Megans Law in the UK

[tkingdoll]

This is somewhat of a hot topic, the trial of the Megan's Law project in Wandsdyke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6540749.stm

I am very confused about the benefits of this move -
Under the scheme, parents will be told if paedophiles are in the area but will not be told their names and addresses.

Am I missed something? Parents will be told there is a paedophile, but not who it is? So...how does that help? Perhaps just cements paranoia that the innocent but lonely old alcoholic in the corner house is a kiddy fiddler?

I mean, if you have confirmation that someone in your local area is a convicted sex offender, surely that just makes everyone a suspect? It'll be no better than a witch hunt.

The other part that concerns me greatly is this:
Single parents will also be allowed to find out if a new partner is on the sex offenders' register.

Good old human rights, privacy and data protection out of the window then. You no longer have the right to leave your past behind in the manner you see fit, and single parents no longer need to have personal responsibility and exercise personal judgement when picking a partner. Brilliant. Never mind that you can be on the sex offender register for a whole host of things that do not make you a molestor.

I'm not sure what the government wants here. Paedophilia is not going to go away, and encouraging vigilantiasm is not the way to address it. Do we address burglary by telling a community when a convicted robber moves in? What about rapists? Arsonists? Murderers?

[Araneus]

It should be considered extremely worrying if sex offender policy is going to be imported from the US. Before long we will be locking up people for 200 years (i.e. basically a death sentence) for looking at some pictures, while actual rapists and murderers get let out after a few years.

[vbloke]

as before, it's probably not a good time to be a paediatrician in Wandsdyke.

[Araneus]

Apparently they're not doing it after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6540749.stm

Isn't a reasoned decision from the Home Office on sex offender policy one of the Omens of the Apocalypse? We'd better start repenting, pronto.

[tkingdoll]

Interesting. It doesn't state that the changes from the original claims aren't happening, it's just saying they're not happening yet and might not.

I don't think there's much difference between the two reports other than one gives the changes as fact where the other gives them as speculation.

I suspect that's the because people seem to think that the UK will be having Megan's Law as it is in the USA, where sex offenders names and addresses are paraded on the internet for all to see. That was never the case.

[chillzero]

I think these laws are ridiculous, because the biggest dangers are the ones who just haven't been caught yet. And the bigger problem is also that not all people on the register are paedophiles.

And, convicted paedophiles regularly have families who will deny the danger they present, and protect them, so yes, old men on the corners will be in more danger than the 30 year old father of 4 next door who goes 'offshore' for a time.

[Araneus]

I think these laws are ridiculous, because the biggest dangers are the ones who just haven't been caught yet. And the bigger problem is also that not all people on the register are paedophiles.

And not all paedophiles are child abusers. I understand the majority of child abuse is committed by situational offenders, i.e. those who want to abuse "something" and a child just happens to be present, rather than people who actually prefer children.


And, convicted paedophiles regularly have families who will deny the danger they present, and protect them, so yes, old men on the corners will be in more danger than the 30 year old father of 4 next door who goes 'offshore' for a time.

Furthermore, that 30 year old father is quite likely to be abusing his own children. A very large proportion of sexual abuse takes place in the home by a friend or relative, rather than by strangers jumping out from bushes, which makes the focus on the latter even worse because it ignores a large part of the problem.

[Admin]

I think there's a good case to be made for leaving things as they are; at least from the public's point of view (professionals could always do more - like stop going on about using lie detectors and coming up with real solutions, for example).

The trouble with stating that there are paedophiles in the area but not naming them will cause a lot of panic and concern which could lead to inappropriate action.

There will always be false positives where innocent people will be persecuted because someone thinks they're guilty, and then there's also the possibility of false negatives where people think that they're safe because they have not been told that paedophiles are in their area.

First offenders (or those yet to be caught) will, by definition, not be on any sex offenders register and this move would do nothing to control these people - even if it worked.

Having said all that, I read an article by Benjamin Radford (in the Skeptical Inquirer) who acknowledged that this is a highly emotive issue but the actual risk to children from paedophiles in the community is actually very low.

As Tracy said, this will do nothing other than raise paranoia levels and this will do more harm than good.

I think that by not knowing whether paedophiles are in the area prevents parents becoming overly paranoid and spurred on by emotion into inappropriate action but it does help keep people vigilant enough to watch out for their kids from this potential threat.

[CatWoman]

I don’t think implementing Sarah’s Law is a good thing at all. Lynch mobs will form and the Offenders will be driven into hiding and therefore completely unmonitored. There is too much emotion when it comes to children and innocent people will be at risk through mistaken identity.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=17064875&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

First impressions may make it seem that parents will feel more secure with this knowledge, but in reality it will make people far more paranoid.

My next-door neighbour is in the Police Force and his wife advised us that prior to their moving in, her husband had checked whether any of the neighbours in this road and the adjoining roads had criminal records !!! That was nice of him. I am not sure if I should be pleased that we passed the test or not.

[tkingdoll]

My next-door neighbour is in the Police Force and his wife advised us that prior to their moving in, her husband had checked whether any of the neighbours in this road and the adjoining roads had criminal records !!! That was nice of him. I am not sure if I should be pleased that we passed the test or not.

Crikey. That sounds kinda extreme, do convicted criminals usually commit crimes against their neighbours? I guess it depends what the crime was, I can imagine someone with a record of GBH might not be the ideal neighbour.

But most interestingly, is he allowed to do that? I mean, surely a police officer doesn't have carte blanche to run searches for their personal use? I'm sure it's commonplace but I don't see why a police officer should be able to do that for his own personal use and not the rest of us.

[Araneus]

First impressions may make it seem that parents will feel more secure with this knowledge, but in reality it will make people far more paranoid.

The rather obvious flaw which seems to have escaped the attention of the geniuses campaigning for this law, is that parents will only feel more secure if the search is negative. As soon as the number of Unspecified Nearby Paedophiles is greater than 0, it will make them less confident, not more.

[CatWoman]

Crikey. That sounds kinda extreme, do convicted criminals usually commit crimes against their neighbours? I guess it depends what the crime was, I can imagine someone with a record of GBH might not be the ideal neighbour.

But most interestingly, is he allowed to do that? I mean, surely a police officer doesn't have carte blanche to run searches for their personal use? I'm sure it's commonplace but I don't see why a police officer should be able to do that for his own personal use and not the rest of us.

I don't believe for one minute that he should have done what he did, but I bet most of them do. Unfortunately for him his wife (oh, the hazzards of a couple of glasses of Bubbly :cheesy: ) decided to spill the beans. I was certainly not impressed :-\


The rather obvious flaw which seems to have escaped the attention of the geniuses campaigning for this law, is that parents will only feel more secure if the search is negative. As soon as the number of Unspecified Nearby Paedophiles is greater than 0, it will make them less confident, not more.

Exactly !!!

[chillzero]

First offenders (or those yet to be caught) will, by definition, not be on any sex offenders register and this move would do nothing to control these people - even if it worked.

<snip>

I think that by not knowing whether paedophiles are in the area prevents parents becoming overly paranoid and spurred on by emotion into inappropriate action but it does help keep people vigilant enough to watch out for their kids from this potential threat.

I agree.

Personally, I have never known whether or not there were paedophiles living in my area, and even if I had I would still have taken the same precautions to protect my daughter. If I was told there area was completely clean, I would be aware that this only meant convicted people. I don't understand the difference this law is supposed to make, apart from making it easier for unconvicted threats to find a 'clean' area where parents believe they are safe to drop their guards and let the kids roam that little bit further, under less supervision (you just know it will happen).

The attention should be on undertaking better checks on teachers and those who work with children, and funds would be better spent on providing support for social workers, and for families who have to deal with the aftermath of these crimes.

[asthmatic camel]

Crikey. That sounds kinda extreme, do convicted criminals usually commit crimes against their neighbours? I guess it depends what the crime was, I can imagine someone with a record of GBH might not be the ideal neighbour.

But most interestingly, is he allowed to do that? I mean, surely a police officer doesn't have carte blanche to run searches for their personal use? I'm sure it's commonplace but I don't see why a police officer should be able to do that for his own personal use and not the rest of us.

Police officers have always been somewhat cautious about where they live. The issue isn't so much fear of crime, it's more that they fear revenge attacks from dangerous criminals. My next door neighbour is a police officer who works well away from her home, is never seen in uniform unless she's actually on duty, and doesn't tell anyone what she does for a living. Very sensibly in my opinion.

[Cuddles]

To put things in perspective, how many children are killed or injured crossing the road compared to how many are killed or injured by paedophiles? Obviously we should not ignore them completely, but just throwing money at a problem is not going to help, especially when that money could do so much more good elsewhere. How many more lives would be saved if the money that would be spent warning people that there is a criminal somewhere in the area was spent on teaching children road safety and traffic calming?