 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| ^^^ I don't wish to express any view on whether there is merit in having a register of sexual offenders, generally, but I think making it discretionary is problematic. All that will mean is that the (mostly) sons of the well-to-do will probably avoid being registered but it will probably happen to the poor routinely. |
|
|
|
 |
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It doesn't matter. He will never wipe this away. To generations of people he was, is and will be a sexual predator. I wish that pill had gone straight so Roids could have grabbed it, had 2 bounces and found a free man in the forward line and we won by a point. That way Milne would have been remembered as the player who let his man win it.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | ^^^ I don't wish to express any view on whether there is merit in having a register of sexual offenders, generally, but I think making it discretionary is problematic. All that will mean is that the (mostly) sons of the well-to-do will probably avoid being registered but it will probably happen to the poor routinely. |
I have to say that's a pretty novel defence of mandatory sentencing. I can't say I share your pessimism, but even if you're right (and, well, perhaps I should defer to your experience in this field!), I hardly think taking the power away from judges is the way to fix it.
Whatever the case, perhaps you can agree that, if there must be mandatory registry, it only apply to certain sexual offences (say, rape and child abuse). It seems ridiculous to me that you can get years on the register for, say, teen 'sexting' or indecent exposure, while repeatedly beating your partner or kids or random strangers just gets you standard treatment.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David you must be so disappointed for the Rolf Harris's of this world. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In what way?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| He is being held to account for sins he did many years ago when he was a lot younger. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ah. I see.
What you have to keep in mind here is that I'm talking about the sex offender register, not the actual punishment (e.g. jail sentence). Although I feel some discomfort about the idea of people being punished for crimes committed decades ago—Nazi war criminals, for instance—I don't necessarily disagree with it in theory. You do the crime, you do the time, and I don't really see why slipping the net in the immediate aftermath should get you off the hook.
Some jurisdictions do have a statute of limitations, and perhaps that's not such a bad idea. I'll quote from one of my posts in another thread on the topic:
| David wrote: | I guess the core issue here is the purpose of the justice system. Is it to punish, or deter? To rehabilitate, or provide closure to victims?
I take a slightly radical perspective on justice in some respects—that is, I think the purpose of a conviction should not be retribution for retribution's sake, but a means of making society safer and happier—but I'm not sure where a statute of limitations fits within that. In a way, there's a potential problem of deterrence: if someone knows that all they have to do to escape punishment is to avoid capture for a certain period of time, then there's going to be a little less incentive to not commit a crime. On the other hand, when a certain period of time has elapsed and the criminal is no longer a danger to the public—has already been "rehabilitated", basically—then it seems a bit gratuitous to be charging them and throwing them in jail for a crime committed a generation ago.
Perhaps in my ideal utopian criminal justice system, a statute of limitations would be enforced. Alternatively, perhaps convictions could still be recorded, but sentences could be heavily mitigated (perhaps to the extent of no sentence being given at all) for cases where a long period of time had elapsed. But I'll have to think more on this. |
That's sentencing, though. The register is not a punishment; it, in theory at least, is simply an added layer of protection for society after the offender has served his or her time. It's purely functional; as such, I think it should only be applied on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps only after release (if a custodial sentence is served). So, while I'm quite comfortable with Rolf Harris going to jail for his historic acts of abuse, I'm not sure he should be on a register upon release. Keep in mind though that, unlike Milne, he was a serial offender. It's a completely different case.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
