Cunning, plotting rapists and pedophiles

I

ILoveChicken

New member
Because people, innocent people, have been killed due to having the same or even just a similar name to named sex offenders.

There's even been cases where pediatricians have been assaulted, because idiot vigilantes thought it meant pedophile.



Now this I agree with.



And as others have said, maybe they can go and throw bricks through the house next door, because they think the guy's a sex offender (wrongly). Maybe they can go assault that seventeen year old - who was put on the register because he had sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend.

Proper sentencing does not place innocent people at risk, naming and shaming does.
 
K

knightlove

New member
I'm with others here.
This should not be an issue as habitual sex-offenders should be kept in prison forever.
The problem isn't naming and shaming. The problem is these known offenders being lose in the population in the first place.

Anyone know why the sentencing and treatment of paedophiles is so, seemingly, out of step with what the general populace would like to happen (life or at least longer sentences)?
 
S

strosnlcs

New member
Because on the whole our societies believe in rehabilitation being possible, hence the rejection of the death penalty in civilised cultures.
 
N

NicolaD

Member
Now...I'm no expert obviously but aren't sex-offenders some of the highest repeat offenders?
I'm all for giving people second chances but you have to draw the line somewhere surely?
 
J

jdog

Member
I'm not up on the statistics, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me - probably on a similar level to drug addicts. Unlike, say, a thief their problem isn't solved by getting a job where they earn more than they can steal. Their desires are directly harmful to others in and of themselves.
 
P

PapaMcCain

Member
I'm having trouble understanding why the issue of vigilante action is the major point the anti name/shame corner have.

Seems to me along the lines of... we don't want to set this policy... because then people might illegally __ insert illegal action here__. I find that an incredibly blinkered approach.

Obviously paedophiles aren't being reigned in or handed whopping sentences because there seems to be a rather large amount of them out and about in the communities. God forbid any of the community should actually know are convicted paedophiles.

In order not to put a convicted paedophile at the risk of citizens resorting to mob rule we are placing families at risk.

I'd say the risk of a convicted paedophile offending seems to be greater than the risk of mob violence. I haven't looked at the stats... but I'd sure as hell be willing to risk mob violence over even a single kid getting bummed by some paedo. Any other equation is absurd.
 
P

panda_bear_lover

New member
It isn't a case of might, it's a case where this has already happened to people - not the paedophiles.



No - in order not to put innocent people who happen to share the same, or a similar name, at risk. There's a difference.



No, it isn't.

I agree that sentencing really needs to be looked at - as do alternative punishments/rehabilitation techniques/living restrictions, but giving out names is not a good idea.
 
J

justme73

New member
Yes naming and shaming is a good idea, if there is a problem with that then lock the pedos away from the rest of us, pretty simple realy.
 
thtgangstachick7

thtgangstachick7

New member
Well naming and shaming them may end up in them being locked away.
We are talking about filthy dirty scum, locking them up in my opinion is still to good for them.
 
C

chaseutley17

New member
Right I understand that. But given that... how many cases of vigilante justice that got the wrong person VS how many kids raped/molested/assaulted and the parents and the rest of the community has no notification or idea that a repeat convicted sex offender was living in their area/apartment block etc?

My guess is the vigilant justice is by far the much smaller incident. Again... it's back to the blinkered approach.. we can't provide information that could provide crucial awareness because it may be used for illegal purposes who've decided to become vigilantes.





Well in the given situation... the problem is that because we are concerned about possible victim A we then place possible victim B at risk surely that isn't the answer.



Do you know how many mob violence attacks against the wrong person have been perpetrated because of name and shame policies? I'm actually curious. I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue as people are making out. I'm more than willing to look at some numbers if anyone has them. I'm guessing there are one or two very broadcasted cases and people have run with the idea rather than the actual numbers of incidents.

I'll do some homework but my guess is the number is tiny in comparison to the number of repeat convicted sex offenders placed back into communities that then go on to attack kids yet again... and of course... no one in the area had any clue that these types of predators were being let into the community.
 
J

JanaeLovesBam

New member
...

I think we need to work on the sequence of events here. The way I see naming and shaming working is:

1. Paedophile is picked up for crime.
2. Paedophile goes to jail.
3. Paedophile eventually released, and his name published.

I may have missed something here, but surely the arrest, conviction and sentence precedes the publication of the name? If you then do something that ensures they are no longer a risk (whether that be execution, life imprisonment, mental conditioning, appropriate implants or other) then the naming and shaming is unnecessary, and simply puts innocents at risk.



That's a different debate entirely.
 
D

datallguy1313

New member
With only a few incidents where names can be published, very few attacks. However they have happened.



No. It's not about the people becoming vigilantes on their own, that's not too much of a risk. The risk is mob rule/mass hysteria. Think about the innate reaction everyone has to paedophilia as a crime - it's bordering on the way people used to handle claims of blood libel.

Now if this approach, this view, is validated by publishing names of convicted paedophiles firstly you will get innocents being targeted, due to coincidental name sharing. Secondly - and more worryingly in many ways - you will get those who were wrongly added to the list, or unjustly added, also being targeted/named.

If effective measures were put in place to ensure that re-offending was lower (whatever they may be, ranging from life imprisonment to heavy conditioning to execution) then this naming and shaming would not be an issue. You would also not then have the follow-up issue of people making sure to disappear the moment they got out, so that they could re-offend in peace.



No, it's not. But the answer is also not to put victim A at risk in order to protect victim B when it is unnecessary.



Offhand nope, I don't have the statistics to hand. I do remember several attacks during the News of the World's campaign though (which they continued despite the assaults on innocent people).



But as yet name and shame is not in place, it has only happened in a few cases where certain people have published such information - so only a few attacks would be expected.
 
C

Cribber

Member
I think the main problems would come in the initial switch over from "not naming" to "naming".
Once naming was the norm it would then become another part of the punishment and one of the measures designed to prevent the crimes happening in the first place (surely the best outcome all round?).
You can't prevent paedophiles existing but maybe, just maybe, you can make their lives so horrible, if they act on those impulses, that they restrain themselves voluntarily.
Maybe if they knew they'd be put in prison, registered for life AND exiled from society by anyone that knew their real identity there might be a certain percentage that wouldn't offend at all?
Perhaps anonymity helps them re-offend?
 
B

Buddha13

New member
Given that false accusations are already made, and merely the investigation destroys the life of the accused (whether they're found innocent or not), throwing out names doesn't seem like a great idea.



Okay, let's be honest, if we're willing to utterly destroy someone's entire life in order to prevent them re-offending, advocate for the death penalty. For one thing it'll be kinder to the poor wretches, and as far as I'm aware the rate of re-offending for corpses is pretty low.



How hard is it to start using a different name? (Hint: Fairly easy)
How hard is it to look different? (Hint: Faily easy)

Giving out supposed real names isn't going to make a difference here.
 
F

fastfakts

Member
Imagine walking down the road and saying to your children that guy is a pedophile stay away from him, oh boo hoo hoo ive hurt his feelings, i don't care they are dirty filthy scum and should be shunned by the community.
No person made them rape children it was their choice so suffer if they are discovered.
 
B

Beee

New member
LBR - I'll go over this once I'm back to the gaff and have a bit more time to read it and respond. Quickly though... in California where we do have a sex offender registry that is available to the public (like I described before with the anecdote about my friend and his family deciding where to live and what school district to look at) there hasn't been some sort of resort to anarchy and mob violence. So perhaps the mob mentality is more specific to country or social class?
 
M

mamalicious

New member
So, someone with the name GSHAMBROOKE is convicted of paedophilia - not you I should point out, but someone sharing the same name.

As a response your neighbours start getting suspicious of you, and muttering about things. Your children are told by other kids that they're the children of a paedophile. Your boss starts giving you strange looks, and seems to be looking for a reason to fire you. Things go downhill. It doesn't matter that you've never done anything, that you're not the GSHAMBROOKE whose name has been published, that you're innocent.

Your life is now damaged - possibly destroyed - because of someone else's actions.

Now, how much clearer can I make this, I am not advocating against naming and shaming in order to protect paedophiles. I am advocating against it in order to avoid the above situation.



Again - I have in no way been arguing against this, I'm just trying to get through that naming and shaming is not the way to deal with this. There are other ways.
 
Top