Would the nationwide introduction of Sarah's Law necessarily lead to revenge?

[Rantagonist]

In the pilot scheme there were 60 children who were protected from potential abuse by it.

Surely if just one child is spared then it makes it all worthwhile?

And should all ex-husbands checking out their ex-wifes new boyfriend be viewed as doing it out of revenge?

"if only one child would be saved from abuse via this scheme, it is a success."

What if 10 adults die as a result? What if 23 parents have a bad feeling about someone but have become so convinced of the success and worth of this system that has saved one child that they think it is the final word on a persons trust-worthiness and because they find out they are not on the system assume that they must be safe and ignore their instinct.we now have a count of 1 child saved, 10 adults dead and 23 children molested. Would it still be a success due to that one child being saved?
Sorry if that sounds facetious but I'm echoing SGB's sentiments that it is a ridiculous and unquantifiable notion of 1 child saved.

VERY interesting the way that article is slanted so differently from the other one I read, which was either BBC or Independent, will have a look.

For eg "The small number of disclosures that took place - 21 out of 311 applications - showed that the scheme's main benefit was to reassure those who had anxieties about individuals in their neighbourhoods."

That is quite high isn't it, not quite low? 1 in 15 of all requests showing up child sex offenses?

Brilliant idea, SGB, potential parents should be licenced, why, would greatly lessen the number of teenage illiterate Mummies with six plus children, each by different bloke, living in a taxpayers funded accommodation and receiving nice pocket money from the same said taxpayer. [haarrr]
Go flame me..... enjoy.

I'm always interested as to why sex offenders are chosen. Wouldn't parents want to know if a convicted drug dealer had set up home near them? Or a burglar? Or a murderer? Frankly I wouldn't be that keen on living next door to an arsonist.

It seems to me that we can't keep ourselves and our children safe from every eventuality. We have to take reasonable precautions and take the rest on faith.

I do wonder as well whether these campaigns aren't actually taking our eyes off the real problems that no-on seems to want to face.

litchick they also reveal other relevant info such as a history of domestic violence.

it wasn't the BBC it was the independent

Another sad, but valid reason why such a law would never be totally effective is that statistically stranger danger is rare. It's not the weird looking Norman Bates type in the mac loitering round the park with his too short trousers and his white socks who is the sexual abuser. It's Grandad. And we aren't going to find many daughters or sons running checks on them, are we?

I am not sure either way tbh

A friend back home was raped: the man covicted turned out to be a Paedophile, the police said they think he intended to take her dd who was usually with her.

It turned out in our tiny hamlet we had a few convicted child sex offenders..... tbh I did not feel safer knowing that

but if I were a single parent I;d probably want to check out any man daft enough to take us on

But eqwually the fact that most people applying were absent fathers makes me cringe- were they responsible dads woried for the safety of tehir children, or were many (and I can imagine this) just trying to stir up trouible for their XW's relationships?

Sure, but only for convictions.
And as we all know the vast majority of dom violence goes unreported.

So you do your check and it comes back clear. What you don't know is the bloke has battered his ex-wife until he broke her jaw. Or that he raped his daughter but the case never got to court.

As I say, we simply cannot protect ourselves and our children from everything. And in many ways, I'm worried that outsourcing things to the state just makes people less dilligent, less responsible.
I'm constantly hearing cries that the state or the police or social serices should ahve done something when said person is taking no adequate measures themselves.

If it's grandad though, there's a pretty good chance that mum and dad will be aware of his vice, I'd have thought

Oh dear, Solid...., off your little pony and put away your soap box.
Quote Solid: "rather than teaching children autonomy, personal safety oh and keeping a reasonable eye on their whereabouts, feelings and behaviour" - how would you teach that to a two year old, pray say?
I do not know, nor care to know, under which rock you reside, but 'the culture of vigilantism' you are so worried about (why, done something naughty?) has not developed in countries where similar laws have been passed.
Knowing that they could be 'found out' should deter the child molesters with record, to actively seek employment etc. with next terrible deed in mind.

Now untwist your knickers.

I would say though that the high number of positives coming back (and I think 1 in 15 positive is high) shows that people are following their instincts really.

I don't know how I feel about this personally, I can see both sides.

Another thought - it seems to me that people who commit terrible crimes against the person often get laughably short sentences - 2 years for rape, 1 year for battering your partner etc. And that people who commit this sort of crime do often go on to reoffend.

Given that people who clearly are a danger to the public aren't being locked up for the public's protection, isn;t there an argument for this being in place as a balance against that?

Or does it mean that the govt and probation servics have a get-out clause... Serial child sex offender envaigles his way into your home and rapes your daughter - oh sorry madam it's your own fault you should have had him checked out...

Dunno.

Bloody hell rolmops you;re on a vicious roll today aren't you?

But the one in fifteen could be very misleading and lead to a huge culture of unnecessary fear.

Because perhaps it's possible that there are a high proportion of sex offenders in the area where the pilot was run, so maybe when the scheme is extended the figures will drop.

And we're not talking about other countries. We already know that a culture of vijilantiism exists in this country, you only have to look at the response to the news of the world's "name and shame" campaign for proof of that, where paediatricians were targeted.

Yes..... terribly vicious. That Jamie Bulgur case has haunted me for years and got me so worked up now. About anything and anyone who could harm children.

If there are high proportions of sex offenders living in certain areas I think I would want to know that TBH.

I don't think it does work like that does it?

Milton keynes: great for the shops; hastings: nice sea views; poplar: excellent for convicted child sex offenders...

I also thought they tried to keep child sex offenders away from each other so they didn;t get together and encourage each other IYSWIM.

quite interesting short blog piece on the BBC about how these cases affect wider society

Rollmops: I wonder if you are being a devil's avocado? I do hope so. But just in case, let's examine the idiocy of your last post and point it out to you. You seem to think it's impossible to teach a two-year-old about safety and personal boundaries. So do you ignore it when yours hits other little playmates, or is hit by them? Or tries to climb out of a third floor window?
Or do you really think that the only possible danger DC face is all those billions of peedafils lurking on every corner?

I give up...... you quite obviously do not have the mental capacity to grasp a simple concept that a two year old with even the best understanding about 'personal boundaries' is no match to an adult with child molesting tendencies.
The point of this whole saga is not helping toddlers to avoid windows but doing everything one can to make sure the people one trusts ones children with are not convicted child molesters.

Try to understand. I know it's a stretch.

SGB I'm surprised at the venom in your answers to other posters when you're constantly slagging them off, calling them sentimental fuckwits and examining their 'idiocy' because of what they believe. Pissing on other peoples opinions is not a discussion.

As to the OP, I'm not sure sex offenders should be given anonymity. Their offences are by their very nature secretive and carried out by manipulative, devious people, so to allow them to melt back into society may be helping them keep that side of themselves hidden.

Of course Sarah's Law would not stop all abuse, like a poster said earlier, many offences go unreported for whatever reason, but that's no argument to at least try and do something. I think the pilot schemes results are encouraging, there will be parts of it that need fine tuning, but that's why they're doing the pilot.

If I remember rightly, only 4 or 5% of convicted sex offenders dont go on to reoffend on release from custody. If there's not much hope of rehabilitation and you can't keep them locked up for life, surely it's only sensible to at least try and do something?

Rollmops: You're the one who's coming across as clueless. And a swivel-eyed pitchwork wielder too. There is no ultimate protection for anyone - but the point is, stranger-danger, stranger attacks, are rare. The best protection, as I have said, is teaching children about appropriate behaviour and giving them confidence in their own autonomy. Of course, another thing that would help a lot is to get away from the lingering idea that men are heads of the household and owners of the other people in it, most child abusers are men who think their DC are their property. But witless grandiose sentimentality and creating a vigilante climate causes far more harm than it prevents.

But wasn't this the big idea of CRB checks?? We are going to trust an agency to keep accurate and up to date information about offenders - it isn't going to be abused and everyone is going to just nod their head and agree that the info is purely a 'good to know' basis???

CRB checking hasn't worked - it is a complete farce and there is no reason why I would pay the blind bit of notice to this new wheeze. It is merely window dressing and a tacit admission that there are no sufficient ways of keeping tabs on those who are going to reoffend.

Solid, I pity you.
Have you done something, eerr, untoward? You seem awfully afraid of something?
For the last time, nobody here has claimed that Sarah's Law would protect children from all evil. Sadly, that's impossible.
What the said law can do is to help concerned parents make sure that a person they are trusting their children with is not a registered hence, convicted child molester.

Now, your venom spitting rant about men shows that you quite clearly do have Issues.
Good luck with solving them....

Why wouldn't antone want to know if a convicted child sex offender is living near them?
Are people saying that they'd rather not have this scheme in case of potential vigilante attacks against the child abusers/molesters?

If someone is a child sex offender then they can take what's coming to them, my priority is my child and other children not the child abuser.

Yes, teach your child about boundaries and keeping safe etc and that can be a help if there is an abuser in the family/friends network, but to say that stranger abuse is rare so lets not have this scheme is ridiculous.