Sarah's Law

Ok so it has been in the news about 99% of people wanting Sarah's Law, but yet it seems unlikely to go through.

Do you think that it would do some good to have a law in place like this?

At the moment it seems that if you are a single parent you will be able to gain info about sex offenders in the area to help with dating. I think this is wrong and all parents should be able to gain info about the people living in their area to protect their children.

It has worked well in America and I see no reason why we can't have something like it over here.

Your thoughts?

Can you source that 99% statistic and that it has worked well in the US please? I would be interested in that.

I certainly do not agree with it however. It is the police's job to moniter (as far as I am aware, could be social service) the whereabouts of people on the sex offender register, not the public.

The proposal is that people would be told there was someone from the area on it, but not who. That will lead to people desperately trying to figure out who and it is WAY more than likely that they will get the wrong person and make their lives hell.

Another thing.

Up here, we have a system called 'Disclosure Scotland' which covers a whole host of things. I had to apply for 'status' under teh scheme to work for a financial institution.

My mate however, had to get a much higher 'status' to be able to face paint kids in his work (TGI Fridays) on a Sunday.

As far as I know, in England & Wales (not sure about NI) you can request some kind of check, but nothing is compulsary. Surely that would be better?

I'm not totally convinced that such a law would actually help the situation, potentially it is another thing to make offenders go under ground rather than staying on the register. Cometically it would be popular and given the current governments troubles it has a chance of getting in just because they would see it as a vote winner.

I don't think people have the right to this info either, and I don't think it would achieve anything different in terms of reducing offences of this nature.

at the end of the day, most parents usually act responsibly, and that is the main thing. Cases of abuse to children, while shocking, are in the minority, but they are major news for obvious reasons.

It is far more likely that other family members/persons close abuse children (and I am sure there will be statistics to show this, although I haven't attempted to look it up...)

Quote :

Even within the walls of their own homes, children are at risk for sexual abuse

* 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
* Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
* Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know.
* Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers.

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp

Thank you..I knew I hadn't made it up!

I'm completely opposed to this law. If offenders have been in prison, done their time and been let out, then like every other type of criminal they should be handled by police and probabtion services and given the 'benefit of the doubt' that they'll go straight (whilst folks who are qualified to do so, keep an eye on them to make sure that they do).

Would you expect to know if someone on your street had murdered another person? driven under the influence of drink? been a prostitute or a drug abuser? cheated on their taxes?

Would you trust the mum with the pushchair who doesn't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician (let alone those folk who mess with people's feet for a living) to dish out justice in your town?

This law would lead to any man who looks 'a bit odd', lives on his own, wears unfashionable clothing and is a bit of a loner coming under suspicion of being a nonce. And those who really are the risky ones going under cover and sliding off the radar screens of those whose job it is to keep an eye on them.

As someone else pointed out already, kids are far more at risk from their own family and friends than they are from strangers.

As a society we have a responsibilty to also protect the rights (yep, I said rights) of ex-offenders and more importantly the rights of anyone who 'looks a bit odd and lives with his mum'.

Statistics read in paper last week so probably made up! I do agree, in most cases of abuse i have seen it has been by someone they knew. I also think telling you that someone in your area who is a risk is pointless and would just lead me to look at everyone who looks strange, as said. However if someone lived in my street or had access to my kids and was a risk i would want to know who they were. You loose your rights the moment you abuse a child in my mind.

Human rights are human rights.
Even bad people have them but more importantly good people who look like they might be bad people have them and need them protected.

koshkha wrote:

I'm completely opposed to this law. If offenders have been in prison, done their time and been let out, then like every other type of criminal they should be handled by police and probabtion services and given the 'benefit of the doubt' that they'll go straight (whilst folks who are qualified to do so, keep an eye on them to make sure that they do).

Would you expect to know if someone on your street had murdered another person? driven under the influence of drink? been a prostitute or a drug abuser? cheated on their taxes?

Would you trust the mum with the pushchair who doesn't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician (let alone those folk who mess with people's feet for a living) to dish out justice in your town?

This law would lead to any man who looks 'a bit odd', lives on his own, wears unfashionable clothing and is a bit of a loner coming under suspicion of being a nonce. And those who really are the risky ones going under cover and sliding off the radar screens of those whose job it is to keep an eye on them.

As someone else pointed out already, kids are far more at risk from their own family and friends than they are from strangers.

As a society we have a responsibilty to also protect the rights (yep, I said rights) of ex-offenders and more importantly the rights of anyone who 'looks a bit odd and lives with his mum'.

I quite agree, I don't see what good it would do apart from encouraging even more paranoia and vigilantism more likely than not innocent people being targeted too...

Speaking as a parent of young kids I don't think this law would make any difference to me. I take all the precautions I think are reasonable and needed for my children and those precautions would not change given more info.

As mentioned above the biggest danger is that any such law would drive the people undeground and this would make the situation far more risky.

I support Sarahs law. I think the public should know if a convicted sex offender is living in their neighbourhood so that they can protect their children. Also this list can be used by schools, churches and the like to check against job applicants who could be in contact with children.

The main reason against it, it seems, is the public could turn vigilante. But by criminilising the public they are putting the rights of the convicted sex offender ahead of the public which I believe is wrong. Megans law in the U.S has experienced very little vigilante activity.

WormThatTurned wrote:

I support Sarahs law. I think the public should know if a convicted sex offender is living in their neighbourhood so that they can protect their children. Also this list can be used by schools, churches and the like to check against job applicants who could be in contact with children.

The main reason against it, it seems, is the public could turn vigilante. But by criminilising the public they are putting the rights of the convicted sex offender ahead of the public which I believe is wrong. Megans law in the U.S has experienced very little vigilante activity.

You should see the things people have done with the information on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. Sheesh!

It's a pointless law. As has been said time and again, it is WAY more likely to be a member of the kids family that does something than a neighbour.