What do you think of a 'Sarah Law'?

[Janus]

I watched a bit of the Sara Payne interview last night but couldn't watch it to the end as all I wanted to do was cry. I was overdue with my first child, a girl, when Sarah was taken and can so remember praying she would be found alive.
So now they have sent the man who killed her to prison for life but somehow it doesn't seem enough.
As a parent and having listened to the arguements presented very comprehensively by one of ladies involved in implementing 'Megan's Law' in the States you have to think this is a good idea but how the hell do you uphold it correctly without the near riots that followed last year's publication by the Mirror of known sex offenders?
What do you think, can it be done?

Some years ago I was on jury service when one of the other juries was discussing a sex offender case. It was basically the word of the man against a teenage girl. They were really agonising over it as the mothers on the jury knew that girls this age do make up stories but the men were inclined to believe the girl. I never heard the result as I left before the case ended.

It convinced me that juries should be told the previous record of the accused provided the accuser is also happy to have their previous record exposed. "Reasonable doubt" is all very well for minor cases but for something serious it allows people who are probably guilty to be acquited too often. When the jury system started the 12 good men and true would probably have personally known the people being tried which isn't true now.

Putting people in prison for life would be fine if they didn't come out again but life doesn't usually mean that

I agree Wendym - if the previous convictions relate to the present case then I believe the jury should be informed of them. I also think there should be tougher sentencing of sex crimes. Roy Whiting sexually abused a girl of nine for a hour and he only got 4 years for it and he was released after serving only half that time, that poor girl is left with a life sentence. There should be no early releases for sex attackers. He should also have been electronically tagged so the police would have know exactly where he was when Sarah was taken. I know people will say that this infringes on his human rights, but what about the rights of the victims?

Castration is another option I favour, without anaesthetic!

I happened to see This Morning yesterday when I was off with food poisoning. One of the senior detectives from the Whiting investigation had the good sense to point out that the Paynes were on holiday at the time of her abduction - knowing about the paedophiles in their home area would not have made any difference to this happening. I am not in favour of a Megan's Law equivalent here but would wholeheartedly support electronic tagging. At the moment 97% of sex offenders register as required - I think that this would drop significantly if their names and addresses were to be made public; it would also encourage them to contact each other and perhaps encourage more paedophiliac activity than they might engage on their own. Time for reflection rather than reaction.

Not sure where I stand on this exactly, and I missed the Sara Payne programme on TV, but I think Harrysmum has made some really good points....

Re telling juries about previous convictions. Firstly, when you appear in court, it is to be tried for a particular crime, not what you have done before. Also, in any crime, the police are likely to arrest people who have previously committed similar crimes, so anybody on trial is likely to have previous convictions. If you were on a jury in a rape trial, and you knew that the accused had already been convicted, or even tried and acquitted of another rape, it's bound to make you more likely to convict him again. The police don't arrest people out of the blue, which is why getting into trouble when young, and becoming known to the police can be so dangerous.

Having said all this, knowing that this man had assaulted another girl (and only served two years for it) must make things even worse for Sara's parents. I'll get back behind the parapet now.

Deborah Orr in the Independent yesterday made a very good case against Megan's Law. I agree, it's time for reflection not reaction.

Regarding revealing previous crimes, apparently this is at the judge's discretion. In one case,a rapist had been repeatedly accused of rape by a variety of women and had escaped conviction each time using the same defence. In his final trial the judge decided to reveal this to the jury and the man was convicted. If used appropriately, in crimes where there is considered to be a genuine risk to the public, I am not wholly averse to it.

message withdrawn

The problem with 'naming and shaming' is that at present the police do know the whereabouts of the majority of the people on the sex offenders register. That is why they first arrested Roy Whiting so quickly. If people were in fear of their safety/lives they would just disappear and reinvent themselves. They could then be living next door, but unknown to the local police. That said, Whiting's known whereabouts did not save Sarah Payne. I am tempted to agree with the tagging idea. Also much longer sentences, and far more rigorous monitoring post-release. Ray Wyre, possibly one of the most knowledgeable people who has worked with sex offeners has, I'm pretty sure, said they are never 'cured', and always retain the potential to strike again. The problem is that of course I'd want to know if I was living next door to a paedophile, but although I think now that I'd use that knwledge wisely, who knows how I might react if, for instance, I had any reason to suspect them of targetting my child.

One of the most frightening things about paedophiles is the fact that they can look and seem so 'normal'. Roy Whiting was like the 'stereotypical' paedohile - scruffy, smelly, couldn't get on with women and a loner - but they aren't all like that, look at Gary Glitter, ok, I always found him wierd and creepy, but he had been married and had children of his own, so seemed 'respectable'. The point I'm making, is that you may have a paedophile living next-door to you with their wife and children (not all wives leave them when they are convicted) a seemingly normal family, and the sort of family who you may be fooled in to thinking you could leave your child with safely.

I agree that by revealing known paedophiles identities/whereabouts there is a risk of lynch-mobs forming and/or driving the paedophiles further underground, but with the law as it is at the moment, it does seem that the offenders rather than their victims and potential victims have all the rights and are getting all the protection. I think perhaps the only way to redress this balance is to permanently lock up a convicted paedophile, as it does seem to be the opinion of experts in this area that it is extremely difficult if not impossible for them to be cured.

I watched both of the Sarah Payne programmes the other night (BBC1 and Ch5), they were both heartbreaking and gut-wrenching. Both Sara and Michael have shown amazing courage, despite their unimaginable suffering, and I think that they and Sarah deserve a change in the law to prevent this from being allowed to happen again. It would never bring Sarah back, but it may be a small comfort to her parents and family that something positve has come out of this tragedy.

I agree. i used to work in a child sexual abuse treartment service and it was terrifying how many children across quite a wide area had been molested by the same few people, other than those for whom it was by their immediate family ( mothers and fathers, grandparents...) What used to drive us mad was that whilst most peopel were inagreement about the identities of these people most of them escaped conviction because of the way the law stands. ( THe CPS won't even allow most caese to get to court because iots so hard to prove anything when its a childs voice against an adult. The triuly scary bit is that as you say most of these peopel wern't wierdos they seem so normal and many were very good with kids... after all how else do they get them to trust them?
I do think the law needs reviewing but its so hard to know exactly how it can be done in a way that would really protect kids inpractice.
Any ideas?

sorry about typing. my hands don't always cooperate and I forget to preview..

I dont agree with naming and shaming, although I might feel different if something so awful happened to my child. It would become a free for all and someone could go through hell over a rumour. However, tagging would be a good idea, maybe they should have to regularly touch base somewhere. Longer jail sentences or really life should be an absolute.

But if tagging was used, if other people were aware that an individual was tagged it would be like advertising the fact that you are a paedophile? I mean you may have been tagged for burgulary but most people would jump to conculsions wouldn't they?

message withdrawn

thsi may sound terribly depressing but I think theresearch pretty much indicates that rehabilitation doesn't work for the majority of cases, so I do find it hard that people get such lenient sentences which are soemtimes shortened for " good behaviour" etc...

Well if rehabilitation doesnt work for these people then a true life sentence is the only answer

I've read that the problem with life sentences is that there is then no 'incentive' for a paedophile not to kill their victim, as well as assualting them. It's a hellish problem, I don't know what the answer is. There seem to be so many of these weirdos around nowadays. Do you think society has always had its fair share of them but it's been a hidden problem until now, or do you think there has been a real rise in the number of people prepared to act out their perversions?

Re Revealing previous convictions. The Express also has four pictures of paedophiles wanted by the police, one man has repeatedly abused children, but because his previous convictions are not made known, the jury tend to see it as a one off offence and the man gets only a light sentence. This particular guy abused a girl and got 4 years, he was out after 2, he then abused another child and was given nine months, he abused again and got, I think, another 4 years but he was out again in half that time, now he has gone missing. All these crimes were committed whilst he was on the offenders list, proving that the list does not make an ounce of difference, if they are going to offend they will do.
Paedophilia cannot be cured, so why the hell are we letting these people back out into society to abuse more children?

We talk about whether paedophilia can be 'cured' or not. So is it a crime or a sickness? Isn't this difference is at the heart of the approach you take?

If you think it's an incurable sickness, should paedophiles be treated as not being totally responsible for their own actions and kept long term in a secure medical environment, or until medical research finds a 'cure'?

If you think it's a crime, then do you go for punishment, short or long term, in prison, plus tagging?

Tigermoth - I only used the word 'cure' because I couldn't think of anything else suitable, but I see the point you are making.

SueDonim - I'm guessing but, I imagine it has been a fairly consistent problem. Most paedophiles commit the offence against a family member so, I suppose, it's more usually referred to as child abuse or incest. Father-daughter incest, especially in large families, was pretty much tolerated as a way of relieving sexual pressure on a worn out wife and mother. This never seems to be referred to as paedophilia. We prefer the image of the wild eyed stranger preying on young girls and boys.

I can't imagine it would be on the rise purely because it is now so socially unacceptable. The problem is that many paedophiles believe that their position is the same as that of homosexuals 100 years ago. That society doesn't understand and that it is not a perversion and, in time, society will come to accept that their "love" of children is as valid as homosexuals love of the same sex. How do you get people to understand that their view of "love" is perverted? Is this misunderstanding criminal or a mental illness?

I really don't know what the answer is to this, but my gut feeling is that it is not the naming and shaming route.

You're probably right, Tinker. About 20 years ago a friend was a peripatetic teacher in the wilds of Scotland. It wasn't uncommon to have children in class whose father was also their brother and so on, and they were quite open about it. Little, naive me was incrediby shocked by her stories.

I know that some paedophile rings have used the argument you mention in your second para. It's just horrendous. All the stories we hear about priests and scout leaders, people we think we can trust and who should have integrity, are just nauseating, too.

Due to the recent high profile cases involving paedophiles there has been a blurring in many people's minds about what constitutes a sex offender.
One of my husband's friends had sex with his wife in a distant corner of Sainsbury's car park at dusk, and was discovered by police. They took a very heavy handed approach.He was fined and his name is now on the sex offenders register.
And what about the female paediatrician in Wales who was hounded out of her neighbourhood by very stupid locals?

Just wondered: Is a paedophile the same as a sex offender? Are the classed as the same and do they all go on the same list?

Drifting slightly off the subject for a bit, here's a conundrum:

I really want my sons to have some 'good' caring men. Role models of their own sex. Their father is lovely, but why should he be the only caring male in their lives? Little girls, IMO, have a greater chance to befriend 'good' women - their mother's friends, classroom assistants, dinner ladies etc. Even my son's Beaver troup is run by women.

Now, there are two men who have shown an interest in my son. One is a neighbour. He is a single, and very personable thirty-something with a good job and a car that is his pride and joy. In the summer he is often to be seen in the street talking with the children who play out. He may spend an hour or so with them. Sometimes he takes them for a quick drive in his car. Our area is quiet and child-friendly,and this man in well known and considered harmless by the other adults.

Within bounds, I am happy for my 7 year old to play out sometimes. Yet I cannot help the hairs on my neck standing on end when I see this man. I have told my son to never, ever accept a lift from him, go anywhere alone with him and shout loudly if he ever does or says something my son doesn't like. My son is rather perplexed by all this, despite being quite aware of the danger of kidnapping and the Sarah Payne case. Usually I make my son come inside when this man is around, even if he is surrounded by a large group of children and teenagers.

The second man is a family man, very caring and respectable. His daughter knows my son very well - she used to babysit for us, often taking him to her home. The family have been very good to us over the years - we lack an extended family of our own. A couple of years ago, I happened to pay the family a visit with my son on tow. During my visit the father began to roll around on the floor with my son - typical fatherly horseplay. It was the father, not my son who initiated this, and he told me they did this a lot. I knew that sometimes he had looked after my son alone in the house. I have to admit I felt really uneasy, yet at the same time hated myself to feeling like this. I have no qualms about leaving my son with his father, or him having male teachers. We happen to have other babysitters now, so my son does not visit the house. I suspect I would have curtailed the visits anyway.

I feel that I am cutting my son off from some men, just because of their sex and my fear about paedophiles. I am sending out negative vibes about men who are child-orientated, caring and almost definitely innocent. If these two men were women, I would not be half as concerned. I am very happy for my son to talk to female neighbours and I have no objection to other females cuddling him.

Suedonim interesting point you made about whether or not child molesters have increased in recent years. I don't think this is the case. In Victorian times "the golden age of the family" there were thousands of child prostitutes working in cities. Presumably all the adults who availed of their services were what we would now consider child abusers or paedophiles.
Tigermoth, your post about the men your son plays with really made me think. My husband loves children and is a very physical person. When we are in the company of friends with kids, you can guarantee that dh will be on the floor rolling around, tickling and generally horse playing with all the kids. I had never thought before how it could be perceived by other parents as obviously I am as confident as I can be that dh is not a pervert. However, in view of your comments I will make sure that I will always stay in view from now on so that I can be sure no one has any cause to think he may be doing anything suspicious.
As for what we do about known abusers/ paedophiles who are in the community, I really don't know what the answer is. I loathe the idea of naming as I think that it would give some people the chance to act out their own methods of justice. However, I also dread the thought of anyone ever touching my own child. Personally, I think that there is a strong case to be made for convicted abusers to be imprisoned for life and made to work for their keep, so as not to be a burden to taxpayers.