Why "Sarah's Law" is a stupid idea

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by Munchie Face
So if speed ramps are a partial solution to people knocking kids over what is it a partial solution to peodo's if it's not tagging/similar?

When you can tag someone to prevent them comitting a first offence then fine, I would agree. No-one seems to have covered the issue of first time offenders. If a person doesn't have a criminal record, how can you warn parents that they are around, how can you identify them to allow tagging.

All you would do is drive these people underground and we don't want them there. We want them where we can find them.

Of course, it's worth noting that, speeding still happens even in areas with speed humps, cameras etc...

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by loka
He didn't have sympathy for the young children he raped who couldn't defend themselves.

Thats because he didnt rape anyone.

Pedophiles are scum and society needs to be informed where the known ones are so they can protect their children.

Does that only apply sexually, or are children killed by drunk-drivers, for instance, not as valuable?

Yes, i know that most are never caught. That can only be dealt with by educating children to protect themselves and setting up a system that will reach out to them.

Exactly. Its interesting to note that, as the clamour for killing paedos has gone up, children who are streetwise have gone down.

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
Thats because he didnt rape anyone.

Detective Superintendent Brian Dunn said Hartley had lived at his home in Queen Street for many years and was well-known in the community as a sex offender.

AND

A convicted paedophile has been found battered to death in his home.

The body of sex offender Arnold Hartley, 73, was found early on Saturday morning at his home in Redcar, Teesside.

Do you have a different definition of pedophiles in the UK? Here, they are people who have sex with children in one form or another. People who abuse children sexually are the ones on sex offender's lists here.

Does that only apply sexually, or are children killed by drunk-drivers, for instance, not as valuable?

Much as I hate drunk drivers, I don't think they set out to kill a child when they drive.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, hunt for their victims.

It may be incorrect, but I see more concern for a convicted pedophile than the children who were his victims. Am I misreading this?

Exactly. Its interesting to note that, as the clamour for killing paedos has gone up, children who are streetwise have gone down.

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by loka
Do you have a different definition of pedophiles in the UK? Here, they are people who have sex with children in one form or another. People who abuse children sexually are the ones on sex offender's lists here.

The dictionary definition of paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, normally pre-pubescent children. Its tough whether youd class a 14-year-old girl as a child, physically at least, certainly in the dictionary sense.

I actually said he didnt RAPE the girl, as was asserted by others. Its a moot point, but he took photogrpahs of her, he did not interfere with her, otehrwise his convictions would have been for indecent assault at the very least, ratehr than making indecent images of a minor.

Much as I hate drunk drivers, I don't think they set out to kill a child when they drive.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, hunt for their victims.

Most paedophiles dont though- I read that over 80% of all sexual abuses against minors are actually comitted in the home. Most paedophiles dont intend to kill their victims, just have sex with them. Cases such as Sarah Payne hit the news because they are so rare.

It may be incorrect, but I see more concern for a convicted pedophile than the children who were his victims. Am I misreading this?

Child.

I dont see more concern for him, I see a man who has been murdered in cold blood just because he took some dirty pictures. I doubt thered be any sympathy if hed raped and killed scores of little girls, but he hadnt, and I doubt hed have had any sympathy if people had just hounded him out of his house, because thats an understandable reaction by any community.

But are you seriously telling me that a man deserved to be beaten to death for taking pictures of a girl which would have been legal in less than 24 months?

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
The dictionary definition of paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, normally pre-pubescent children. Its tough whether youd class a 14-year-old girl as a child, physically at least, certainly in the dictionary sense.

I think any activity with a pre-pubescent child is wrong and should be severely punished. All people should be warned when one of these predators moves in.

The girl is still a minor and should not be forced to pose for pictures and, yes, he did abuse her.

I dont see more concern for him, I see a man who has been murdered in cold blood just because he took some dirty pictures. I doubt thered be any sympathy if hed raped and killed scores of little girls, but he hadnt, and I doubt hed have had any sympathy if people had just hounded him out of his house, because thats an understandable reaction by any community.

Not just raped and killed, but had any sexual activity. Yes, it is understandable when people don't want predators living around them.

But are you seriously telling me that a man deserved to be beaten to death for taking pictures of a girl which would have been legal in less than 24 months?

That's a misunderstanding and I probably didn't make myself clear. I said I have no sympathy for the pervert. I also said I don't like vigilantiism. The people who took this on themselves should be dealt with, but not any more harshly than other murderers. Perhaps extenuating circumstances should be considered?

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by loka
That's a misunderstanding and I probably didn't make myself clear. I said I have no sympathy for the pervert. I also said I don't like vigilantiism. The people who took this on themselves should be dealt with, but not any more harshly than other murderers. Perhaps extenuating circumstances should be considered?

I dont recall saying they should be treated more harshly than other murderers, but just because he took pictures of a minor it doesnt mean he was a legitimate target or that the murderes should be afforded any extenuating circumstances (the only exception to this being if the girl herself killed him).

Though as the local community has closed ranks I think thsi may well become a moot point.

Former Member · December 2003

Originally posted by Kermit
I dont recall saying they should be treated more harshly than other murderers, but just because he took pictures of a minor it doesnt mean he was a legitimate target or that the murderes should be afforded any extenuating circumstances (the only exception to this being if the girl herself killed him).

No, you didn't say that...it was my little addition. I do agree about the legitimate target...as I said earlier (or meant to anyway), vigilantes scare me for a variety of reasons. There is too big a chance that an unpopular, but innocent person will be killed. I'm a believer in a jury examining the evidence and coming to a decision even if I disagree with it. I think it would be too easy to slip into anarchy if inidviduals can appoint themselves judge and jury.

That said, I still don't feel sorry for the pervert.

Though as the local community has closed ranks I think thsi may well become a moot point.

That's not good. This needs to be resolved legally.

Why &quot;Sarah's Law&quot; is a stupid idea

Comments

Why "Sarah's Law" is a stupid idea