Government ministers are bracing themselves for a storm of protest today, as the Home Secretary announced plans in the Commons to grant sex Offenders the right to appeal against a continued obligation to notify the authorities of their whereabouts. This follows a case in the UK Supreme Court last year in which two convicted sex …
@Why are our officials illiterate
All home secretaries since 1979 have actually been robots operated by the same computer program.
Unfortunately the software was done in a rush on BBC micro in basic and is still running on the same system (if it ain't broke ....). The software for other cabinet ministers has been upgraded allowing them to use polysyllabic words - also without making any sense.
@40 years ago
Hence the need for a comprehensive school register - it has come to the government's notice that the majority of criminals (that get convicted) went to comprehensives - while the majority of those who made a small administrative error in their tax or expenses went to public school.
The only solution is a comprehensive register of former comprehensive students (or peasants , to use the technical term)
Sex offenders will automatically come off the register?
"Explaining that the government will do the minimum to comply, she explained that sex offenders will automatically come off the register."
A missing 'not' in there somewhere, I suspect ;-)
What happens when an innocent person is placed on the register by a malicious person? It is easy to get someone done. All you need is a child or woman to go to the police and make up a story. They will be believed and the cops will make sure that they get a conviction. So, for the rest of the poor sods life, he is branded with no means to clear his name and move on. I'm sure if an MP were accused and their name dragged through shite, their name would be removed without question.
Child or woman, often known as
an ex-wife, wanting a bigger meal ticket.
It happens, the Police confim it happens, but arrest regardless.
@ Errors happen
When it comes to rape, the stats suggest the opposite is true - The errors that happen let people off.
Guardian in a March 2010 puts the report to conviction rate at a measly 6%.
Far too often I guess it comes down to he said, she said.
@ Chad H.
"Far too often I guess it comes down to he said, she said." And so it should. Remember: guilty unless proven guilty, burden of proof on the prosecution, and guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In a situation where there are only two people with no witnesses, the prosecution always has the difficult job because the burden of proof is really difficult, and there should always be reasonable doubt in the mind of a member of the jury.
Fiddling around the edges to make sexual offences more capable of successful prosecution has made the country a worse place, not a better one, even for those it was meant to protect.
So not only are the cops corrupt, but also the magistrates who decide whether someone is convicted, or the members of the jury who decide at the higher court. With such a disastrous legal system, best you move off to somewhere where it's fair, say Russia.
Won't somebody think of the children?
No matter what you think about paedophiles or sex offenders, let's not forget the fact that we are just fcking animals, no different from monkeys or dolphins (both of which have been documented to perform rapes). It's animal instinct which our society has, to some degree, managed to supress but it's still animal instinct. Did someone up there say "mental illness which cannot be cured"? Is hysteria a mental illness too Alan 6? Get some therapy!
All of that aside though, paedophiles make me sick. I would personally want to torture and kill anyone who abused my children in that way as, I imagine, would any parent. But if we all lived life like that it would be absolute chaos and the strong would kill the weak, the rich would kill the poor and there would be no more society so I, like most other people, live by the law.
But the real issue here is that if we have crimes in this country that cannot be forgiven by society then the next step is either a) drug addicts, thieves, people who don't take their library books back on time will all eventually suffer the same fate and be branded a criminal for life or b) we bring back the death penalty! I don't want to see either of these futures.
Willington, I don't agree.
"I would personally want to torture and kill anyone who abused my children in that way as, I imagine, would any parent. " I as a reasonably well-balanced person, would take far more into account than mere "abuse". Severity and frequency would play a big part. There are far worse things that could happen to children than some other child playing "doctors and nurses" with them, for instance, and I wouldn't be overly upset if my 15 year-old daughter was having a sexual relationship with anyone, including, say, a 50 year-old man. These are irrelevancies, and it is time the law looked at real harms, not imaginary ones.
Re: Willington, I don't agree.
I'm not sure that you don't agree. You mention a 15 year old daughter having a sexual relationship. I don't see anything to worry about there either. If you had said "a 15 year old daughter who had been groomed from the age of 8 by a 23 year old man" then I would have a concern, but you didn't so I don't.
Interesting subject but....
I fail to see the IT side of it.
It's a database
Again for the dimwits
THIS ONLY APPLIES TO P[EOPLE ON THE REGISTER FOR LIFE!!!
TO GET ON IT FOR LIFE, YOU NEED TO HAVE COMMMITED A SERIOUS SEXUAL OFFENCE!
NOT WHIZZING UP AGAINST A WALL!! christ!!
Yeah, yeah, shout, shout...
How about that guy who was fired from his teaching job after some rules have changed and he was looked up as being on the SOR? And his crime was sleeping, when he himself was 18yo or so, with his 15yo (or so) girlfriend whom he subsequently married and had children with?
Who is the pervert and registered as socially dangerous - he or the people who marked him for life as a dirty animal?
You know both Romeo and Juliet would have been on the SOR had they lived today (maybe that's why they killed themselves)?
Serious sexual offence? Here you go
If a 17 year old sends a photo of themselves in the buff and sends it to their partner (boy/girlfriend), three offences have occured (at least). Forgive me for not knowing the *actual* terminology for the offences.
The 17 year old is guilty of distributing child pornography (you must be 18 to appear in lewd imagery).
The partner is guilty of possessing sing child pornography (as the subject is not 18).
Most worryingly, the 17 year old is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor (as, being 17, they cannot consent to taking a picture of their own body!)
All three get you life on the register. Does that make sense?
Please go read the Act instead of the Daily Mail.
1) Stop writing in all caps. It makes you look even more..
2) "In the United Kingdom, the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) is a database of records of those required to register with the Police under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, those jailed for more than 12 months for violent offences, and unconvicted people simply thought to be at risk of offending." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_and_Sex_Offender_Register).
3) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents. The following are those acts categorised as offences under the Act:
Assault by penetration
Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
Rape of a child under 13
Assault of a child under 13 by penetration
Sexual assault of a child under 13
Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity
Sexual activity with a child
Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
Causing a child to watch a sexual act
Child sex offences committed by children or young persons
Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence
Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.
Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child
Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child
Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act
Abuse of position of trust: acts done in Scotland
Sexual activity with a child family member
Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity
Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice
Causing or inciting a person, with a mental disorder impeding choice, to engage in sexual activity
Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice
Causing a person, with a mental disorder impeding choice, to watch a sexual act
Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder
Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception
Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder
Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception
Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder
Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity
Care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder
Care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act
Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17
Paying for sexual services of a child
Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography
Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography
Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography
Causing or inciting prostitution for gain
Controlling prostitution for gain
Keeping a brothel used for prostitution
Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation
Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation
Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation
Administering a substance with intent
Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence
Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence
Sex with an adult relative: penetration
Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration
Intercourse with an animal
Sexual penetration of a corpse
Sexual activity in a public lavatory
Offences outside the United Kingdom
If you read the entire list (instead of doing what I think you probably did tl;dr) you'll see at the bottom of the list Exposure, Voyeurism and Sexual activity in a public lavatory are all on the list of offences. These could well get you put on the Register.
On top of that "In response to a Freedom of Information Act request in 2009, for example, Greater Manchester Police reported that of 16 people in their area placed on ViSOR since 2007, 4 (25%) had not been convicted" (same WIKI source as before).
So you don't even have to have been convicted in order to be on the Register.
Abuse of position of trust: acts done in Scotland
Wow, that's tough!
I suggest you try pissing in the wind, it will be a better use of your time.
Visor versus sex offenders register
The two are not the same thing. You can be on Visor without being on the SOR.
Let's simplify things
Release criminals when they can show they're unlikely to do it again. For most criminals, they *aren't* likely to do it again (reoffending rates are around 2 in 5). For sex offenders, they *are*.
That's my main criticism of the woolly thinking that "it's a mental illness, so it's not the person's fault, so they don't deserve punishment". Prison has three roles: punishment, rehabilitation and protection of the public. If you're not safe to be let out, I don't care how long a sentence you've served.
Or you could stop talking shit
Re-offending rates for violent crime are far higher than 40% as you suggest. Last time I checked with the National Statistics Office re-offending rate of people convicted for violent crime was over 60%.
I will concede that the number of violent "re-offences" was a little lower but not significantly so - however, violent offenders rarely go on to lead a crime free life according to the official statistics.
This factoid, that sex offenders have an exceptionally high recidivism rate, is oft repeated and seldom supported. At best it's true for specific types of sex offenders. But even then, I think you'll find other crimes with a higher recidivism rate still.
Unfortunately, good stats on this are somewhat hard to come by, but heres one source:
One interesting trend according to that source is that severity of the crime seems to be inversely correlated with reconviction rates. And that means conviction for any crime, not just the same one. So for instance murderers have a lower reconviction rate that rapists, who in turn have a lower reconviction rate than burglars.
Let's complicate things
"Release criminals when they can show they're unlikely to do it again."
This could apply to any crime and has nothing to do with statistics, it needs to be on an individual basis, something like the Three Strikes system which is ok I suppose but you are also suggesting that sex offenders are only allowed one strike.
"For most criminals, they *aren't* likely to do it again (reoffending rates are around 2 in 5). For sex offenders, they *are*."
I can't validate your figure (and note with interest that you didn't mention the reoffending rate for sex offenders to allow me to make a comparison) but I'll agree for the sake of argument that sex offenders reoffend more often (not that I agree that they do, we're just pretending) but unless the reoffending rate for sex offenders is 100% then there is still a need for an appeal system.
"That's my main criticism of the woolly thinking that "it's a mental illness, so it's not the person's fault, so they don't deserve punishment"."
People who were sexually abused as children have a greater tendency to abuse children on reaching adulthood. Is it their fault they were abused as children? Should we put abused children on the register too just in case?
"Prison has three roles: punishment, rehabilitation and protection of the public. If you're not safe to be let out, I don't care how long a sentence you've served."
Though I agree with the sentiment of this, who decides if you're safe to be let out? Obviously it's the parole board but let's imagine that a fortnight ago a reoffending sex offender made the headlines for eight days (in the Daily Mail of course) and the media is baying for the blood of the officials who *let this happen*. Who really decides?
It's not a simple subject.
Once again PLOD, not the courts, determine the penalty
The government, by making Plod the ruling body, is usurping the courts function and letting a biased party be the determining party.
Where the hell is the justice in this?
(VietNam has a solution. Many rape artists only get to do it once or twice as most are sentenced to death!. Few repeat offenders.)
Sex offenders register not very useful anyway
If your actually on the sex offenders register it not that much of a intrusion to your 'normal' life anyway. The main requirements are to sign on a your local cop shop once a year, tell the plod if you move address or are going to stay at another address for 7 days or longer in a 12 month period, have a on the spot visit at your home a few times a year (but they person on the register has a right to not let the police in if its not a convenient time such as they were about to leave for work or have family visiting) and inform them if your planning on leaving the country for more than 3 days. Oh and of course not to commit any criminal offences.
So in other words they can go about their day to day business as normal they could even spend their time travelling round the country not having to tell the plod where they are staying as long as they don't spend more than 7 days in one place. And could have a weekend in Amsterdam without having to inform the police they were leaving the country.
Although being on the sex offenders register means they are less likely to commit another sexual offence the notion that it is some major burden and that the police know there every move is nonsence and even if someone who was on the sex offenders register were to get themselves removed after a period of time it would not mean they would be able to get a job working with children or vunerable adults as there previous convictions would stll show up on a CRB check.
About to change
It is about to become somewhat more annoying as the government since having to change the law, will close some loopholes.
Now it will be 1 day abroad. Notify every week if they do not have a fixed abode. Not be able to get off the register by changing their names (how was this ever allowed), and finally notify if they as in a household with an under 18.
I hope they use some common sense with that last one as not all sex offenders are going to be a problem when being in a house with children. In the case of rapists, the children's mother could be at more risk. Sex offenders register does not = child molesters. I really think child molesters should have their own register, as it just seems too confusing for members of the public.
@mark l 2
There's one thing you missed out... informing your place of work.
My Other half works in the offenders unit..
If you have a job (which is unlikely after being put on the register) you have to inform your employer of the nature of your offence and that you are on the Offenders register and an plain clothes officer (From the unit) accompanies you to make sure you comply, otherwise you are in breach of the conditions of the register and can be arrested on the spot.
Same thing if you get a new job you have to inform your employer that you are on the register. I've heard my partner having to arrest employers on a number of occasions who got violent when informed.
This is anyone who is on the register no matter how long, even those who are no longer out on licence (probation). So saying that it does not affect a persons daily life is not quite right...
Utter twaddle. There is no requirement for people on the register to inform employers. They will however have to be honest in any questions they are asked re previous convictions etc.
If it's an issue of child safety, it will be the police who inform the employer.
SOR like the House of Commons and Lords in *reverse*
It is only *now* that methods are being brought in to *allow* MP's to be dumped before the *next* general election (despite in one case being "Ill" while she was secretly filmed offering her services as a lobbyist). In the Lords there was *no* mechanism to remove a Lord from the *house* no matter *how* vile their behavior.
Historically it was felt that mere *entry* to such institutions was a *guarantee * that they were people of impeccable probity.
I can't imagine that belief surviving these days. Can you?
Setting up *any* list whose membership has a)legal consequences and b) is *irrevocable*
is a *bad* idea.
*Cautious* thumbs up.
"the rights of citizens come before those of criminals"
So criminals are no longer citizens? Does that imply an end to rehabilitation and reintegration? That'll save a bundle. Might as well keep'em in jail indefinitely then, innit.
While I personally don't mind having some people be second class citizens, as long as that comes to pass as a consequence of their own doing, I do believe that if you go that route there always must be a way to redeem yourself. Even if such gets harder every time you misstep, there must always be a way. A flat-out fifteen years is an invitation to just do as you please and sod the law, if you figure that you won't live that long anyway. You really don't want to push people into hopeless situations just to show you're "tough on crime", because that only makes the criminals tougher too, nevermind less inclined to try and better themselves.
If you're not going to give them the chance, might as well bring back transportation then.
If you're not going to give them the chance, might as well bring back transportation then.
lol at the thought of trying to unload shiploads of perverts on modern-day Australia...
And there was I thinking that the most interesting phrase was "will assert that the rights of citizens come before those of criminals". Assuming El Reg have that straight, I assume the govt is planning to strip citizenship from those convicted of a criminal offense. I suppose that's one round the ruling that prisoners must get the vote.
" she signified further disapproval with human rights laws in general by telegraphing the government’s intention to bring forward a British Bill of Rights shortly – which will assert that the rights of citizens come before those of criminals. "
Hermann Goering would have been so proud !
For indecent exposure, you have to have been sentenced to imprisonment or a community sentence of at least 12 months. You are exceptionally unlikely to get this for urinating in the street / alley, unless there are significant aggravating factors, in which case it's not just pissing up an alley.
@Alexander Hanff 1
Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. Where did I specify violent crime?Reoffending rates FOR ALL OFFENCES (emphasis added for the hard-of-thinking such as Mr Hanff) fluctuate at around 40% - see UK OfNS figures.
@Willington: For obvious reasons I'm not going to be searching for details of kiddy-fiddlers on a work PC, so I'll concede that I can't back this up with numbers.
I'm not talking about locking up anyone "just in case". I'm talking about people who have already proven, through their actions, that they pose a very real threat to the people around them. Yes, I'd be quite happy to extend this to other violent crime too. I don't feel so strongly about crimes against property - ultimately that's all just stuff, regardless of how distressing it is - but if you're a danger to the people around you then their safety has to be the priority. Yes there has to be the possibility of appeal, because the original conviction and/or the decision about the nature of your crime may well be wrong,
And no, I'm afraid I don't care what the reason is - whether it's schizophrenia, prior history of abuse, drugs, or simply being a right bastard. If you can get yourself straightened out, then fine, you can go. The parole board will decide this, as usual, and the head-shrinking brigade are actually pretty good at spotting who's getting their heads straight. (I'd be happy with appeals here too, in case the parole board screw it up.)
But if you can't get yourself sorted out, I really don't see why you should ever be released from prison. If the police came and dumped a rabid dog outside your door, you'd be outraged. But the prison service are required to release criminals who've waited out their sentence, knowing full well that those people will reoffend in the very near future and some innocent person is going to suffer as a result.
The Reg's choice of coverage on general public affairs items makes me curious
As this kind of article pops up regularly. The IT angle of it is small most is on policy.
Am I wrong
... in feeling a bit worried that a govenement is criticising judges because they are unelected?
erm .. inependent juduciary anyone ....
Sax offenders register
I am somewhat concerned that the 15 year rule might mean that Kenny G could be removed from the Sax Offenders register any time now.
Correct the reasons why you'd go on it rather than letting people come off it? There's a difference between someone horrible person who's been messing with kids and a horny old man who's been paying whores to bash him off in his car.
Or what about banding / grading the reasons you're on it. Really bad, you're on it for life and rightly so, lower bands for lesser crimes you are on it for a predetermined amount of time... etc etc.
"So in other words they can go about their day to day business as normal they could even spend their time travelling round the country not having to tell the plod where they are staying as long as they don't spend more than 7 days in one place. And could have a weekend in Amsterdam without having to inform the police they were leaving the country."
Honest to the gods, this isn't an attempt to troll, but when reading this am I the only person who had the words "Julian" and "Assange" pop into mind? I mean that isn't to far off what he appears to have been doing for some time.
Black Helicopters. Coz we all know he works for the spooks...