Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="datallguy1313" data-source="post: 3225947" data-attributes="member: 156614">With only a few incidents where names can be published, very few attacks. However they have happened.&nbsp;&nbsp;No. It&#039;s not about the people becoming vigilantes on their own, that&#039;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&#039;s bordering on the way people used to handle claims of blood libel.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp;No, it&#039;s not. But the answer is also not to put victim A at risk in order to protect victim B when it is unnecessary. &nbsp;&nbsp;Offhand nope, I don&#039;t have the statistics to hand. I do remember several attacks during the News of the World&#039;s campaign though (which they continued despite the assaults on innocent people).&nbsp;&nbsp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="datallguy1313, post: 3225947, member: 156614"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…