex offenders or all criminals? or perhaps even no one. This is unjustly targeting one group of people, is one sex crime worse than another? Or is this simple "think of the children". No one would say harming a child was good, by neither is harming any person in anyway. This picks on one group of people. Unfairly.

In society , all people should be allowed to live freely in it and not fear for there safety, even people who are disliked for what they are, once may have been. There are not in prison, don't treat them like prisoners. Victimising people does nothing to help them and merely increases the problem. When you are hiding from blood thirsty mobs, it is a lot harder to try and live a better life.

This is one of societys last major taboos. People often kneejerk and scream for child abusers and such to be killed. Rather than addressing the problem of why people act that way in the first place.

As for rehabilitation, We seem to live in a society where punishment is favored over helping people.

RedCeltic

19th October 2001, 17:33

Well said Blue Mars!

Anonymous

19th October 2001, 18:24

i kind of agree with our friend oxigen mars, however i didnt read the 4 page thread...
but i do think some control of these guys is needed by the cops and not mobs if there is any risk that they may do it again. I case of doubt they sould the monitored just the same. But please, no mobs, no public hangings, no death penalty, no demonstrations outside there house, this doesnt help.

ooh and i love brit-coms, mr.bean r0x0s y00r b0x0rs!

gooddoctor

19th October 2001, 20:38

keep an eye on the dirty buggers if you ask me. you've got to keep track of these perves, you can't just let them roam about free as if they're normal like us. i don't know about making the database public, but people should definitely be told if a peadophile is living in their neighbourhood, i'd sure want to know. try and rehabilitate them by all means, but repeat offenders shouldn't see the light of day ever again.

Chancho

22nd October 2001, 23:48

Quote: from Nickademus on 3:20 pm on Oct. 18, 2001
[quote]
chanco you really sound like a lawyer :) am i going to be that way in my last year of law school as well? :)

lol Nickademus :)

I take your comment as a compliment - even though many wouldn't see it that way ;)

The creeping incremental change in thinking and articulating that happens in Law School feels really bizarre sometimes. I don't walk down the street anymore and think eg 'Oh, look at that hole in the ground, that looks dangerous' - it's become 'The local council is in breach of their duty of care here, that is an action for negligence waiting to happen!'

If you love logic, reason and ethics (which you certainly seem to), Law sharpens and defines those qualities. Have you done any moot court?

(Edited by Chancho at 12:51 am on Oct. 23, 2001)

Nickademus

23rd October 2001, 07:05

Quote: from Chancho on 12:48 am on Oct. 23, 2001

Quote: from Nickademus on 3:20 pm on Oct. 18, 2001
[quote]
chanco you really sound like a lawyer :) am i going to be that way in my last year of law school as well? :)

lol Nickademus :)

I take your comment as a compliment - even though many wouldn't see it that way ;)

The creeping incremental change in thinking and articulating that happens in Law School feels really bizarre sometimes. I don't walk down the street anymore and think eg 'Oh, look at that hole in the ground, that looks dangerous' - it's become 'The local council is in breach of their duty of care here, that is an action for negligence waiting to happen!'

If you love logic, reason and ethics (which you certainly seem to), Law sharpens and defines those qualities. Have you done any moot court?

(Edited by Chancho at 12:51 am on Oct. 23, 2001)

actually i already think about liability in almost everything. its pathetic

and no i haven't done any moots this year because i'm working at the schools legal clinic. i think one of my clients will be going to small claims court very soon though. yeah i may get my first day in court before i'm even articling.

Drifter

23rd October 2001, 12:06

One of my most favourite quotes:

'The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers.'
William Shakespear 1564-1616:
Henry VI, Part 2 (1592)

especially when you consider the fact that it was written almost four hundred years ago.

Nickademus

23rd October 2001, 14:35

Quote: from Drifter on 1:06 pm on Oct. 23, 2001
One of my most favourite quotes:

'The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers.'
William Shakespear 1564-1616:
Henry VI, Part 2 (1592)

especially when you consider the fact that it was written almost four hundred years ago.

:P
yeah you won't be saying that when you need one ofus

Chancho

23rd October 2001, 23:37

Hey Nickademus, that legal clinic sounds excellent. How exciting to have a client already! When I did my first moot, I stopped feeling like an imposter and realised I could actually become a lawyer - it was very confronting but fantastic.

It never ceases to amaze me - the hatred for lawyers not being balanced out by an appreciation for those who truly do try to uphold social justice, ensure due process and protect civil and human rights. Ah well, I should probably keep well away from that topic on this bb! ;)