sleeping, the article indicates,
Fair enough, but my question was whether the sex offenders registry is made public (i.e., how did the community know that he was a sex offender? Was it through word of mouth or did the police make him take a tour when he first moved in?)
It does seem more likely that it is public.
Would you not agree that there is a hell of a big difference between thinking of what might happen to you in a situation and actually being in that situation? While a person may think, “If I get caught, I could be killed in prison” is going to be no where near as worried about it as someone having spent years in prison under those conditions. Would you agree that this makes sense?
I believe the incident to which you refer is the one that happened here near Portsmouth, UK - there was a (media-incited*) series of violent protests/riots following the death (at the hands of a paedophile) of an 8-year-old Girl, Sarah Payne.
The mobs damaged and destroyed property of, intimidated and harassed not only a number of registered sex offenders, but also a number of completely innocent bystanders who happened to live at an address formerly that of a paedophile, as well as attacking a paediatrician.
*A national tabloid newspaper embarked upon a ‘name and shame’ campaign, where they published the names, addresses and photographs of a large number of registered sex offenders.
Ludovic, are you seriously suggesting that the ‘naturally curious child’ (and I have yet to meet any other type, BTW) shares some responsibility? If the kid was asking for it, we should just send the prick in for counseling?
It seems that when put behind bars vigilatanism is a good thing in that it delivers the desired results.
Perhaps our problem is that we aren’t willing to remove these predators from the general population on the outside…as I believe we should.
But I’m speaking as a survivor.
No, the Sex Offenders’ Register in the UK is not made public, although certain types of employers whose staff work with children can use it to check whether potential employees are on it. The names of those convicted of sex crimes are not secret so there are other ways of finding that information, although there have been cases of innocent persons who just happen to have the same name being attacked. In this particular case, there is no mystery about why Hartley’s identity was known, because, as the BBC article explains, he had lived in the area for many years.
And, yes, vigilantism is the dumbest of all possible ways of dealing with the problem. It only encourages paedophiles to change their identities and fail to register with the police.
I don’t know that people are really trying to deal with the problem, but want to do violence and cast about looking for people they can assault where (they feel) it is justified. I think it is normal to be angry/disgusted with crime, but most people don’t form lynch mobs, and I don’t buy that the more hateful and violent simply want to protect children more.
I don’t believe it is public in the sense that just anyone can read about it.
I think that’s quite general enough. If I locked my doors the way that information was “not public” my insurance company would drop me. 
Has there ever been a study showing that most pedophiles do indeed act out their urges?
Not being snarky, just genuinely don’t know.
Herge- yeah, it was an overstatement- I was thinking of active child molestation, whereas this guy didn’t seem to go over that line.
Here it is:
'Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word “paedophile” ’
‘Five families who were wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders were forced to flee their homes in the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth as violence flared earlier this month.’
Disgusting. I have no respect for these people.
BTW, aren’t vigilantes always self-styled? I mean, it’s sort of the definition.
Not if they set up Inquisition 2003, sleeping They have to reject the vigilantism of yore and create their own style, breaking through the history of cliche violence and bringing the vigilante status to a whole new level of expression.
Honestly don’t know. I would think it’s impossible to accurately conduct such a survey, since pedophiles aren’t going to readily admit to their predilections. I’m simply stating my opinions on human nature. YMMV.
I am not sure what “gross indecency” means in UK law- but the dude only served one year, thus the Courts themselves did not think he was much of a “danger” to children. From what I see, he took some "naughty pics’ of an underaged girl- certainly illegal, but that doesn’t nessesarily even make him a pedophile (although I agree it is evidence towards that - but note there are several famous fotogs & artists that use youngsters as models, and MOST do not consider them to be pedophiles- or their work to be “child porno” either)- and it certainly has little evidence he was in any way shape or form dangerous.
Now, I agree that certain forms of vigilantism are understandable. Let us say there was a released Dangerous child rapist living nearby- one who was convicted and served 20 years or so. And your little child came home & said “Mr Nasty keeps talking to us and watching us, and I think he might have touched little Bobby”- and you called the PD- but they said there wasn’t enough evidence. (Little Bobby denies any touching). Then, if you and some neighbors “took the law into your own hands”- I could understand it (but remember- “don’t do the crime- if you can’t do the time”). But not in this case)
Back some 40+ years ago, a man was arrested & convicted for having “oral copulation” with a willing female partner (the Playboy Legal defense fund was set up partially becuase of that case). "Oral sex’- even with your spouse- was illegal in some 49 states. We now know how wrong we were. I think 40 years from now, we are going to look back at these dudes convicted and sent to jail for decades for possessing “kiddie porn” or even hitting on a 25yo FBI agent posing as a 16yo girl- and realize we were wrong, too.
Yes- when some dude rapes some child- put him in prison forever. And sure- let’s keep an eye out and even a file on those who collect kiddie porn- so if children start disappearing in that area, we might have someplace to look.
But if a 18 yo man has consensual sex with his mature 17yo girlfreind, or if a guy likes taking fotos of young girls with their skirts blowing in the wind, or if some dude has visited some kiddie porn site once- let’s not ruin their lives forever, and CERTAINLY we should not be taking vigilante action against them.
Farmwoman wrote:
Basically, yeah, in some instances.
If there were a reliable way to tell if it were consensual, than yes. If the adult makes a habit of these things, lock 'em up. But considering there is not, I don’t see a need to change current law w/r/t what deserves jail time and what does not. This is one of the few instances in which I would err on the side of being too harsh.
On the other hand, other parameters of punishment such as public offender registry lists, length of incarceration, institutionalization, and vigilantism, does need to be looked at, and in the above circumstances there needs to be less of it. Don’t apply cookie cutter solutions.
And onto the OP 
… with respect to vigilantism, it’s a disjoint between what offenders deserve and what we can be sure they actually did. Vigilantism is even worse than the jury system in determining guilt versus innocence, as has been shown in this thread.
I am against the death penalty for this exact same reason (difficulty of determining actual, rather than legal, guilt.) All the moreso for me to be against vigilantism. Even though, in most cases, people who actually commit the crimes they have been convicted/accused of deserve much more than is meted out by our justice system.
Well, you could start by asking the kid…