50 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

Parents could have a harder time finding out if any paedophiles live nearby after a High Court ruling that sex offenders’ human rights to privacy should be considered.

In a judgement that lawyers say risks “watering down” what is known as Sarah’s Law, the court ruled that offenders should be given a say before their presence is disclosed.

Their human right to a family life should also be taken into account, the judges said.

http://www.telegraph...considered.html

[Professor Buzzkill]

If paedophiles want the same human rights  as the rest of us (like privacy), perhaps they should have respected the rights of the little girls and boys they horrendously  abused.

Why do we bend over backwards to protect the rights of those people who have no respect for others rights?

[Super-Fly]

They should hang.

Id open the trap door.

Not an issue.


Thanks,

[Grey14]

Since I have not familiar with Engish law do sex offenders not have to register as a sexual offender like they do here in the states?

[CommunitarianKevin]

Though I do not condone what they do, they should have the same rights as any other felon does. Here in the states they do not...

[Bling]

Grey14, on 24 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Since I have not familiar with Engish law do sex offenders not have to register as a sexual offender like they do here in the states?

Yes they register as a sex offender, for a determined amount of time, sometimes for life.

[Neognosis]

Quote

Why do we bend over backwards to protect the rights of those people who have no respect for others rights?

Because you have to protect the rights of EVERYONE, otherwise you erode the rights of us all.

As for these silly sex offender notifications, they are meaningless to me. I already assume that everyone I don't know very well for a long time is potentially a danger to my child. If you live next door to me, and I don't know you very well, you are never going to be in a position to harm one of my kids regardless.

[Bling]

Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, so they should not be treated like animals. I am not defending their actions, it's evil, and I've experienced it....but they are at risk of vigilante abuse.

[glorybebe]

Since they took away someone else's rights, they should lose all of theirs.  They cannot be reformed, they will re-offend.  The innocent not only need to be protected, but it is THEIR right.

[CommunitarianKevin]

I just don't see why we don't make all felons register and put signs in their front yards...I should be able to look up a map of felons online. I have kids...I don't want them around pedophiles, but I also don't want them around felons. And let's be honest...the things that they label people as sex offenders for is BS. You get drunk with a girl, have sex with her, and she calls it reports it as rape...congrats you are a sex offender and people can now see where you live. They will see the sign in your yard and you will never be able to do anything like hand out candy at halloween.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Neognosis, on 24 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Because you have to protect the rights of EVERYONE, otherwise you erode the rights of us all.

As for these silly sex offender notifications, they are meaningless to me. I already assume that everyone I don't know very well for a long time is potentially a danger to my child. If you live next door to me, and I don't know you very well, you are never going to be in a position to harm one of my kids regardless.

I don't know where you live, but round here we trust our neighbours. I don't even lock my doors when i go to work. It's a sorry state of society where you treat everyone you meet as an offender instead of singling out the .01% percent who have actually proven they cannot be trusted.

What is wrong with treating someone how they deserve? If you organize a terrorist attack, we will kill you. If you rob someone, you will go to jail. If you take away someones childhood by sexually abusing a child who has no way of standing up for themselves you should be shown to all the world for what you are, as the consequences of re-offending far outweigh the alternative.

[CommunitarianKevin]

glorybebe, on 24 October 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Since they took away someone else's rights, they should lose all of theirs.  They cannot be reformed, they will re-offend.  The innocent not only need to be protected, but it is THEIR right.

You could make that argument for anyone conviced of a violent crime or felony...

[Professor Buzzkill]

HuttonEtAl, on 24 October 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

You could make that argument for anyone conviced of a violent crime or felony...

But we don't because these people are "damaged" and from "broken homes" where nothing is their fault and if it wasn't for that darned society, they would be Gandhi or Mother Teresa.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Professor Buzzkill, on 24 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

But we don't because these people are "damaged" and from "broken homes" where nothing is their fault and if it wasn't for that darned society, they would be Gandhi or Mother Teresa.

I think I'm missing your point...

[Professor Buzzkill]

HuttonEtAl, on 24 October 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I think I'm missing your point...

Sorry. We seem to protect the rights of the offenders over the rights of the victims or of society. We can't tell people that their neighbour is a sex offender because of privacy concerns. What about the little girl living next door? Does she have a right to be protected? Can her parents be told so that they can put in place extra security measures?

Why should their rights take precedence over someone elses right to live their life without their children being sexually abused?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 24 October 2012 - 07:57 PM.