observer Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Seems parents may be told of the addresses of sex offenders living in their are; get ready for the lynch mobs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Hurrah!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Are details of the offence going to be released? If not, how is anyone going to differentiate between:- i). someone who's on the register because they had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend when they were 16 and ii). someone who's commited child rape and murder. This is also only going to apply to those who have complied with their sentencing conditions and have registered their current address with the police - so even more of the serious offenders will end up going underground. An ill-conceived and potentially dangerous idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Correct Inky, and they were told this: but this Government just can't help playing to the crowd - even if it's a lynch mob! Remember the Neanderthals who stoned the house of a pedeatrician?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 i). someone who's on the register because they had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend when they were 16 and ii). someone who's commited child rape and murder. This is also only going to apply to those who have complied with their sentencing conditions and have registered their current address with the police - so even more of the serious offenders will end up going underground. An ill-conceived and potentially dangerous idea. You make a very valid point. The solution would be an extremely long time in prison for ii), no need to issue a list...they wouldn't be living in the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 PS Worth noting that evidence suggests that the biggest threat to children comes from members of their own family...extended or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Perhaps yet another arguement for more "new" prisons" (possibly at Omega?!). There's apparently no cure for these weirdos, even real or chemical castration, as I believe it's all about control - although a course of "aversion therapy" may have the desired effect?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Perhaps yet another arguement for more "new" prisons" (possibly at Omega?!). There's apparently no cure for these weirdos, even real or chemical castration, as I believe it's all about control - although a course of "aversion therapy" may have the desired effect?! Or a nice short rope which is all the dirty b******ds should get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 From the nearest tree or lamp post - no doubt?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 From the nearest tree or lamp post - no doubt?! And if they are guilty.... why not? Are you turning that far away from your roots that you are taking liberal values now Obs? Blimey, you'll be advocating rehabilitation next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 And WHO decides who is "guilty"? I don't agree with anarchy, far from it. As for these weirdos; as I infered, a course of aversion therapy might work, pictures of kids accompanied by a high voltage shock, might train the mind to be averse to their problem. Otherwise, permanent residence on an isolated Scottish Isle, with a requirement to grow their own food - mind you, they may enjoy the sheep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well I would guess a court would decide who was guilty. I too don't advocate anarchy (although it seemed a good idea in the 70's when I was following the punk scene!!) but we need proper justice and punishment rather than the liberal approach of everyone is able to repent and change; when quite clearly they aren't. Let us punish the criminal first and maybe when he has done his time (and all of it, not just a part of it) then he can get some help to get him on the straight and narrow. What we have now is a regime which lets people out after part of their sentence with no questions asked and with no thought for the victims. That is wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Problem is; a custodial system costs lots of money, exacerbated by the human rights of inmates; so even the Tories won't be offering it - cos they don't like spending public money do they?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Not sure in the whole of the USA but in Florida we have maps you can click on and search any registered sex offenders. It does help to know whats out there. I have not seen or read about any mobs lynching anyone of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 The maps still can only show those sex offenders who have registered with the police, and I doubt they give any information on the nature or severity of the offence. As Paul said, by far the biggest risk is from within a child's own family - it's just easier for most people to fear a shadowy "bogey man" figure than to believe that someone you know could be an offender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 The trouble with capital punishment is every so often the State kills an innocent person. and lets face it are court system has made some big blunders in the last 30 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Inky's right, the biggest risk is from within families, especially in this era of the "step-father": still think there may be a solution in "aversion therapy", but I guess high voltage shock tratment would contravene their human rights, so too, incarceration on an isolated island for life - with a herd of goats, at least they might have some "kids" to play with! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 The trouble with capital punishment is every so often the State kills an innocent person. and lets face it are court system has made some big blunders in the last 30 years The trouble without capital punishment is that murders are now common place and only demand reporting in the areas local to their happening. We need an ultimate deterrent to help to curb the massive increase in murders since the 60's. Just today, a man was realeased from prison who had served 27 years for a murder he didn't commit. It was DNA profiling that proved his innocence and that is the same technology that would ensure that that sort of miscarriage of justice didn't happen in todays investigations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Not sure the stats support your arguement Baz; think you'll find similar murder stats when they did have capital punishment. As for your faith in DNA, like all new innovations, it can be turned to the advantage of potential criminals, to throw suspicion onto innocent folk - good arguement for not spitting your chewing gum out on the street! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Which stats Obs? In 1960, the country wide murder total was between 200 and 300 victims. Recent trends state about 850 victims. Now it may not be massive in comparisson to the whole population, but a rise of over 400 a year since the 1960 average is quite startling isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 ... and you put this down to a lack of fear for the consequences? I put it you, that the majority of these homicides will have been committed "in the heat of the moment", thus no thought for "the consequences", thus "no deterent" effect, even if we had CP. The USA has CP, and it's not cured their homicide rates; and with the sad performance of our Judicial system over the past 30 years or so, a good deal of innocent folk would have been topped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.