quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Huntley/Nixon as you may see from the link above, was not a convicted sex offender

No, he wasn't a convicted sex offender, but while you were extolling the virtues of the British system, I was pointing out that it has it's flaws in dealing with sex offenders in general, convicted or not. And I was using the case of Huntley as an example.

You say that:

quote:

" The police here do keep their own ,of all associates of criminals and for others who have, in the jargon, 'come to notice' for their behaviour,places they frequent, people they mix with etc, though the person has no convictions. That's part of criminal intelligence work." In the case of Huntley he had come to their attention but the police failed to keep necessary records. He had in fact been charged with rape as well as burglary."

In the case of Huntley, the system didn't work. Someone with numerous complaints against them; one of indecent assault, four of underage sex, three of rape - one resulted in a charge, ended up working in a position of trust in a school.

Yes, criminal background checks are a nuisance to those trying to volunteer their time in the education system, but they are commonplace (and necessary) on both sides of the Atlantic. They are only effective, however, if the people entrusted to carry them out, follow the criteria.

quote:

"It's naive to think that publishing such details protects anyone. What are you supposed to do? Say to yourselves " Hey, there's a sex offender in my district, I'd best move house?" Think " I'm not entering that area, there's a convicted sex offender there? " How do you think sex offenders operate? Like trapdoor spiders, waiting to pounce on someone walking past there door? What do you do, cross over to the other side and scurry past ? "

It's also arrogant to think that parents don't need to know that a convicted sex offender is living next door to them. Regardless of the efficacy of such a public register, in my opinion, the public has a right to know. For the government to decide to withhold information smacks of a big brother attitude. Perhaps what it comes down to in the UK, is that people have more faith in their officials to do the right thing, and are less questioning than in North America.
I agree that such registers can result in vigilantism, but such a mob mentality is a minority attitude, particularly in the UK. It is not a good reason to withhold such information from the majority. People who take the law into their own hands are not immune from prosecution either.

Dg, our 'sex offenders register' is related to police having powers to have an order that an offender be barred from going anywhere where children are.The contents of it are given confidentially to landlords where an offender might be living or seek to live, among others who are informed.

Here's a piece from 2000 concerning the views of the police about divulging details, and how the register was applied then:

Offenders' addresses

Yes, we do have confidence that our professionals know more, and are more effective, than the public .We don't buy a dog and then bark ourselves.

The protection that parents give is that they are vigilant, particularly when their children use the computer, and they do as our mothers did viz. tell us not to talk to strangers, or 'keep our secret' of what we do, or are asked to do, with strangers or friends or relations ( a common ploy of paedophiles), or 'take sweets from strangers'etc

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Dg, our 'sex offenders register' is related to police having powers to have an order that an offender be barred from going anywhere where children are.The contents of it are given confidentially to landlords where an offender might be living or seek to live, among others who are informed.

As I said, in the vast majority of sexual offences committed against children, the perpetrator is someone the child knows. However, given the fact that there is nothing to stop a convicted offender buying a house in any neighborhood, and the high recidivism rate of pedophiles, if a public list stops one offence, then it has served it's purpose.

quote:

Yes, we do have confidence that our professionals know more, and are more effective, than the public .We don't buy a dog and then bark ourselves.

And we don't let our children use the internet, trusting that the installed filters will completely protect them either.
There are a large number of retired senior members of the judiciary, and ex high ranking police officers on the British register. Were you aware of that?

However, please answer Mozart's question to you:

quote:

What would you say if you were working for the prosecution? Honestly.

and to add to that, how would you feel if your child was sexually molested by a neighbor, and you found out later, that the police had that person's name on a list, which you weren't allowed access to?

Hi Fred,
Please disregard my final question to you. Having thought about it, I think it's too personal, and doesn't have a place in this discussion. So please accept my apologies if I caused offence.
The subject is one I feel strongly about, but that's no reason not to have a fair debate.
dg

quote:

Originally posted by dance girl:
Hi Fred,
Please disregard my final question to you.
dg

Oh, damn!I was going to answer "No, provided they let me paint 'Sex Fiend' in big red letters, and a big swastika, on the bloke's door afterwards".

...you are incorrigible.

I guess my reaction to all of this is: if these sex offenders are such a potential danger to society that we have to guard our children and women from even walking past their houses, why are they freed to roam our streets at all??

(that's rhetorical, of course)