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?

The 1 in 15 statistic is meaningless unless you know the total number of adults living in the trial areas. If over 300 requests for information were made, is that from a population of 3000, or 30,000 or 300,000? It makes rather a huge difference.

"
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?"

Yes and in theory there's something to be said for individuals knowing about these predators living in their area. I for one would like to know but then again I like to think of myself as rational and sane and not prone to violence.
The problem is that a significant percentage of the general public are for want of a nicer term morons. This will lead to vigilante action which you seem to think fine, the problem is once again the general public who will no doubt once again end up terrorising a paedaetrician. Further to that it will lead to convicted paedophiles going under-ground changing there names etc so that now there whereabouts won't even be known to police and parole boards etc.

Rollmops: How, exactly, would the registration of adult offenders have saved James Bulger? It wouldn't have stopped Ian Huntley, either, as he was never convicted of anything prior to his killing of the two schoolgirls. (WHat would probably have prevented him from killing them would have been an improvement in the enforcing of the laws against rape and sexual assault, he was repeatedly accused of assaults, questioned etc but never prosecuted due to insufficient evidence). Some predators are very good at evading the law and hiding their crimes, so they would stay off the list but still be a danger.
So, once again, the negative effects of such a list (vigilantes, fuckwits attacking neighbours because they look a bit like peedafils, or because they share a surname (like 'Smith' maybe) with convicted offenders etc - AND the lulling of the lazy and dim into a false sense of security, that they only have to worry about the funny-smelling bloke up the road, but AUntie's new bible-thumping boyfriend who is very interested in the concept of sin, is totally safe...) outweigh the benefits. The provable benefits being... er....um... any suggestions, anyone? Any stats?

MQ, I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument that we shouldn't know where these people are because it would drive them underground. Like general said, these are manipulative people who live under a cloak of secrecy, so isn't just letting them be anonymous adding to that? The police only know where they are if they comply with them, and I'm sure that isn't the case all the time.

From what I can tell there was only one incidence of a paediatrician being hounded, just one case doesn't prove that the majority of gen pub are twats, I think you're underestimating them/us. Treating the wider public as fuckwit Sun readers is what politicians do at their peril, most people can be trusted to act like adults and responsibly. Most people

I welcome this new law, as a single parent I would want to check out any potential new partner. Having had experience of being groomed by a convicted paedophile which was very frightening when we found out, I can't see what anyone can object to.

Doesn't what you've just said frighten you Grumpy? That you might feel you want to check out a new bloke. I'm not a very trusting person, but how would that make your boyfriend feel? Or you for that matter if you didn't tell him, it'd always be in the back of your mind that you've had him vetted behind his back.

I'm not saying I disagree with what you've said, but it throws up all sorts of unseen personal problems in private relationships. Very difficult.

I welcome the law too. I think it is great that people with access to your children can be checked. Yes most abuse takes place within the family - but it would be very interesting to know what percentage of that abuse is by non blood relative family? It would still be recorded as family. I have very limited experience but I know of two adults who were seriously abused - one raped from the age of 6 until 14, by a step relative. One abused by a step father. I also know of somebody who was abused (although not sexually) by a step mother (with a police record for abuse and pysc problems as it turns out). Convicted child abusers lose any sympathy from me. Very few people would take vigilante action, or mistake a paediatrician for a paedophile!!!

Vut frogety that apediatrician / paedophile thing was within ten mminutes drive from my home, so really it is my distant neighbours that are so fuckwitted

And opresumably they are both still there and still fuckwitted (was before we moved here though).

Am still undecided, i'd like to know about a new partner but really did not feel safer when I did know that a convicted paedophile had moved into a house that overlooked my old garden (years ago, he was 'outed' by the papers and went into hiding.... no idea if police know to where).

Now, clearly there was some mess up with him being houded in an estate purely cosisting of 50 / 50 ownership homes for people with children.... but equally my children were already vert carefully supervised etc but itr was ahrd not to become paranoid

(somebidy said about no large geroups of offenders, am not sure but IIRC he ahd moved in with his Mum or sister)

Posted and had to go out.

Jeezo, Rollmop!

Nothing I can add to what SGB, peachy et al have said. Well, other than the fact that I was the victim of a peadophile (like MANY, MANY of us) and he was never convicted or registered. And he didn't look the the bogie man either. Or creep around looking shifty. I wish it was that bloody simple.

The best way to keep kids safe is to teach them that they have the right to say NO to anything they are uncomfortable about and to teach them to be confident. People who target kids look for vulnerable ones to groom, like I was. I had a good home life but was bullied and lonely and a nice, comliant 'good girl' so an easy target.
DOn't get me wrong - there is noone to blame for these kind of acts but the perpetrator, but sadly they have always and will always exist.

...and there are loads of pitchfork carriers ready to pounce on anyone they can get their hands on.

It is a difficult one peachy. But whilst of course it does happen, it still has to be remembered that the majority of the population are relatively normal and reasonable. If there was a decent system of monitoring known sex offenders and they truly did not end up in situations with easy access to children then there would not be a need for the public to know. The problem is that a lot of the public has lost faith in the system that is currently in place as many convicted sex offenders re-offend with ease as monitoring and support to stop their offending is poor. I know for a fact that a known convicted paedophile was released recently into our town and is still considered a significant threat. I have lost faith knowing this as my immediate question was why is he out? But now, time and money are being spent trying to keep children safe in the places he is known to haunt. Bizarre (and no I didnt hear it via gossip - I know it for a fact).

Just because I would want to know if a paedophile were living next door to me, doesn't automatically mean that I'm going to go round there and beat him up does it.

But I wouldn't shed a tear for the paedophile who was beaten, if they don't want it to happen to them then maybe they should stop abusing children.
What goes around comes around.

twotimes, wouldn't you want to make sure that the person who molested you wouldn't be able to do it again? That people, whom he/she comes in contact with, would be able to check if he/she has a record of being a convicted child molester?
Or don't you just give a damn what happens to other children?

I do not know where some vigilante phobics, who frequents these revered pages, live, but in my neighbourhood, vigilante action is as likely to occur as the chances for Brown getting re-elected.
Give people some credit for Xst sake...

Agent yes of course it frightens me, and the problem is that you never know if someone's interested in you or your kids do you unless you've known them for years.

I stopped internet dating for that very reason.

The man who was grooming us was a friend of my xh (he wasn't ex then) he had met through AA, so it's not the done thing to ask people too many questions. His name was David Crowly, google him, it's terrifying to think he was in my house.

I'm extra cautious now, and whilst I think it's sad to have to mistrust every new man in your life, it's necesary these days - and of course if you have the ability to check why wouldn't you?

Yep, Rollmop, but the problem is that the vast majority of offenders go unreported and unconvicted. Like mine.

If I knew where he was, I'd ring his neck, but I rather feel that is my privellege. Not the privellege of the pitchforkers. And of course 99.9 % of people would not mount a vigilant campaign, but as has been seen in the past, enough have. ANd generally it has fuck all to do with those mounting it!

AS for protecting other kids - how dare you. As I said, the only person responsible for abusing kids is the abuser. DO not lay the onus on me or others who have been victims. I've already said what the best protection for kids is. Teach them to be strong and confident then they will tell you if something is going on. DOn't bring them up like I was, to be compliant and uncomplaining. (I have changed somewhat in the intervening years.

frogerty - that is such a good point, perhaps that's why there is such a climate of fear surrounding sex offenders, we've been resoundingly told again and again how they live amongst us and that lots of children have been sexually abused, but we don't feel our children are protected from them.

I'd not thought about it before, but the lost faith in the authorities to deal with these kinds of offences now they are widely acknowledged makes you want get some sort of control for yourself, else we resign ourselves to being powerless against becoming a parent of one of their victims.

vorpalblade why is the 1 in 15 statistic meaningless?

Of all the requests for information that were made, 1 in every 15 returned a positive result.

I am not sure how that is affected by the size of the population in the trial. It sounds like a high result to me, given that there are about 30,000 convicted child molesters in the population - about 1 in every 20,000 people. The trial was across 4 police forces, so would have been thousands of people.

The other point is those talking about "stranger danger" and how hardly any cases come from that, rather being from people that are known to each other. But the people requesting information were requesting info about people known to them, not strangers, and mainly people who were within the family situation. So I don't really understand that argument.

No hold on it's one in 2000 of the population are convicted child sex offenders, if it's 30,000 out of 60million.

1 in 2000 is quite a lot isn't it

Anyhoo, if they were getting a result of 1 in 15 for this it seems to me that people were only checking if they had real concerns. And who is to say that people's instincts aren't actually brilliant and the other 14 were no good as well IYSWIM.

Imsonottelling
"And who is to say that people's instincts aren't actually brilliant and the other 14 were no good as well IYSWIM."

That is why it is a useless law. If one of the other 14 is also so inclined then what use is it to know that there was one convicted sex offender revealed.

Was it not Churchill who said never to believe a statistic that you have not falsified yourself.

Statistics are statistics. They can be manipulated and turned inside out.

We had a police officer give a talk about preventing child abuse. He told us exactly what Nicky said. Teach your DC to be strong and confident, be there for them, be present in their lives, be visible to others.

Paedophiles do not generally strike at random. They seek the weakest child, the child whose parents are not around, the least confident child who will not speak up against them. The child who will not be questioned if he gets home late from football training.

I really don;t know where I stand on this.

I keep thinking about jobs, and how they request your criminal record, and how no-one thinks anything of it. And how if you have a conviction for fraud you will never get a job in a bank, and people understand that.

Yet when you have a conviction for child molestation, the people you associate with who have children do not have the right to know.

It all seems wonky.

Is there a concern that people will not bother with their incstincts if they can check like this?

Is it that people who have served their time should be let alone? And yet in employment people are not let alone from past relevant misdemeanours.

I really can see both sides of this very easily.

I can see both sides too, Imsonottelling.

My main concern is that if we rely on CRB checks or this check instead of encouraging our DC to be independent and self-confident that we are putting them in danger.

Not in danger of the weird guy who lives across the road, cause we are already suspicious of him and keep our DC away. But of the scout leader/football trainer/youth club leader.

Self-confident children are less likely to be abused.

Yes I agree with that.

But I don;t think anyone is saying "let's have this, and then we can tell our children to trust everyone they meet". It's more as well as. And of course lots of parents dont teach their children about inapprpriate touching and saying no and listening to instincts and stuff.

Also people keep saying "it;s not the stranger across the road" but this hasn't been brought in for the stranger across the road. The requests were mainly about family members - people in the home environment with lots of access.

Are self confident children less likely to be abused by someone who they live with? I can see it for the scout leader types, but for people in the home less so.

PLus (as an aside) the self confident thing is a rather depressing solution, as it doens't stop the abuse happening, it just makes it less likely that it will happen to your child, shifting it onto someone elses child.

I am still that 1 in every 2000 people in this country are convicted child sex offenders.

All of this stuff needs a rethink. The situation is intolerable. (thinking about the figures from NSPCC ads as well)

I have decided that I support this law on two provisos: that it does stick to people checking out significant contacts- eg potential partners beyind initial stage. And that some monitoring is done wrt to the use of the law as a method of bullying ex partners- soemthing I think I said further down as a perhaps and which someone on QT last night indicated that research shows is happening

AS long as that is done, it's fine.

My biggest fear really if not isn;t the sex offenders themselves- I woudn't want them hurt but they would I presume have options with access to police services, support etc- I know the one near us was pulled sharpish.

The eprson I would fear for was his mother, left behind with the entire village knowing her son was a convicted paedophile but innocent of all crime heerself.

Or the offernders partner, children......

That's when I personally would say too far

What I don't understand is why everyone is saying it's going to be helpful to find out about a new boyfriend....

there are many, many FEMALE paedophiles too... why aren't they being talked about?

Every news item I've heard is about men finding out about ex's new fella or the women themselves.... are men less suspicious then, of new women in their family's lives?

Lewis, that's because only men are capable of doing bad things out of sheer badness, women who harm children are victims of bad men in some way. Didn't you know? Just like only women are responsible for becoming pregnant while on benefits, and men who impregnate women and run off do so because the woman was too demanding/ugly/reluctant to suck cock...