Should We Protect The Guilty At A Potential Cost To The Innocent?

[youngmafbog]

Yet more PC nonce nce driven by wooly headed left wing liberals in our judiciary?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582349/More-800-British-sex-offenders-changed-names-hide-dark-past-police-REFUSE-tell-protect-perverts-rights.html

[andy-hughes]

Yes.

You cannot punish someone for what they may do in the future, based on what they have done in the past.

Whereas I would argue that any sex offender who is changing their identity should be legally compelled to furnish that information to the police, the right of privacy and protection applies to all citizens, even those who have been convicted of crimes and punished.

It may appear wrong that perverts and child molesters are afforded the protection of the law, but to apply law fairly is the only way law can work effectively.

If you start condemning people over and over again when they have been convicted and punished, the you erode the concept of law and justice which can only operate if all applied without prejudice.

So although I entirely agree with the emotional anger behind your question, I have to argue against the notion that it is woolly-headed left-wing nonsense.

[Peter Pedant]

yes YMF the pollce have to obey the law just like the rest of us
and no YMF they dont have a choice about which laws

and so if I ring up the local police and say - YMF is a bit cross eyed this week- is he on the PNC, I think he must be - I dont like the look of him at all ? they will refuse to answer the question .....

and in this case it is the act that says you don't have access to someone else private information -

[Old_Geezer]

It is quite correct that the authorities know who needs keeping an eye on whilst the general public are not able to form vigilante groups and take out their need for vengeance on others. Any alternative makes for a less stable society.

[Peter Pedant]

yes andy
you do not punish people for what they are but what they have done...

same old questions - same old answers

[ToraToraTora]

you cannot punish someone fopr what they might do, fair enough, but you can punish them properly the first time. These lowlives should not be out on the streets full stop. They need to be interned forever away from human beings in a secure location.

[agchristie]

It's a good question. Obviously, changing one's name does not necessarily translate into a change of personality.

Perhaps I should submit a FOI to each police force to establish re-offending rates which may move the debate on further.

On the other hand, do we want to encourage an increase in potential vigilantism? Well, if I was a victim and was informed the perpetrator had changed name I would not be happy, but there again, would I know? Almost certainly not.

Maybe there could be some disclosure similar to women who can request information about their new partners where Domestic Abuse has occurred to them in the past?

[youngmafbog]

Well summed up TTT.

[New Judge]

I shouldn’t worry too much.

The sole purpose of the Sex Offenders’ Register is not one of prevention but to ease detection. As soon as a relevant offence is committed in an area the police simply look at the register and round up the usual suspects for initial enquiries. The register serves no other purpose. It is not available to the public to see if they have any nonces living in their street. It is not published on lamp posts so that people can take the appropriate precautions should any undesirable characters be living among them. The police do not “keep an eye” on registered offenders. Just about the only useful thing they can do with those on the register (but seldom bother) is to bar them from certain areas or activities, but only if their behaviour gives rise to suspicion.

The SOR is a bit of a glamorous title for what is, essentially, a fairly useless database. But I do disagree with the "continuous punishment" argument. Monitoring somebody who has offended in a particular way is not punishing them.

[Ellipsis]

> The sole purpose of the Sex Offenders’ Register is not one of prevention but to ease detection. As soon as a relevant offence is committed in an area the police simply look at the register ...

How does that make an entry on the Violent and Sex Offender Register different to any other record on the PNC database?

[New Judge]

Scarcely at all. But it is true to say that those on ViSOR have to inform the police if they change address or travel abroad, which those on the PNC normally do not.

[Ellipsis]

Thanks New Judge. :)