If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Paedophiles
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Should paedophiles be identified in a county. There was a petition in one of todays papers, stating that the names of convicted paedophiles should be publicised. Is this really a good idea will it stop children like holly and jessica from being abducted and murdered? or will it generate hatrid and attacks and violence personally i dont feel it will do anything for anyone no matter where or when you go somewhere you will be near to some one who has commited and offence (possibly at the age of 10 and who is now 90) will it do more harm than good?
0
Comments
I see the News of the World has started another campaign for the provision of a public register. We can look forward to more attacks on paediatricians by irate NotW readers :rolleyes:
Would I act an differently if I knew that there was a child abuser in my village? I doubt it, its not like I take many risks now.
So what would the register achieve?
PS By the accounts in the media to date, neither of the alledged murders would have been on this register anyway. So lets not get caught up in connecting these girls to this cause... That would be sick, using the deaths of two girls to promote a political agenda...
Making a register of offenders is fair at least, as if they are offenders than they have done some-thing wrong.
If such a thing were to exist it would be VITAL that it never be leaked to the general population, and as this is a subject where people almost refuse to think rationaly and abide by emotional desire I do not think it would be possible to keep the infomation (and the lives of the people on the list) safe.
If they've done nothing wrong why should they be? sexual preferance isn't a crime. Kidnap, rape, murder... these are crimes, aften associated with peadophiles, but it still remains that SEXUAL PREFERANCE IS NOT A CRIME. no matter what it is. Until we bring in the thought police, that is.
Too many people don't see that a crime has to be commited before a punishment can be alocated. And too many people see that they are the ideal candidate for giving that punishment and that a baseball bat should be involved.
We live in a free country. Unfortunatly too many people see that as freedom to not think and ignor other peoples rights.
Cokephreak this is the 2nd thread in which youve vehemently defended paedophiles. youre starting to worry me.
But it does mean that they shouldn't go on the "register" even if one exists. ALl you have there is a perons who was accused of something, rather than convicted. AN all important difference.
Please tell me this wasn't meant. THe insinuation really isn't very pleasant.
WHat cokephreak has done, and I am sure he will reply himself, is defend the rights of paedophiles. There is a difference, he certainly has never defended their actions. That you cannot see this difference is truly worrying.
Erm. Which bit is not a crime? As soon as someone looks at kiddie porn or acts on their sexual preference then they have comitted a crime, yes? The question was about a list of convicted offenders. These people have comitted crimes.
However..
No it is typical gutter press instant reaction.
No, there's no way it could do that.
Yes.
Rather a cheap and pathetic argument there. Is it supposed to imply something? :rolleyes: I haven't seen him vehemently defending the actions of paedophiles, or suggesting that they shouldn't be dealt with by society if they commit an offence. He's simply being civilised and reasonable.
I agree that a public register is a bad idea. It leads to vigilantism, will force paedophiles underground where they can't be monitored and can breed complacency. There's three very good reasons against it. I'm yet to see one sensible argument for it.
If they look at child porn or act on it the chances are they are doing something illegal.
It is quite possible that some-one finds that they're sexual preferance is for young kiddies, they decide that its immoral, so never act on it they're entire lives.
They are peadophiles, but they are also not commiting a crime.
The very moral swallow hemlock.
That is precisely what he is arguing.
Being a paedophile, or rather being attracted to children, isn't in itself a crime. The crime comes when these urges are acted on, either through viewing of images or in the actual abuse.
We had a discussion along these lines not that long ago, it was centred on the difference between passive paedophilia, and active paedophilia
My concern is with those who do these things quietly and are never convicted. Those are the ones the police won't check up on, and the ones who are much more dangerous - because nobody knows they're doing it. National registers will do nothing useful but give rise to violence and innocent people being hurt.
Also, we all witnessed the attacks on innocent people a few years ago because some vigilantes couldn't tell the difference between "paedophile" and "paediatrician." Any register, were it to be introduced, would have to be designed to safeguard against a repeat of those events. Someone suggested a system where information about paedophiles would be available on a computer, and if you had suspicions about someone you could search for their name in the database, but you wouldn't be able to browse through it just to see who was on it. Although this would be better than a published list, it wouldn't prevent people with no previous convictions from offending and there's also nothing to stop people searching randomly for the names of people they have no real grounds to suspect, but who they just don't like.
Exactly - sensitive information like that should not be available to people who may use it irresponsibly. This should be a matter for the police and social workers, not society at large, especially given the results of the News of the World's name and shame campaign.