Should women be able to check partners' records?

[moonferret]

I've just noticed this article in the Mail.
Do you feel that it's reasonable, or should men have the same "equal" rights? Or are criminal records (where they exist) supposed to be confidential as I do?
No marks for the first person referring to it as the Daily Fail rather than offering anything constructive!

BooyHoo...do you know the difference between "average" and "extreme", or do you think they are all the same?
(We'll get there eventually...with patience and understanding)

Awww...don't be like that BooyHoo
Your name is very apt though. Shame you can't argue a point but have to resort to name calling...

i didn't have to resort to name calling. i chose to. and i was talking about you, not to you. your posts are clearly intended for a reaction. you don't want to debate, you want to piss people off.

You chose to, as you can't debate whatever it is that you don't agree with. And I don't care whether it was "to me" or not if you wish to draw such a pathetic distinction. If it's here, I will respond if I wish.
And no, I want to debate, you however can't or at least won't...you've debated nothing, just spouted off abuse and nonsense.

not cant, just wont. no point.

Soooo..... back on topic.

How would it work with someone like John Venables or Thompson ?.

Plenty of cock ups happen with data held too.

I know it isn't quite the same but have a Jewish friend who went with his with to have genetic tests before they got married to check whether they were carrying certain genes for conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease.

This genetic disclosure is considered essential by the Jewish community. Voluntary disclosure of STD and criminal records would in some ways be similar.

I think disclosure always looks like a good idea after the fact. The 'if only they'd known' feeling must be very strong for families left behind. The police might also think it's a good idea, but if someone knows their partner has a violent past and still has a relationship with them, are they then culpable in some way? Is that a shift in responsibility we're comfortable with?

The case in the headlines today of Clare Wood is that of a woman who had complained to the police on numerous occasions about a man's violent behaviour and threats. The principal concern is surely that these complaints were not handled properly by the police who presumably knew very well that he was dangerous. I don't quite understand how her knowing his past criminal history would have changed the outcome on this occasion

Trillian Astra wrote "Either criminal records are private or they are not." Well historically criminal records were public. Courts sat in public, jurours were drawn from the local community, local people could listen in, and sentences were carried out publicly. These days society is so large that the idea of local is a fiction, but there has never been a decision by society to make justice secret (except in childcare cases). What is secret is any form of searchable list. Of course these days most people in an area will have very limited knowledge of a near neighbour convicted of a crime, informed by sensationalist press stories or lurid gossip. That's a far cry from knowing that your cousin has been convicted of theft, and knowing the real person. These days information about previous convictions is available but only on an exceptional basis to people with clear grounds for special access (childcare, police). Is it too much to say that if you invite someone to move in with you that makes you a special case?

Might as well throw in a STD history check for partners as well since their health is at a potential risk.

I could also see arguments like this happening "well she knew his past record so it's her own fault for still wanting to be with him"

Actually I agree with Cogito & GBDad. In Clare Wood's case most of us would expect the police to act if a woman complains about a man's violent behaviour and threats if the guy has a history of it and felt he was potentially dangerous.

Introducing this law would then give the police the ability to wash their hands of this by saying "Yeah well we warned her....".

Surely the correct thing to do would be for the police to act, investigate and hopefully arrest the man?

Basically whilst the principle of the law sounds good, in practice not only is it full of pitfalls but it might be completely missing the point.

To be honest I think yo many women are far to happy to have any old sod round theirs for a shag

My mate has started Internet dating she has the guys round hers the first night they meet

So they know her name were she lives, her real number, what her kids look like, what school they go to. And all she knows is a mobile pone number and a name

I have told her but she is a adult

So if Bloke is on the list, and then he hits Woman, Woman calls cops - then what happens that's different?

Alice what happens that is different is that she finds out that he has a "history" of such happenings. They are not the One off or out of the ordinary instances he tells her they are. And she is in a better position after the first time to deal with it.

Does it make assault or murder less of a crime if she knows? No.
Does it put her in a better position to get out? Yes.

I think Moonferret's example (way back) is a good example of this: If a partner asks for money soon into a relationship, it would be a good thing if you could find out if they had a conviction for fraud in relation to past partners.

It's not perfect. It will not stop crime, but it can help prevent it. And as the criminal courts are not conducted in secret then is it such a trip to have criminal records available to the public on request. They would know about them if they hung around the Magistrate's or Criminal Court all day.

maypole1 the kindest word for you friend is "nieve" but you know that. Safety isn't a consideration for women who are so confident they can't imagine anything going wrong. Nothing's ever happened to them and they think they can handle it, right? Might as well talk road safety to a boy racer.

Going back to the original point here's a comparison. Buy car insurance and the insurer has access to your complete claims history - even if you don't disclose it. They seem to think it's relevant.

Danniclare

Then why stop there? maybe potential partners should have access to all previous and potentially harming information (for both people invovled). Like STD history, Credit history, Debt?, criminal record.....genes. All of these can affect a partner in a negative way so we should be able to check them up, just like an insurer would look at all the information that could have an affect on them.

The point is that many people may not even have a record, when someone finds out about their partners past but continues to have a relationship with them, I am pretty sure people will simply blame them since they knew how he was like beforehand. And how will you even prove your the partner of x?

"They are not the One off or out of the ordinary instances he tells her they are."

I realise that there are some women who stay or are trapped in violent relationships for various reasons but surely, in the majority of cases, a 'one-off' violent incident from a new partner would be enough to have most women heading for the door - or pointing him in the direction of it?

Like I said before, I don't have an issue with the principle. Just concerned as to what safeguards will be put into place.

I mean what's to stop a woman going into a policestation and claiming to be x's partner.

Also, and this will be right up Aliceliddell's street as she's all for equality. To ensure this law doesn't discrimination against the sexes, access must also be given to men who are possibly concerned their GF could have a history of violence. Therefore men would be allowed to also check yes? And if so, what's to stop men from potentially abusing the system for their own ends?

Back to the question in the original post - men will have equal rights. It is just the reporting of it in the DM is sexist.

niceguy2, your sophisticated grasp of social equality will doubtless extend to an in depth analysis of how and why identical treatment in an unequal situation will merely exacerbate the original inequality. Therefore I do not think giving comparable access to comparable registers will stop more than 2 women a week being killed by violent men. Niceguy2 can nodoubt furnish us with the relevant figures on financial fraud (mentioned upthread) and men killed by women.

Dione - I think you're right, it will give the woman some support for her complaint. Will it persuade the police to act? Bear in mind women usually call the cops on the 35th assault. Will the register improve that? Just doubt the effectiveness.

Of course the option to check a partner's history of violence (if any) will be open to both men and women. I would have thought that was obvious. To do anything else would be discriminatory.

However, male and female experience of violence is different - there ain't two men a week killed by their partners or former partners. So I doubt very many men will wish to check, or will check. But the option will be there.

What will be really useful for both the police and victims will be the ability to check once there has been a 'first' incident. If women (or men) could check what their partner claims about 'I'm so sorry, I've never done this before, I'll never do it again, I promise I never wanted to hurt you, I've just been under so much strain blah blah blah' against the facts, that would be enormously powerful and might help more people to escape before the violence escalates.