Sex offenders being removed from the register

[Landlord]

It's rare that news gets me genuinely worked-up to the point where I post about it on an internet forum but this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8634239.stm really pushed my buttons (oops, nearly wrote bottom).

Anyway. The teenager involved apparently raped a 6 year old and is complaining that his inclusion on the register stops him from taking holidays and playing rugby (paraphrasing). With two young children of my own, I can't imagine the anger the youngsters parents feel and the anguish of the young'un.

The should be punished for life just as his victims will be.

Sorry if this is a repost.

[Oakey]

Article said:

was a disproportionate interference in their family lives.

What about the 'disproportionate interference' the 6 year old boy felt in his life as he was buggered? Or does that not matter? What a complete joke this country is becoming.

[ShadownINja]

WTF. He should have thought about consequences before going near any children.

[HiRich]

Err, they have won the right to challenge their indefinite inclusion on the register. That goes against the HRA - whilst it may seem odd, there is a valid argument that you cannot be branded forever. Would you want to have to declare all speeding convictions from 20 years ago?
IF either of them can prove that they are no longer a risk they may be removed. Getting caught hanging out the back of a six year old boy is going to take one heck of a good story.
Ian Huntley is seeking a defined prison term. Does it make much difference whether that's "full term" or "275 years"?

[Oakey]

HiRich said:

Err, they have won the right to challenge their indefinite inclusion on the register. That goes against the HRA - whilst it may seem odd, there is a valid argument that you cannot be branded forever. Would you want to have to declare all speeding convictions from 20 years ago?
IF either of them can prove that they are no longer a risk they may be removed. Getting caught hanging out the back of a six year old boy is going to take one heck of a good story.
Ian Huntley is seeking a defined prison term. Does it make much difference whether that's "full term" or "275 years"?

You know what else goes against the HRA? Buggering little boys. Is there really a 'valid argument they can't be branded forever'? A murderer released from prison will still be a murderer, regardless of how long ago it was they killed someone. Someone who rapes a child will be a child rapist whether it was 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades ago that the offense occured.

[Landlord]

HiRich said:

Would you want to have to declare all speeding convictions from 20 years ago?

If it honestly was as henous as raping an innocent child then, yeah. I'd probably deserve it.

HiRich said:

Getting caught hanging out the back of a six year old boy is going to take one heck of a good story.

Well, I live in hope that this is the case. It's the risk that it won't that worries me.

I guess it's a difference between those that do rape kids and those that don't. If I ever, even accidentally, put my willie up a toddlers bottom I would expect to be punished for life for it. I couldn't imagine that I'd have the audacity to say "listen, I've done my time. I've done all that 'sorry about that' stuff. Any chance we can all forget it and I get on with my life?". Then again, I couldn't imagine ever wanting to brutalise a toddler. So maybe that's why I don't get it.

Edit to fix spelling and typos.

Edited by Landlord on Wednesday 21st April 13:53

[cs02rm0]

Just kill everyone suspected of a crime and be done with them then.

[Eric Mc]

cs02rm0 said:

Just kill everyone suspected of a crime and be done with them then.

All crimes?

[Landlord]

cs02rm0 said:

Just kill everyone suspected of a crime and be done with them then.

Ah, the voice of reason at last.

Not sure how it's relevant to this thread, but a nice robust manifesto none the less. Well done.

[JB!]

cs02rm0 said:

Just kill everyone suspected of a crime and be done with them then.

The United Kindom. Population: 0

this is wrong on so many levels. You have taken that kid's childhood, and expect to be let off for "reforme character" jog on.

[HiRich]

Oakey said:

You know what else goes against the HRA? Buggering little boys. Is there really a 'valid argument they can't be branded forever'? A murderer released from prison will still be a murderer, regardless of how long ago it was they killed someone. Someone who rapes a child will be a child rapist whether it was 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades ago that the offense occured.

Yeah, you see that's sort of exactly what I was saying there. Just with a whole lot less Daily Mail.

They have won a technical victory only. When they can prove that they are no longer a threat, they can gain a real victory. I wouldn't be sitting on the panel that decides, but it would take an impressive story to convince me.

[cs02rm0]

I was being facetious, it seemed to me the natural extension of this logic:

Oakey said:

A murderer released from prison will still be a murderer, regardless of how long ago it was they killed someone. Someone who rapes a child will be a child rapist whether it was 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades ago that the offense occured.

Personally, I don't like the idea that we continue to punish people after they've served whatever sentence is imposed for a crime.

[cazzer]

They really do need to shake up the sex offenders register though.
There are some people that really should not be on it.

Not, I stress, the guy who is the topic of this thred, but...

There was the case of the bloke who had a thing for shagging pavements. Obviously in need of help, which I think he has now got as I haven't heard of him for a while. He got put on the sex offenders register and I don't think the pavements complained.

Yes ok...lewdness is a public place...blahblah....but shagging a pavement does not make you a dangerous sex offender, just wierd.

But he's branded for life as is yer on it, yer on it. Bugger a six year old...or fiddle with a crack in the flags.

Hardly the same magnitude.

[Getragdogleg]

cazzer said:

They really do need to shake up the sex offenders register though.
There are some people that really should not be on it.

Not, I stress, the guy who is the topic of this thred, but...

There was the case of the bloke who had a thing for shagging pavements. Obviously in need of help, which I think he has now got as I haven't heard of him for a while. He got put on the sex offenders register and I don't think the pavements complained.

Yes ok...lewdness is a public place...blahblah....but shagging a pavement does not make you a dangerous sex offender, just wierd.

But he's branded for life as is yer on it, yer on it. Bugger a six year old...or fiddle with a crack in the flags.

Hardly the same magnitude.

That bloke who likes to go to a farm and wk in cowst is on the register as well, he is not a sex pest as such he is just a fking loon.

He also likes setting fire to the barn at the same farm but there is not a pyromaniacs register is there ?

The way I see the story is that the kid who fiddled the other kid was 11 when the offence was committed, at 11 you make mistakes and get in trouble, granted most of us manage avoid buggering other kids but is it reasonable to keep this young adult on the list now he is older and mature ?

[HundredthIdiot]

According to the article, the "teenager" was 11 years old when he committed the offence. 11! Can't really get my head around that one.

People can change, I think. There was someone in my distant extended family (wife's second cousin or something) who did some weird stuff when he was a young teenager (not rape though). He has since, apparently, gone through various bits of counselling/therary and grown up into a completely normal man. Would I want him babysitting my kids alone? Not sure, but I'd be happy for him to be playing football with them. As I understand it, the offenders register casts a very wide net and covers a lot of pretty harmless activites, to the point where many people are unreasonably restricted from contributing to their community.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Hang on a minute, I am on the DNA database, had my tattoos photographed despite never being charged or convicted of a crime yet when I asked for them to be removed was told to bugger off however these people are able to challenge their inclusion in the sex offender register?

Madness.

[otolith]

cs02rm0 said:

Personally, I don't like the idea that we continue to punish people after they've served whatever sentence is imposed for a crime.

Nor do I, but the SOR's function is not punishment but public protection. You should not hold someone forever liable for an error of judgement he made at the age of 11, however the issue where a young person has committed a sexual offence indicative of a tendency towards paedophilia is not the quality of their judgement (which may change) but an inappropriate and dangerous sexual attraction which may remain. The risk of reoffending is the whole issue, IMO.

[HundredthIdiot]

otolith said:

the issue where a young person has committed a sexual offence indicative of a tendency towards paedophilia is not the quality of their judgement (which may change) but an inappropriate and dangerous sexual attraction which may remain.

...but what's reported is a challenge, not "Sex offenders being removed from the register" as the thread title suggests.

It's presumably for whoever deals with the challenge to look at the actual evidence and relevant expert opinions.

[otolith]

HundredthIdiot said:

otolith said:

the issue where a young person has committed a sexual offence indicative of a tendency towards paedophilia is not the quality of their judgement (which may change) but an inappropriate and dangerous sexual attraction which may remain.

...but what's reported is a challenge, not "Sex offenders being removed from the register" as the thread title suggests.

It's presumably for whoever deals with the challenge to look at the actual evidence and relevant expert opinions.

If someone no longer poses an elevated risk, I've no objection to them being removed from the register - they aren't on it to punish them, they are on it to prevent risk to the public.

[Landlord]

HundredthIdiot said:

not "Sex offenders being removed from the register" as the thread title suggests.

I wouldn't take too much notice of the title, that's just me being lazy. As you'll see from the content of the post, I was commenting on the fact that the kid is complaining about being kept on there.