Re: sex pests ...
 

I severely doubt that. People of sound minds might be put off by the threat of their life in jail, but people of sound mines don't become paedophiles do they?

Re: sex pests ...
 

Capital punishment is not an answer to anything. Recently in Canada a man convicted in a 1969 sex slaying was released after serving 23 years for a crime he did not commit. Another, Guy Paul Morin, serving time for the rape and murder of a six year old girl was released after about six years, again the circumstantial evidence on which he was convicted was undermined by new evidence proving his innocence. One of the problems this causes is that the real perps are still walking the streets.

In Kingston, because of historical circumstances not relevant to this discussion, we have seven major prisons, including 3 maximum security institutions. This means that sex offenders are often released into our community. Kingston Police regularly release photos and bios of released sex offenders. The info also appears on the KPD website. Some offenders are held on Govenor General's warrant ... they will get out only in a box. Offenders who are due for parole, and are a high risk for repeating can voluntarily undergo chemical castration. The system seems to work well enough.

However, crimes still occurr, and I do agree with those who see the main problem not in the deviants, but in the authority figures who take advantage of children: parents, teachers, priests, even a superior court judge in British Columbia. But what the answer is, apart from increased parental vigilance, (and of course this is meaningless where the parents are the offenders) I don't know. But I somehow think that revenge is not the best way for society to dealy with the problem, however appropriate it may be for the idividual.

Re: sex pests ...
 

As a PS: According to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the first section in fact, the rights of the individual (even the convicted sex offender) are guaranteed. But there is provision for exceptions if the common good outwieghs the rights of the individual. On this issue the Supreme Court (an independent judicial body unlike the political Supreme Court in the US) must rule on every instance, though its decisions can be applied to similar cases. In other words, the rights of a sex offender can be overridden if the Court considers that the rights of the general community are more important.

Re: sex pests ...
 

Re: sex pests ...
 

it should be like megans law in america, but it will never happen over ere.

Re: sex pests ...
 

I've absloutely no issues with convicted sex offender's names/photographs being made available to the public, my only worry is that it may lead to a false sense of security, because these scum do have cars etc., and therefore there is no such thing as a 'safe' area.

Much better, without freaking children out too much, and limiting their freedoms and chance to enjoy exploring their environment, is to teach them about the dangers some people pose.

Re: sex pests ...
 

Did anyone see the news clip about a place in America, where released child sex offenders were tagged and could not live within an area of 400 yards of where children where, this meant they could only sleep under a freeway bridge, they are suprvised by probation workers who do nightly checks on them etc?

Re: sex pests ...
 

So 405 yards away would be a safe place for a child to live/play?

Re: sex pests ...
 

At least they knew where to perverts were.

Re: sex pests ...
 

And this helps how?
They were not allowed to commit the sex offences in the first place so I can't see how not being allowed to be near children will stop them.

Re: sex pests ...
 

What is this hate Ianto week I only asked a question?

Re: sex pests ...
 

Nothing personal at all.
It just seams like an idea to keep parents quiet that won't do a damn thing to stop someone who wants to re offend.

Re: sex pests ...
 

Did anyone see the news clip? I thought it was an oddball idea too.

Re: sex pests ...
 

Re: sex pests ...
 

The thing I have is, if someone has actually been rehabilitated and dosn't intend to commit the crime again (if they do intend it they shouldn't be let out) then they shouldn't have the threat of vigilantly on them. Which we all know would happen if they were named and shamed.

Somebody who *looks* like someone who has been named could also get persecuted as was the case a few years ago.

Its a horrible crime, and we certainly shouldn't be soft on it, but I feel that a lot of people overlook it as a simple black and white case where they should just be named so everyone can protect their children which is of course all a parent wants, but its really not as simple as people make out.