http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rs-ruling.html

"The Supreme Court made its ruling last year after two convicted sex offenders argued that registration with no right of review was “incompatible” with their rights to privacy. "

Utterly ridiculous. The day you decide to overstep the mark with your penis, is the day you lose any rights you might have had - for life.
I am with David Cameron on this one.

This is an amazing fact of modern life. We have to let everyone enjoy his human rights to privacy and freedom to do what he likes.

Convicted criminals have defaulted by not maintaining the civilised rules and laws of society. They should lose all their rights until they have proved themselves worthy, and can be slowly restored to society.

Paedophilic behaviour has ,been researched, and it can be claimed to be incurable. These people are simply very ill, castration will not work. When suspected they should be named on a secret police record and kept under observation: checked they are not working or socialising with children.

Once convicted paedophiles should be locked up forever, and only allowed into the public area if they are electronically tagged and monitored.

Removal from a register? Only if permanently given life imprisonment.

I consider myself to have left of center politics, but this is not a political problem. It just requires common sense to see that the rights of a child to walk freely unmolested in the countryside should not be put in danger from the rights to privacy of a suspected criminal.

It's certainly a good headline view for David Cameron anyway - no reivew, no rights, string the bastards up - then they'll be sorry.

If someone commits a crime of this nature at say 16, is put in prison for it, is rehabilitated, leaves, marries, has their own children and is a model of society since there therapy had its effect, you would still say they should be listed as a dangerous sex offender when they are 80, assuming they are still alive ?

It doesnt say people woudl be taken off the register after a period of time, it says their cases would be reviewed. And if still a danger to society they would stay on it.

I agree with this. They've been given a sentence, it's been spent, that's it. This whole "register" thing plays into the irrational fear of needing to know who you're living next door to, lest they be evil predators. I don't fear a pedophile any more than I fear a murderer or somebody who's unstoppably violent. It's absolutely a violation of their human rights.

In my opinion: the day you decide to overstep the mark with chewing gum on the street is the day you lose any rights you might have had.

I've got a country to recommend to you - you might have heard of it.

Where is Inspector Javert when you need him, eh?

Sad though it may be, what's wrong with it being reviewed? Which is the case here, the criminals have not been removed from the list for "privacy", but want the right to appeal to being kept on the list. Seeing as one of the defendants was 11 at the time of the crime, you might serriously wonder if he might have changed.

As for saying criminals shouldn't have human rights, would you say that if you were caught speeding?

you know there are a fair few women on the register?

You are comparing a chewing gum offence with a sex crime?

Yes, soliciting etc. imho, offenders above a certain level (ie the more serious ones) should never be allowed to appeal to be taken off.

You're comparing a sex crime to chewing gum?

Where in your sliding scale do people cease to be human?

The sex offenders to whom this pertains are those who've been sentenced to more than 2 and a half years in prison for their crime. What would be of interest would be to know what crimes carry that tariff.

It seems to me to be incompatible with the notion of rehabilitation to have no review procedure. Anyway this really is only about them being allowed to apply for removal. If they're considered to be still potentially dangerous after 15 years the application is denied.

Stormy in this teacup, isn't it.

You do not "earn" human rights and you cannot lose them - no matter what you do. Yes, even paedophiles, terrorists and mass murderers have them.

When it comes to sex offenders, it is fairly simple: If the specialists think that a convicted paedophile is still dangerous after his sentence, lock them up till he isn't anymore. If necessary for life. It is completely unacceptable that his mental issues should endanger children again. If the specialist on the other hand thinks that the treatments worked - there are for example some meds which kill the entire sex drive of people - and they have finished their sentence, let them live without putting them in the pillory.

Yes.

By the way guys, there isn't actually a "register" or "list". There's a localised record and procedure of reporting movements etc.

I agree with this. If specialists determine that scientifically "once a rapist, always a rapist" (which I doubt is true for all of them) then it should be a life sentence for public safety.

Which is one of the problems. If an offender wants to, they can just disappear into another large city. If their liberty is curtailed too much, they'll scarper.

An article worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

The government has repeatedly proven that it is incapable of handling confidential information appropriately. If news gets out that there is an accused paedophile in the neighbourhood (and remember some people may be on the register through an error of justice) then they will find themselves facing lynch mobs.

By all means, lock people away for life if appropriate. If you think the sentence was too soft, by all means appeal using the correct legal channels. But if somebody isn't sentenced for life then after the completion of the sentence their punishment or correction should be considered complete and they shouldn't have to face a witch hunt.

I agree, but that sentence must be delivered by a court of law and not by a politician seeking support, by the Daily Mail, or by a friendly neighbourhood scaremonger.

I think there should be a right to appeal being listed - what about that chap who was in a hostel for vulnerable people who was caught performing a sex act on his boke, of all things? A cleaner broke the rules by entering his room unannounced, caught him at it and got him listed on the sex offenders reigster. Can't say I'm into that sort of thing myself (I'd imagine it would be pretty hard to get the axle grease out of the sheets for a start), but how does that make someone a sex offender?

This doesn't quite work though, does it?

Convicted criminals have been found guilty of a crime, handed down a sentence by a representative of the law/society and thus punished for their crime.

Once they have completed their sentence, in theory they are innocent until proven guilty (of the next crime which they may or may not commit).

Unless you can prove 100% that this person will commit a/the crime again, then you cannot assume s/he will.

Now, if you feel that the sentence is not harsh enough or not appropriate, that's another discussion. You have criminals being given ever shorter sentences with increased chances of parole at an earlier stage, but that is a different discussion to keeping tabs on someone for the rest of their lives without chance of review once they have already served their sentence.

The same principal applies to the death penalty - if you cannot be 100% sure of something, then you cannot have a process in place that does not allow for errors to be corrected.

Say what?

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

I don't fear pedophiles either because they're not interested in my demographic.