A Highly Emotive Topic.

[jambutty]

Once again the Jeremy Vine show comes up with a debate that no doubt will rage for a long, long while.

In a nutshell the topic is, “Parents will be able to ask if someone close to their family is a sex offender under new pilot schemes in England.”

You can read the rest of the report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7612315.stm

[Less]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Once again the Jeremy Vine show comes up with a debate that no doubt will rage for a long, long while.

In a nutshell the topic is, “Parents will be able to ask if someone close to their family is a sex offender under new pilot schemes in England.”

You can read the rest of the report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7612315.stm

And your views are?

Surely it's something a parent aught to be able to protect against?

Maybe if this person is checked out it could save a lot of heartache in the future?

Anyone with nothing to hide will surely not object because it helps prove them to be a little more trustworthy? Though just because they aren't on a register only means some people haven't been caught yet.

However if someone is on the register and genuinely is a 'reformed' character that comes clean about their past might just mean what they say, 'I am reformed', hiding potential dangers no matter how unlikely they may be to resulting in abuse is surely not a recommended way of bringing children up?

I would love a society where we could all trust each other with all of our children and probably in a large number of cases this is true, unfortunately the innocent need protecting against the strange minority.

Anyone against such checks is surely leaving themselves open to mistrust?

[Lilly]

I read about this in yesterday's paper. Sara Payne has worked hard to bring this to fruition. Good on her. I just hope that it is used sensibly.

I notice that people requesting the information will have to sign a disclaimer that they will not mis-use the information, i.e go round to a particular address and attack someone.

I think that this is a good idea and hope there is a suitable deterrent for anyone who does carry out vigilante attacks.

This is only a pilot scheme so I assume can be withdrawn and taken no further if people can't cope with it.

[blazey]

I think this has its pros and cons in comparison to the campaign started by the Paynes.

For a start, it isn't making the information available to everyone but is available for specific reasons only such as if someone new is having contact to the family and you have children and you want to check they will be safe. Seems to be a similar idea to CRB checks. This is much better and for one reason only in my opinion.

The idea of being able to look at the images of sex offenders online no matter who you are has led to the death of several people due to the fact that people are convincing themselves that the reserved old man who lives on the corner of their street is the man they saw on the website and are launching attacks on them, often til they are serious hurt or killed.

The only risk about this new proposal is that those who have served time will still be identifiable and if families get upset or whatever, and rightly so in some cases, then they may disclose that persons identity to the public anyway and really that should not be allowed... as it would cause that person to be put at risk by the public when they have already served the sentence in prison...

Now I was asked about what I thought of this on my mini pupillage the other week and I was scared to answer in this way, but the barrister said that this way of looking at things is almost unique to lawyers rather than the general public because of the way we are subjected to the law which is different to most people who only get exposed to it through the media in some way... so I don't necessarily expect anyone to agree with me on it, but I actually quite like this new idea if it is used properly and doesn't cause ANYONE to get hurt regardless of who they are or what they may have done. If a law begins to put people at risk then it isn't a good idea at all and should be challenged.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Lilly

I read about this in yesterday's paper. Sara Payne has worked hard to bring this to fruition. Good on her. I just hope that it is used sensibly.

I notice that people requesting the information will have to sign a disclaimer that they will not mis-use the information, i.e go round to a particular address and attack someone.

I think that this is a good idea and hope there is a suitable deterrent for anyone who does carry out vigilante attacks.

This is only a pilot scheme so I assume can be withdrawn and taken no further if people can't cope with it.

I think you hit the nail on the head Lilly, when you say I just hope that its used sensibly, whether it is or not only time will tell

[blazey]

I think the only problem is that people are actually willing to breach a disclaimer if they feel they are doing something that will be honoured if you will by the community and unfortunately many people believe it is their duty to rid the country of undesirables. Unfortunately it is these people that are the biggest threat to society if you ask me!

[WillowTheWhisp]

I see it as a good thing from the point of view of protecting a child from possible danger, but as has already been said, we need to also safeguard against people taking the law into their own hands and disclosing confidential information because they feel justified in doing so.

It is far better than having details posted on a readily accessible website which can lead to vigilantes deciding to rid the area of percieved perverts.

[MargaretR]

This could be overcome if it was a criminal offence to divulge the information supplied.
Second thoughts - they would struggle to prove that.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

This could be overcome if it was a criminal offence to divulge the information supplied.
Second thoughts - they would struggle to prove that.

Does the threat of criminal sanction eliminate all crime though? The compassion humans feel often overpowers rational thinking in situations like this, so I wouldn't bet on it eliminating that risk entirely.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

This could be overcome if it was a criminal offence to divulge the information supplied.
Second thoughts - they would struggle to prove that.

Maybe you missed this in the article?

“Parents could face court action if they pass on information about an offender to others in their community, a move designed to prevent vigilantism.”

[blazey]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Maybe you missed this in the article?

Would it be a civil or criminal offence though? As it is a breach of essentially a contractual agreement then I would imagine it would be civil?

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Maybe you missed this in the article?

The words 'could' and 'court action' aren't a deterrant
Translated mean a 'slap on the wrist' by a police warning

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by blazey

Would it be a civil or criminal offence though? As it is a breach of essentially a contractual agreement then I would imagine it would be civil?

I think that it would be a criminal offence much in the same way that it is a criminal offence to reveal jury deliberations.

[Loz]

Surely anything that could protect children is worth any of the risks mentioned?
If people do disclose information that they shouldn't then instead of saying they could face court action that they definatley will.
Saying that,sorry for contradicting myself,if a mother found out someone locally was a convicted sex offender then i imagine it would be very,very difficult not to let other mothers know despite the threat of court action.
I don't know if i could keep my mouth shut.
It is a good idea in principle but probably needs a lot of tweaking before it is rolled out all over the country.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by Loz

Surely anything that could protect children is worth any of the risks mentioned?.

Not if your husband/father/grandad gets kicked to death due to mistaken identity.

Don't forget the incident where a paediatrician was attacked because the locals had misunderstood and thought someone had said he was a paedophile.

There are some very unintelligent people about.