Sex offenders and paedophiles have human rights now!
Discussion
Apparently its a Supreme court ruling and the government have no choice,what about the victims rights, of course the government have a choice.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979
Baryonyx said:
If anything, sex offenders are given too much of the 'softly softly' treatment, we should be looking at further sanctions against them, not letting them flout the law in this fashion.
why is it flouting the law if they have, i presume, already been punished with a jail sentence etc?petemurphy said:
Baryonyx said:
If anything, sex offenders are given too much of the 'softly softly' treatment, we should be looking at further sanctions against them, not letting them flout the law in this fashion.
why is it flouting the law if they have, i presume, already been punished with a jail sentence etc?s1962a said:
I thought being on the register was a part of their punishment? How else would a school (for example) know that a teacher they are thinking of hiring isn't a convicted child sex offender? Maybe i've misunderstood how the official checks are done.
I believe a school would still know as a extended crb check would tell u about all crimes and lasts forever no matter what the sex offenders list says.yes it probably is part of the punishment but should be taken as so - ie should the punishment be for life?
I always thought they had - once they had served whatever sentence that had been served upon them. That has been a fundamental tenet of English Law for almost 1,000 years.
Once a person convicted of a crime has served their sentence, when they are released from custodial sentence they once again become "free", entitled to the basic human rights of someone who has never been to jail.
Once a person convicted of a crime has served their sentence, when they are released from custodial sentence they once again become "free", entitled to the basic human rights of someone who has never been to jail.
Eric Mc said:
I always thought they had - once they had served whatever sentence that had been served upon them. That has been a fundamental tenet of English Law for almost 1,000 years.
Once a person convicted of a crime has served their sentence, when they are released from custodial sentence they once again become "free", entitled to the basic human rights of someone who has never been to jail.
Exactly, there seems to be a lack of decision about whether people such as paedophiles are mad or bad. If they are mad then they should be treated, at a high security hospital if necessary for as long as it takes to "cure" them. If they are bad, then they should serve whatever jail term is decided and then be released to carry on with their lives as would any other prisoner.Once a person convicted of a crime has served their sentence, when they are released from custodial sentence they once again become "free", entitled to the basic human rights of someone who has never been to jail.
I don't know the answer but it seems we are getting the worst of both worlds at the moment.
petemurphy said:
try looking past the daily mail
Why? it has been decided that because our laws contravene europeon human rights laws, our system is to be changed, and any rapist, pediophile or sexual offender who has had a sentence of more than 30 months can now mount an appeal to be removed from the sexual offenders register.As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
Offenders for certain types of sexual offence do not change. They can't. It's not like a kid who takes cars and then works at a garage and finds an outlet there. For some types of sex offender the only outlet is an act that is against the law. You can't cure them, only control them.
The limit of 30 months imprisonment is not a sensible watershed. What should govern how long a person is on the register is whether they need to be controlled for the rest of their lives. Using it as a punishment is pointless. Too many on it and it lessens the impact. There are already those who have committed certain sexual offences, have not got 30 months, yet are a risk and should remain on the list for their lives.
Some of these offenders have what was known in my force as a 'wancorium'. I've only ever seen photos of one and believe me, one is more than enough. These are the ones who should remain on the register and be limited as to what they can and can't do for the rest of their lives.
How and where you draw the line is a very difficult decision. It's one that, by making it 30 months, shows a lack of real thought and application by the legislators.
Scotland's approach is more sensible but even that shows a lack of personalisation. It would be good to get those off the register who are unlikely to reoffend and then concentrate the police's limited resources on those we, the police, the courts, the victims, the offender and their briefs all know will offend again as soon as they get the chance.
The limit of 30 months imprisonment is not a sensible watershed. What should govern how long a person is on the register is whether they need to be controlled for the rest of their lives. Using it as a punishment is pointless. Too many on it and it lessens the impact. There are already those who have committed certain sexual offences, have not got 30 months, yet are a risk and should remain on the list for their lives.
Some of these offenders have what was known in my force as a 'wancorium'. I've only ever seen photos of one and believe me, one is more than enough. These are the ones who should remain on the register and be limited as to what they can and can't do for the rest of their lives.
How and where you draw the line is a very difficult decision. It's one that, by making it 30 months, shows a lack of real thought and application by the legislators.
Scotland's approach is more sensible but even that shows a lack of personalisation. It would be good to get those off the register who are unlikely to reoffend and then concentrate the police's limited resources on those we, the police, the courts, the victims, the offender and their briefs all know will offend again as soon as they get the chance.
Derek Smith said:
How and where you draw the line is a very difficult decision. It's one that, by making it 30 months, shows a lack of real thought and application by the legislators.
The example being quoted on the radio this morning, was teenagers who have downloaded imiges of people of their own age, and ended up on the register Adrian W said:
Why? it has been decided that because our laws contravene europeon human rights laws, our system is to be changed, and any rapist, pediophile or sexual offender who has had a sentence of more than 30 months can now mount an appeal to be removed from the sexual offenders register.
As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
its your daily mail hysteria re paedos i object to - i agree with europe on this one in that if you look past all paedos should be shot, then in our society why are we giving out life terms?As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
Derek Smith said:
Offenders for certain types of sexual offence do not change. They can't. It's not like a kid who takes cars and then works at a garage and finds an outlet there. For some types of sex offender the only outlet is an act that is against the law. You can't cure them, only control them.
The limit of 30 months imprisonment is not a sensible watershed. What should govern how long a person is on the register is whether they need to be controlled for the rest of their lives. Using it as a punishment is pointless. Too many on it and it lessens the impact. There are already those who have committed certain sexual offences, have not got 30 months, yet are a risk and should remain on the list for their lives.
Some of these offenders have what was known in my force as a 'wancorium'. I've only ever seen photos of one and believe me, one is more than enough. These are the ones who should remain on the register and be limited as to what they can and can't do for the rest of their lives.
How and where you draw the line is a very difficult decision. It's one that, by making it 30 months, shows a lack of real thought and application by the legislators.
Scotland's approach is more sensible but even that shows a lack of personalisation. It would be good to get those off the register who are unlikely to reoffend and then concentrate the police's limited resources on those we, the police, the courts, the victims, the offender and their briefs all know will offend again as soon as they get the chance.
how does being on some list control them? if they are as bad as you say then they should not be let out at all?The limit of 30 months imprisonment is not a sensible watershed. What should govern how long a person is on the register is whether they need to be controlled for the rest of their lives. Using it as a punishment is pointless. Too many on it and it lessens the impact. There are already those who have committed certain sexual offences, have not got 30 months, yet are a risk and should remain on the list for their lives.
Some of these offenders have what was known in my force as a 'wancorium'. I've only ever seen photos of one and believe me, one is more than enough. These are the ones who should remain on the register and be limited as to what they can and can't do for the rest of their lives.
How and where you draw the line is a very difficult decision. It's one that, by making it 30 months, shows a lack of real thought and application by the legislators.
Scotland's approach is more sensible but even that shows a lack of personalisation. It would be good to get those off the register who are unlikely to reoffend and then concentrate the police's limited resources on those we, the police, the courts, the victims, the offender and their briefs all know will offend again as soon as they get the chance.
petemurphy said:
Adrian W said:
Why? it has been decided that because our laws contravene europeon human rights laws, our system is to be changed, and any rapist, pediophile or sexual offender who has had a sentence of more than 30 months can now mount an appeal to be removed from the sexual offenders register.
As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
its your daily mail hysteria re paedos i object to - i agree with europe on this one in that if you look past all paedos should be shot, then in our society why are we giving out life terms?As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
I still feel that they are our laws not the EU’s and we should be the ones maintaining and enforcing them.
Adrian W said:
petemurphy said:
Adrian W said:
Why? it has been decided that because our laws contravene europeon human rights laws, our system is to be changed, and any rapist, pediophile or sexual offender who has had a sentence of more than 30 months can now mount an appeal to be removed from the sexual offenders register.
As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
its your daily mail hysteria re paedos i object to - i agree with europe on this one in that if you look past all paedos should be shot, then in our society why are we giving out life terms?As it’s the lead in the times and all the current radio news bulletins, where does the daily mail come into it?
I still feel that they are our laws not the EU’s and we should be the ones maintaining and enforcing them.
Adrian W said:
Thankfully nothing has happened to me or anyone close to me, I hope that if you or someone close to you ever becomes a victim, you then continue with the same magnanimous view,
I still feel that they are our laws not the EU’s and we should be the ones maintaining and enforcing them.
and i hope you maintain that view when someone close to you has been accused of something they have not done and has almost ended up in this prehistoric system.I still feel that they are our laws not the EU’s and we should be the ones maintaining and enforcing them.
believe me if someone actually offends seriously then their testies should be removed ( if a man ) but so many in the current law are caught up needlessly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff