Review says no to UK Megan's Law

[The Bacon Guy]

BBC News | UK | Review says no to UK Megan's Law

A Home Office review of the way child sex offenders are handled in the community has decided against a Megan's Law for the UK, the BBC has learned. Named after Megan Kanka, seven, who was killed by a convicted sex offender, the US law gives parents access to names and addresses of known paedophiles. Instead, the Home Office may allow parents to request information about people left unsupervised with children. But it does not seem to want details of offenders to be made widely available.

I'm inclined to think the right decision was made. The proposed law was a hysterical knee-jerk reaction to the Sarah Payne case.

What are your thoughts?

[Chaossaber314]

Seeing the way it's done now in the US, I can kinda understand it.

This site lists the one's in the same county as my college town and even has small pictures of them.

Cape Girardeau Co. Sheriff's Office - Sex Offenders Registry Listing

[Osborn F Enready]

I am glad to see sense still prevails in the UK on some issues.....

Unfortunate that my countrymen are so caught up in hysteria and imaginary hobgoblins that they sacrfiice the rights of people who have ALREADY BEEN through the justice system for their crimes......

Its like an admission that the system is broken.... isn't it?

[The Bacon Guy]

Not only that, I doubt it would have had any effect on the sex offender recidivism rate other than increasing it. Given the ridiculous amount of hysteria surrounding sex offenders, revealing their addresses would lead to vigilantism and witch hunts. If this became the case, registered sex offenders would simply go underground. Then they wouldn't register with their parole officer or supervisor or whatever, and there would be no way of monitoring them.

[Mia]

That's already happened. The distance laws have spread sex offenders out to where no one can keep track of them. And they don't protect children.

Christopher Barrios was forced to live outside the distance laws due to his father having had a relationship with an underage girl many years ago.

Edenfield was forced to move outside the distance range......across the street from Barrios.....he and his father raped and killed the boy.

In every case publicized recently, the convicted sex offender had violated probation or parole and nothing was done.

People think we need more laws. All we need to do is enforce the ones we already have.

Registries and distance laws and signs in the yard do nothing to protect the public. What they do is push the person to the edge of society. People on the edge are more likely to re-offend.

There are 5 men living under a bridge in Miami right now. Released from prison, but can't stay in a shelter because of the distance laws. Their parole officer assigned them to live under a certain bridge, and checks on them every night and every morning to make sure they are there.

Can you imagine? Required to live under a bridge.

[The Bacon Guy]

Good points. Making the offender's life hell on the outside of prison is simply going make prison, and therefore re-offending, seem like a more and more attractive prospect.

[Heather]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Not only that, I doubt it would have had any effect on the sex offender recidivism rate other than increasing it. Given the ridiculous amount of hysteria surrounding sex offenders, revealing their addresses would lead to vigilantism and witch hunts. If this became the case, registered sex offenders would simply go underground. Then they wouldn't register with their parole officer or supervisor or whatever, and there would be no way of monitoring them.

I agree with you here, and Mia beat me to the punch with further explaination as to how sex offenders move so as to be rid of these "lists", many of them in the US virtually disappear.

I agree with Osborn that they've already been through the judicial system. It makes little sense to make a "witch hunt" out of it. Do we really want to go back to those times?

Its like an admission that the system is broken.... isn't it?

Or is it? I wonder at how much hype this subject has been given. The average mother/father would argue that it is their right to know if there is a threat to their child in the area, however, I argue that continuous persecution of one who has legally already paid for their crime is non-sense, all for the sake of appeasing a mother/father who doesn't seem to realize there is no way to know with certainty who may or may not be a sex offender.

Take a look at these numbers. I know this is from Canada and from the 80's, but was unable to find something that represented the US or was more recent, and I'm guessing that the US may in fact have simular numbers. If anyone can find more recent numbers on the US, I would be interested to see those as well:

A study from the 1980s showed that of sexual offenders released from federal institutions in Canada: * 68.8 per cent of all sexual offenders and 48.8 per cent of repeat offenders did not return to jail. * 6.2 per cent of all sexual offenders and 14.6 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new sexual offence. * 5.9 per cent of all sexual offenders and 8.5 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new violent offence. * 7.7 per cent of all sex offenders and 6.1 per cent of repeat offenders committed a new non-violent offence.

I think the general populous believes that sex offenders are much more likely than what these numbers represent to re-commit. Who taught them that? Media perhaps.

[Osborn F Enready]

Good points Heather.

I would also agree that the media plays the largest role in "fixing" a specific outlook in that sense of "likely to re-commit".

[Heather]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Good points Heather. I would also agree that the media plays the largest role in "fixing" a specific outlook in that sense of "likely to re-commit".

Absolutely they do. All for the sake of higher ratings. Sad really, that the majority of citizens don't see it for what it really is. PBS recently did a show on this. I wonder where everyone was when that was aired, watching American Idol I suppose.

[Slevin57]

I'm sorry but I see no reason to grant sexual offenders, namely child sex offenders any kind of liberty under the law. If it were up to me, they would be at the very least confined to a psychiatric facility for the remainder of the their natural lives.

[Mia]

Well, then you can pay the bill for that. I'll sign on to pay for treatment, and education for parents. Once people realize that 90-96% of molestation happens from members of their family and close circle, maybe they can better protect their kids.

[Chaossaber314]

Devil's advocate, a psychiatric facility would provide treatment.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: Mia Well, then you can pay the bill for that. I'll sign on to pay for treatment, and education for parents. Once people realize that 90-96% of molestation happens from members of their family and close circle, maybe they can better protect their kids.

That's my problem. It's classified as a personality disorder. You cannot cure that. At least we have not found a way to cure it. Once you have developed your personality, you are stuck with it. "Once a sociopath, always a sociopath."

You can educate sex offenders all you want, the high recidivism rates speak for themselves.

The term "sexual offender" is broad. To me it should only apply to crimes involving victim's. I don't' consider downloading porn to make you a sexual offender.

[Mia]

Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates next to murder.

What is classified as a personality disorder - pedophilia? Few sex offenders meet the criteria for pedophilia. Offenders CAN change their ways - how else to account for the low rates in re-offense?

Former offenders for non-sexual crimes are more likely to commit a sex offense than original sex offenders. So we'd have to lock up all inmates forever if we want to use stats to protect women and kids.

Overview of the articles about Recidivism

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

This is an atypical reaction of liberal, libertine or those of a social responsible weatern group. Constant pandering to the inbred high salvationist morals of those whom need to forgive someone for wronging another. These attitudes which show their roots from the early seventeenth century protestant reformations coupled with the catholics mandate for the priest to enable repentance to be accepted. It is time for society to forget these outdated ideals and consider enabling the eradication of major offenders such as paedophiles or cold blooded murders. Rather than seeking to cure and be conned into thinking they’ve changed their social profiles.

I agree this law would be a waste of statute, far better too enable these offenders to again become part of the universe and free them of their need to breath.