Crowdsourcing changes to UK law
I believe that you should castrate serial sex offenders and paedophiles. It will protect society from these monsters and deter others who may one day become one.
I believe that you should castrate serial sex offenders and paedophiles. It will protect society from these monsters and deter others who may one day become one.
Damian Green spoke on Question time (22.07.10) of “A Big Society”, and “Live and let Live”? and “a more tolerant society” ?
Why therefore demonise reformed sex “offenders” ?
Giving the police the extensive powers under the 2003 sex offender act and especially the so called Public “protection” officers such powers is like giving a Butcher the license to perform Brain surgery. The police and especially public “protection" have proven a scant regard for the "offender" and their family / friends. They have entirely abused their positions, drastically harmed all concerned. The so called public “protection" officers are certainly NOT social workers, physiatrists or mental health professionals etc and only capable of being just that, Police.
The 2003 Sex "offender" Act / laws should be scrapped entirely.
Damian Green spoke on Question time (22.07.10) of “A Big Society”, and “Live and let Live”? and “a more tolerant society” ?
Why therefore demonise reformed sex “offenders” ?
Giving the police the extensive powers under the 2003 sex offender act and especially the so called Public “protection” officers such powers is like giving a Butcher the license to perform Brain surgery. The police and especially public “protection" have proven a scant regard for the "offender" and their family / friends. They have entirely abused their positions, drastically harmed all concerned. The so called public “protection" officers are certainly NOT social workers, physiatrists or mental health professionals etc and only capable of being just that, Police.
The 2003 Sex "offender" Act / laws should be scrapped entirely.
Review all entries on Sex Offenders Register and Categorise according to potential risk to others. Anyone not considered a risk to be removed. All people remaining on register to be regularly reviewed / assessed. No one to be left on the register "for life" without chance of re-assesment and removal.
Review of register with consideration for family of offenders who share addresses / names – to ensure that those innocent of any past offence are not punished by association.
Review all entries on Sex Offenders Register and Categorise according to potential risk to others. Anyone not considered a risk to be removed. All people remaining on register to be regularly reviewed / assessed. No one to be left on the register "for life" without chance of re-assesment and removal.
Review of register with consideration for family of offenders who share addresses / names – to ensure that those innocent of any past offence are not punished by association.
Chemical castration should be used at the discretion of a court, and in the instance only where the accused has been found guilty of a rape or a violent sexual assault for a previous offence. This is to account for any mistakes that might have been made in one of the trials or the possibility that the accused might be found guilty when innocent.
The castration should take place only after the perpetrator has served their sentence and prior to their release. It should be be a permanent measure.
Chemical castration should be used at the discretion of a court, and in the instance only where the accused has been found guilty of a rape or a violent sexual assault for a previous offence. This is to account for any mistakes that might have been made in one of the trials or the possibility that the accused might be found guilty when innocent.
The castration should take place only after the perpetrator has served their sentence and prior to their release. It should be be a permanent measure.
When an offender is convicted in Court the punishment should reflect the crime in comparison to all other crimes which are on the statute books. For example a child abuser should not receive less time in prison than say someone convicted of fraud.
In effect what I feel needs to be done is that sentencing guidelines for the whole spectrum of crimes need to be reviewed in order that the punishment best reflects the crime the offender has comitted in relation to other crimes.
Fraud and Sexual Abuse in Children are two totally different crimes but it has often been the case a peadophile could receive less of a punishment than the fraudster who tried to make a quik buck without harming anyone. It is obvious this needs to be addressed.
When an offender is convicted in Court the punishment should reflect the crime in comparison to all other crimes which are on the statute books. For example a child abuser should not receive less time in prison than say someone convicted of fraud.
In effect what I feel needs to be done is that sentencing guidelines for the whole spectrum of crimes need to be reviewed in order that the punishment best reflects the crime the offender has comitted in relation to other crimes.
Fraud and Sexual Abuse in Children are two totally different crimes but it has often been the case a peadophile could receive less of a punishment than the fraudster who tried to make a quik buck without harming anyone. It is obvious this needs to be addressed.
For too long now it has been very easy to make an allegation against a man regarding a sexual offence.
Quite often rape (of a minor or adult) or accusations of sexual assault have been a losing battle for men. In many incidences it is due to woman who has either gone through a seperation or is currently in a relationship and changed her mind later to pretect a relationship.
Society here the word rape or the word sexual activity involving children and immediately assumes the worst.
I myself have been convicted of 2 seperate offences and will go on to explain.
when i was 18 i was downloading porn off a well known filesharing program and the wrong sort came in i deleted it straight away and still got done when i was 19 for 3 counts i got 3 years probation 3 years supervision and 5 years on the register. Anyway my friends and family all knew about this as i had nothing to hide. This offence came about when someone that knew about it thought i was having an affair with his wife and so he accused me of touching his daughter. Although i didn't i still got done for it i an 18 month sentence and a 5 year extended licence and put on the register for minimum 10 years so i served 9 months inside and 4 years 3 months on license.
i'm fully aware that my life is ruined but there is very little i can do about that. I must try and get on with my life and be extra careful how i handle every situation.
Since then i am no longer able to have sexual relations with a person under the age of 18 (although the legal age of consent is 16 this puzzles me as to why.)
Now i'm not saying that we need to be leneant of paedophiles just hand the situation better to protect the innocent. For instance any jury hears a man has been convicted of a previous sexual offence and they are 99% likely to convict. This is because we assume the worst i know a jury is required to remain unbiased in an oppinion and i think in this situation the accused should be given the option to have a judge or panel of judges to decide on their verdict. This is becuase a judge will be more likely to be impartial to media speculation and repress their personal views.
I also believe that if solid evidence is provided regardless of plea a person should recieve a harsh sentence.
Take it into comparison. If a person in my situation had personally intended to download images and then was later found to (with evidence rather than accusation which i was not) to be guilty of sexually assualting a child. Why is it then that that person should recieve a shorter prison sentance than a convicted rapist who is looking at the usual 8 year prison term serving 4 years and 4 years license.
I also believe that the registration is fataly flawed if i was to want to offend or view images (which i don't) the sex offender register does not really prevent that. Having 2 police officers attending your home once a month/bimonthly/quarterly does not disinhibit and rely's on a persons honesty as to whether they have had any nights away. It is however an invasion of privacy. If say for instance i have friends round at my house and the police turn up they can insist on entering the property which is a difficult situation to explain to your friends or family's friends who have no reason to know as no children are in the place of residence.
I also believe that having this sort of thing imposed on a person for a period of 10 years or even life is a breach of a persons human rights i know most if not all of the EU has scrapped this. I do believe that a person should be monitored but for the period for which they are on license/supervison. I don't believe the information should ever be removed from the system however. it should only be divulged in a full CRB check where working with children is involved. Social services should also have this information. A person is placed on this as they are seen to be a danger to society. So why is it then that a person isn't placed on a dangerous criminal list. somebody who stabs shoots or has numerous convictions for assault or even murder is much more dangerous to society than myself.
my next point is prisons while i was in prison i was refused enhancement (which involves better paid jobs in the prison) simply because i maintained my innocence which is my right to do so. however criminals on main location (non sex offence criminals) are not required to do this. Then there is the rather useless Sex Offender Treatment Programme i call it useless because when i was in prison there were some sick individuals who when they went on the course simply came off worse by hearing other sick individuals stories. All prisoners should be treat equally throughout the prison system regardless of the offence (maintaining innocence or not).
I am now expected to partake in one of these useless courses where i have to listen to these peoples disgusting stories (regardless of maintaining innocence) otherwise i must return to prison to serve the remaining time on my sentence.
the other issue is license revokation. The number of people that i met in prison on license recall for crimes (or warning) later proven that they did not commit were tremendous. It seems a person can make an accusation of any kind or you can be arrested for a hit and run or someother none related crime and be found innocent and your license is revoked. The person is then required to serve maybe another 12 months to a couple of years waiting to be re-released (and lets not forget for a crime not commited). While i was in prison there was one man who recieved a letter from his solicitor saying the police have recieved cctv footage proving that it was not him (committing armed robbery). The guy who had commited the offence pleaded guilty and the charges had been dropped against the jailed man. Anyway he served a total of 6 extra years in prison for that while waiting to be released the parole board didn't see his innocence in that case to be reason to release him (becuase he was arrested for it he was deemed to be in breach of his license). Lets face it that is ludicrous.
For too long now it has been very easy to make an allegation against a man regarding a sexual offence.
Quite often rape (of a minor or adult) or accusations of sexual assault have been a losing battle for men. In many incidences it is due to woman who has either gone through a seperation or is currently in a relationship and changed her mind later to pretect a relationship.
Society here the word rape or the word sexual activity involving children and immediately assumes the worst.
I myself have been convicted of 2 seperate offences and will go on to explain.
when i was 18 i was downloading porn off a well known filesharing program and the wrong sort came in i deleted it straight away and still got done when i was 19 for 3 counts i got 3 years probation 3 years supervision and 5 years on the register. Anyway my friends and family all knew about this as i had nothing to hide. This offence came about when someone that knew about it thought i was having an affair with his wife and so he accused me of touching his daughter. Although i didn't i still got done for it i an 18 month sentence and a 5 year extended licence and put on the register for minimum 10 years so i served 9 months inside and 4 years 3 months on license.
i'm fully aware that my life is ruined but there is very little i can do about that. I must try and get on with my life and be extra careful how i handle every situation.
Since then i am no longer able to have sexual relations with a person under the age of 18 (although the legal age of consent is 16 this puzzles me as to why.)
Now i'm not saying that we need to be leneant of paedophiles just hand the situation better to protect the innocent. For instance any jury hears a man has been convicted of a previous sexual offence and they are 99% likely to convict. This is because we assume the worst i know a jury is required to remain unbiased in an oppinion and i think in this situation the accused should be given the option to have a judge or panel of judges to decide on their verdict. This is becuase a judge will be more likely to be impartial to media speculation and repress their personal views.
I also believe that if solid evidence is provided regardless of plea a person should recieve a harsh sentence.
Take it into comparison. If a person in my situation had personally intended to download images and then was later found to (with evidence rather than accusation which i was not) to be guilty of sexually assualting a child. Why is it then that that person should recieve a shorter prison sentance than a convicted rapist who is looking at the usual 8 year prison term serving 4 years and 4 years license.
I also believe that the registration is fataly flawed if i was to want to offend or view images (which i don't) the sex offender register does not really prevent that. Having 2 police officers attending your home once a month/bimonthly/quarterly does not disinhibit and rely's on a persons honesty as to whether they have had any nights away. It is however an invasion of privacy. If say for instance i have friends round at my house and the police turn up they can insist on entering the property which is a difficult situation to explain to your friends or family's friends who have no reason to know as no children are in the place of residence.
I also believe that having this sort of thing imposed on a person for a period of 10 years or even life is a breach of a persons human rights i know most if not all of the EU has scrapped this. I do believe that a person should be monitored but for the period for which they are on license/supervison. I don't believe the information should ever be removed from the system however. it should only be divulged in a full CRB check where working with children is involved. Social services should also have this information. A person is placed on this as they are seen to be a danger to society. So why is it then that a person isn't placed on a dangerous criminal list. somebody who stabs shoots or has numerous convictions for assault or even murder is much more dangerous to society than myself.
my next point is prisons while i was in prison i was refused enhancement (which involves better paid jobs in the prison) simply because i maintained my innocence which is my right to do so. however criminals on main location (non sex offence criminals) are not required to do this. Then there is the rather useless Sex Offender Treatment Programme i call it useless because when i was in prison there were some sick individuals who when they went on the course simply came off worse by hearing other sick individuals stories. All prisoners should be treat equally throughout the prison system regardless of the offence (maintaining innocence or not).
I am now expected to partake in one of these useless courses where i have to listen to these peoples disgusting stories (regardless of maintaining innocence) otherwise i must return to prison to serve the remaining time on my sentence.
the other issue is license revokation. The number of people that i met in prison on license recall for crimes (or warning) later proven that they did not commit were tremendous. It seems a person can make an accusation of any kind or you can be arrested for a hit and run or someother none related crime and be found innocent and your license is revoked. The person is then required to serve maybe another 12 months to a couple of years waiting to be re-released (and lets not forget for a crime not commited). While i was in prison there was one man who recieved a letter from his solicitor saying the police have recieved cctv footage proving that it was not him (committing armed robbery). The guy who had commited the offence pleaded guilty and the charges had been dropped against the jailed man. Anyway he served a total of 6 extra years in prison for that while waiting to be released the parole board didn't see his innocence in that case to be reason to release him (becuase he was arrested for it he was deemed to be in breach of his license). Lets face it that is ludicrous.
I feel this need not be abolished but a total review a sex offender can be given a very short sentence spend seven years on the Register but still be hounded by authourities several years later even though they have not committed any further crimes and given no help to deal with their offending behaviour. If they were a credit card fraudster or someone that robbed and beat up old people five yrs after leaving prison if they committed no further offence they would be classed as rehabilitated.
I feel this need not be abolished but a total review a sex offender can be given a very short sentence spend seven years on the Register but still be hounded by authourities several years later even though they have not committed any further crimes and given no help to deal with their offending behaviour. If they were a credit card fraudster or someone that robbed and beat up old people five yrs after leaving prison if they committed no further offence they would be classed as rehabilitated.
I accept the Bichard Inquiry logic of putting as many obstacles in the way of paedophiles to access children. Equally he said that a determined paedophile will always find a way. For the vast majority of people interacting with children, CRB checks are invasive, annoying, time consuming, inefficient (they take so long to come through) and give rise to a feeling that the state is pre-supposing that anyone who wishes to involve themselves in the care of children is a paedophile. Since the main element of a CRB check is to ascertain whether the subject is on the 70,000 strong sex offender register – can we not a) have one registration rather than a separate registration for every role that involves children; and b) then – i presume the CRB computer is capable of doing this – on a monthly or whatever basis, check the latest iteration of the sex offenders register with those CRB registered. In that way you would catch people who have passed a CRB check but then committed a sex crime and stop the nonsense – and bureaucractic cost – of me having to register three separate times in the space of a year for being a school governor, running a Sunday school group and helping run a youth camp.
Oh, and to cut the bureaucracy of 330,000 CRB checks of school governors. Stop requiring CRB checks of school governors. We have next to no interaction with children – and when we do it is supervised because we are observing a lesson or sitting with teachers on a school council meeting. It's just a complete waste of time, effort, money and it upsets governors and potential governors who again resent the notion that offering to volunteer one's time (and it's a lot of time) to the largest voluntary public service in the country, that one is a paedophile.
I accept the Bichard Inquiry logic of putting as many obstacles in the way of paedophiles to access children. Equally he said that a determined paedophile will always find a way. For the vast majority of people interacting with children, CRB checks are invasive, annoying, time consuming, inefficient (they take so long to come through) and give rise to a feeling that the state is pre-supposing that anyone who wishes to involve themselves in the care of children is a paedophile. Since the main element of a CRB check is to ascertain whether the subject is on the 70,000 strong sex offender register – can we not a) have one registration rather than a separate registration for every role that involves children; and b) then – i presume the CRB computer is capable of doing this – on a monthly or whatever basis, check the latest iteration of the sex offenders register with those CRB registered. In that way you would catch people who have passed a CRB check but then committed a sex crime and stop the nonsense – and bureaucractic cost – of me having to register three separate times in the space of a year for being a school governor, running a Sunday school group and helping run a youth camp.
Oh, and to cut the bureaucracy of 330,000 CRB checks of school governors. Stop requiring CRB checks of school governors. We have next to no interaction with children – and when we do it is supervised because we are observing a lesson or sitting with teachers on a school council meeting. It's just a complete waste of time, effort, money and it upsets governors and potential governors who again resent the notion that offering to volunteer one's time (and it's a lot of time) to the largest voluntary public service in the country, that one is a paedophile.
South Korean govt has just voted to legalise chemical castration as punishment for convicted child sex offenders after a series of violent assaults sparked outrage nationwide. Britain offers chemical castration drugs to sex offenders to control sexual urges on a voluntary basis. We need to make it compulsory for sex offenders to receive this treatment. Sometimes they can't control themselves and OK we respect their right and try to offer medical help. But We also have to protect our children from being assaulted which will leave a lifelong scar.
More info re S. Korean's new legislation is here: http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/4353/South-Korea-votes-to-legalize-chemical-castration-on-Child-Sex-Offenders.aspx
South Korean govt has just voted to legalise chemical castration as punishment for convicted child sex offenders after a series of violent assaults sparked outrage nationwide. Britain offers chemical castration drugs to sex offenders to control sexual urges on a voluntary basis. We need to make it compulsory for sex offenders to receive this treatment. Sometimes they can't control themselves and OK we respect their right and try to offer medical help. But We also have to protect our children from being assaulted which will leave a lifelong scar.
More info re S. Korean's new legislation is here: http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/4353/South-Korea-votes-to-legalize-chemical-castration-on-Child-Sex-Offenders.aspx
There should be two discrete sex offenders registers.
There should be two discrete sex offenders registers.