Is this debate about whether the judge correctly applied the law, or whether the law is crap? Because most of the arguments from one side have amounted to, “Neener neener, Europe has different laws and you can’t do anything about it!”
I stipulate that the judge most likely correctly applied the law. But I think it’s a dumb law. Just like many Europeans confidently think that the Second Amendment is a dumb idea.
Rights get weighed all of the time.
Nevertheless, do you support the alleged “right to be forgotten”? Do you oppose the existence of publically available sex offender registries?
These are yes or no questions.
Well said. This is a problem in the states, too. When a person is convicted of committing a crime he is sentenced to a time in jail of the court’s choosing. That time is supposed to make him square with the law and society.
Pedophiles pose a particular problem, due to their recidivism (from what I understand), or simply to the fact that the desire is still there. So, in the one hand we want to be fair to someone who has done his time. But on the other, the crime does get under our skin and we certainly don’t want to release him to offend again.
I don’t know what the answer is. But I do believe in the general proposition that once you have served your sentence you shouldn’t be harassed afterwards. Like I said, it’s a tough one.
The rights of children to not live next door, or down the hall, from creepy ass pedos.
Agreed.
I was more interested in how Facebook should cope with different laws in different countries.
I agree that different moralities apply in different jurisdictions. I also believe that there is no adequate decision procedure to decide which system is ‘best’. On the other hand I have my own feelings about what I think is the best in my humble opinion.
I am aware of an American dynamic that insists that the last word on Human Rights was written in 1779and subsequent amendments. I am also aware of a European dynamic that suggests that lessons learned since 1930 have some relevance that might be better than eighteenth century sensibilities.
You seem to be be saying that the law is wrong simply on the basis that it’s less harsh.
Following this logic, only a law that results in the worst possible punishment (say, being skinned alive or slowly boiled on a public square) would be acceptable.
Besides, I think that utterly ruining people lives isn’t a desirable goal. IMO, if you think the punishment isn’t sufficient you decide on a longer sentence. Once the time is done, the culprit should be able to have a normal life, to find a job and a place to live, etc… If you want him to never have a shot at a normal life, then hand out a life sentence.
They aren’t victims. And given that there are children everywhere, again your only choice is between letting creepy ass pedos live next door to children or keeping them behind bars forever.
I don’t know enough about the “right to be forgotten” laws to comment.
As for sex offender registries, no, I don’t. Leaving aside the fact that many jurisdictions have questionable definitions of who is and isn’t a “sex offender” people convicted of armed robbery, drug dealing, theft, assault and battery, all of which have higher recidivism rates aren’t subjected to such registries.
For that matter, neither are murderers.
As horrible as the rape of a child is, certainly the murder of a child is worse.
Do you have evidence to support your contention that child abuse is better dealt with in the US than in the UK.
The aim of British intervention is to remain in contact with released offenders and support them in the community. The belief is tat if they are stigmatised and driven out of normal living conditions (like laws making them public targets or banning them from areas near schools and parks) increases the chance of them going underground and having no supervision at all.
The reality is that most pedofiles are unconvinced, unidentified and in the community, and consequently more of a risk than those released from prison under supervision. The best intervention is thought to be appropriate education of children and parents/carers and support for children making allegations.
Frankly I think both countries have weird hang-ups about children and sex, but that’s just me.
What do you think is an appropriate response to sexual activity with a child?
Those aren’t the only choices.
Cite?
According to Huffpost, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of all crime categories. Oh, and urinating in public can make you a sex offender. Ever been out drinking in the UK, much less anywhere else?
What sort of cite do you need?
Most convictions for sexual contact with children occur years or decades later with repeat offence over that time. All those people are unconvinced sex offenders. And that is not to mention the number who are never discovered or convicted.
I do know that save for predatory pedofiles, recidivism is low among the rest- opportunistic pedofiles, often with only one victim in the family or social group. Many, many of the latter go undetected. This is obvious from report backs from victims who later suffer mental disorder as a result and reveal the abuse long afterwards and often after the death of the perpetrator. Many of these cases are never prosecuted as the victim will not allow charges to progress.
Only the minority convicted can be observed. Predatory serial abusers are best incarcerated long term. Less dangerous abusers need support and close observation in the community after any detention. Forcing them to the edge of society is dangerous and counter productive.
What, exactly, is a “less dangerous” pedo? And why should your kids have to live in the same flat?
That’s not what I was trying to say, though I can see how you could reason that. My point is that the trade-off isn’t worth it–that Europe is putting the well-being of criminals over the well-being of society at large. I don’t think ruining lives is a good thing either–but I’d rather ruin the lives of criminals than let criminals ruin the lives of innocent victims. And to the extent that extreme social prejudice against sex offenders deters crime, that’s certainly a good thing.
I don’t accept the premise that the end of incarceration is presumed to be a success in rehabilitation. For example, if a bank robber gets 20 years, when released, I would only presume that the punishment was appropriate to his actions under those circumstances, and the odds of him repeating the crime are hopefully - but not presumably - substantially reduced. If that same person were to apply for a job, I think his conviction as a bank robber is still relevant, and he isn’t entitled to make that fact a secret.
Moreover, I think it is extraordinary to prohibit someone from saying or publishing something that is factually true. Forget right to privacy vs free speech rights: people have a fundamental right not to be gagged for saying things that are correct.
That’s not what I was referring to.
I think people in both countries are vastly more terrified of pedophiles than they should be.
I think it’s an Anglo thing.
And you think it does? You think taking convicted sex offenders who have done their court-appointed time and forcing them to go underground because they can’t be hired for a decent job or find a place to live makes them less likely to offend again? If someone who has committed murder wants to turn their life around and rejoin decent society, they’re allowed to. If someone who once molested a child, or kept a collection of videos where other people did, wants to turn their life around and rejoin decent society, they can’t because anyone can find out what they did and make life hell for them. And yeah, I know, “boo hoo for them, they deserve to have their life ruined because they’re a kiddy-fiddler” and all. But ruining their life by denying them even the chance to live normally is not going to make other children they encounter more safe from them. What incentive do they have to even try to keep to the straight and narrow when everyone they try to deal with thinks they’re the Joker and everyone else has the right to be Batman?