Sarah's Law - should we have the right to know?

[jazzactivist]

Hi all, I wonder what you think of the introduction of a pilot of Sara's Law into 4 areas. This allows any parents to look into the background of anyone who has unsupervised contact with their children to see if they have any arrests or convictions for dangerous or paedophile behaviour. I feel uneasy about it, as I think that it can lead to a suspicious, seige mentality in local areas, and I would worry that innocent people who are a little bit different to the norm in that area would be targetted. But what do you think?

[eleanor2]

i'm not sure jazz.but saddly its becoming more of a need to have these checks.our children are so vulnerable.there seems to be so many different paedophile scams going on its frightening.i dont think i would like my grandsons having any unsupervised time with some-one i dont know in the first place.how sad that we have to have this mistrust.anything upto 10 years ago i wouldn't have given it a second thought.but things seem so much worse now.have you heard of all the attempted abductions in portugal in the last few weeks.

[Oola]

I don't think I agree with it - if someone is wrongly accused then even the association with paedophelia could ruin thier lives. I've known a couple of people that have been victims of paedophelia (within their own families) and I'm not sure that they would be happy with this scheme either. There's just something about paedophelia that brings out the worst in people, with brick-throwing, violence, and a crowd mentality. I think in some ways it could be really damaging for communities. I certainly don't think it's up to communities to 'police' the situation, more something for social services to monitor.

It's difficult because children are so vulnerable.

[jazzactivist]

Thanks for responding, eleanor and Oola. It seems to me that children aren't any more vulnerable now than they were a few decades ago, there is just more media coverage which has the effect of making it seem that there are more incidents. No-one wants any child be subjected to abuse or attack but, unfortunately, there so far hasn't been an effective way to deal with paedophilia.

Paedophiles often plan their strategy years in advance, developing their outward personality and getting themselves into positions where they have trusted access to children. That is why 'stranger danger' is rare, as children are usually abused by someone whom they know well and their family knows and trusts. When I was a child in the 60s / 70s we used to play out all day, only coming back home for tea at dusk, and I am sure that it is still possible for children to do this, so long as their parents have provided good training in what to do if approached. It is impossible to protect everyone in advance.

As you have said, Oola, I am not sure if the general public has enough awareness of this issue to be in a position to be allowed access to this type of material, and you can imagine that there will be a few parents who go into overdrive checking up on everyone who might have the slightest contact with their children. My concern would be that vulnerable people in society who are perhaps not sexually mature themselves and so may have been involved in odd behaviour (not necessarily with children) might end up as targets of vigilante groups who interpret a range of unfamiliar behaviours as paedophilia. I guess that we'll just have to wait and see how the pilot programme works.

[Oola]

Well I went on the Sarah's Law website and it said that people would be severely punished for misusing the information that would be available. But it still seems as if the damage could be done if the information was misused, and could be irreversible.

I agree that the media coverage does highlight the problems, however another consideration is that the Internet has also increased access to indecent images, which could be seen as a way for paedophiles going a bit more 'underground' - more dangerous? I see it as a complete sickness, I don't understand how a 'sane' person could have those desires, whether wanted or not. So this leads me to believe that any child sex offender (or sex offender full stop) should be closely monitored and in regular contact with the revelant authorities to protect the communities they live in. I don't think a community, especially with lots of children, can be rational and objective in their actions and decisions about a paedophile living within their neighbourhood. But that said, I have no children but I would certainly not want a convicted child sex offender living nearby - and would I be any worse off not knowing, if they were closely monitered?

[fife]

Hi All

As a parent it is one of the issues that scares the hell out of me!
Jazz you were right in saying the majority of the time when these incidents occur it is someone well known to the family, hence why they are bringing out this law as it is to find out who is really in your family and is especially for single women who want to find out who they are dating. To be honest until it is tried and tested so to speak i have no clue as to wether it will be effective i hope so, as any gap that can be filled to slow down these peaedophiles is greatly welcomed. Oola you were right in pointing out how the internet has not helped this matter in the slightest and something desperatly needs to be done so that access is lestened but how i have no idea. I do not let my children on the internet as i don't feel it is safe and if they do go on i monitor it very closley. I have a family member in c i d and what they tell me is very disturbing recurrent offenders are allowed out of jail and have to be watched very closely for a month or so to monitor what they are up to and most go straight back to hanging around parks and schools. I will probably be struck down dead for saying this but surely these reaccurrent offenders should be just castrated.

[Crocus]

This is difficult in that I think it may breed suspicion towards anyone who may just look at any child for no reason at all! If innocent children are going to sense this, they may also get terrified of anyone who they don't know. With parents it may cause a lot of tension. Paedophiles have a very "normal" way of talking to kids, being around kids and they will "wait" for years, until they get the chance they want, (if articles I've read is anything to go by) and in many cases it's a close friend or even a family member who does this horrendous act. I can understand why parents feel they must have insight into the backgrounds of those who may have any kind of contact with their kids, but what if it gets out of control?

[fife]

Crocus like so many things there will alsways be people who do not use this vital information in a professional way and i really hope this does not happen during this trial as it could ruin it for everyone else and just think it could one day prevent a child getting assualted.

[jazzactivist]

The thing is that we all probably do live near paedophiles now, without knowing it. Is it better to know which ones and be worried, or better not to know and make sure that all children are as well equipped as they can be to deal with an approach? I agree that the internet has created an opportunity for paedophiles to create more access to children, and to carry out their activities online, and the introduction of cheap travel has also meant that they have more mobility than previously. Also, more freedom in relationships has led to more chance encounters. However, as for living in local areas it is probably about the same ratio as before. I agree with the comments here that on release a convicted paedophile should be properly monitored for life, but this again needs more public funds. My own view is that if someone is to be released after being convicted of a sex crime then they should have to demonstrate that they understand their crime and its triggers, and are prepared to live a restricted life with close monitoring for the rest of their lives. But does isolating sex offenders in this way from 'normal' society prevent them from ever developing proper adult social relationships? Also, most paedophiles are never reported or caught, so how do we deal with these?

[Oola]

Of course not knowing much about paedophilia, I'm not sure that paedophiles are equipped to have normal relationships - for instance, if a paedophile bore a child, would that child then be deemed to be at risk? The instances that I know at first hand was a father molesting his daughters and a step-father molesting his step-daughter, so I would hazard a guess as yes. In at least once instance I don't think any convictions were brought; in the other instance the offender was, if memory serves, a policeman himself. I never liked him at all, he gave me the creeps, especially when his biological daughter was being difficult, he threatened to pull her pants down and smack her infront of everyone. To me, that was shameful and distressing to hear.

So I think this psychological sickness means that a their lives will be impeded, but this is a price that they have to pay in order to keep society safe, whilst retaining some human rights. And I agree, only the offenders that understand their condition and the triggers should be allowed into the community. I have a feeling that not all paedophiles want to be the way they are or do the things they do. As I say, I am about as far away from an expert as you can get and am not even sure I agree completely with my own opinions!

[eleanor2]

when you think about it if someone is innocent they wont have a file.if they are serious paedophiles then it is a serious danger to children. i still dont know if its a good idea.but say if my daughter in law split up with my son.she met another man.i would seriously worry for my grandsons safety.nowadays there seems so much more abuse.i know there has always been abuse.it just seems more prevalent like many other crimes.

[jazzactivist]

Would you check the register for every man that your daughter-in-law meets though, eleanor? Also, most abusers are never reported or convicted, so aren't likely to have a public record, but this doesn't make them innocent. I think that this is one of the most complex social problems that we have, as there is, so far, no way of fully understanding it in order to stop it. I am not an expert on this subject either, and while I have worked with many woman survivors of sexual abuse, I have only worked with two admitted paedophiles - both of whom were in complete denial of what they had done.

One of the difficulties is that it seems that there are many different reasons for people engaging in paedophilia, so no single approach seems to hold the main key. From a medical perspective it is a mental imbalance or illness that might be able to be managed by drugs. A couple of psychological theories are that paedophilia is a reaction to damaging or restrictive experiences as a child which has stunted ability for adult relationships, or a narcisistic tendency to be attracted to 'images' of yourself in a time of innocence. A criminal perspective sees paedophilia as a deviance from the 'norm' and linked to other forms of deviance. A patriarchal theory is that feminism has undermined traditional masculine roles, and if men can't be dominant with women then they naturally seek other ways to be so. From a feminist perspective the problem isn't a sexual attraction to children at all, it is an attraction to the feelings of power and dominance that the abuser creates and recreates to maintain his control of those around him - they do it because they can get away with it. There are many more theories than these, so we can take our pick of the one that we think is mots accurate, but none of these seems wholly right, as it is quite easy to argue against the theories eg that most children who have been abused grow up into adults who are caring and supportive as a reaction to their experiences, rather than turn into abusers themselves. One factor which does seem to be constant, though, is that most paedophiles are men, although no-one knows how many women collude.

It is interesting that the criminal perspective is the one that receives most public support, and public money. Perhaps because it is cheapest to administer, and the idea that there are people who can be easily identified as deviant to the norm makes people feel safer. The idea of an open criminal register where parents can check the background of people is quite cheap to operate, especially if they are charged a fee each time they look. It also shifts the responsibility of monitoring paedophiles from the authorities to local people eg if you didn't pay to look up your neighbour and your child is abused then whose fault is it? I think that it is definately a more complex subject than it first appears.

[SummerSkye]

Jazz, this is a really hard and complex issue. No parent would like their child to be in close proximity to a known paedophile and part of me believes that they have the right to know this. On the other hand we have seen cases of mistaken identity where an innocent person has been attacked because of their similarity to an offender.
In many cases the predator is already known to their victim in others they watch and wait for an opportune time to strike, often away from their home base. I think all parents need to be vigilant about who comes into contact with their children and especially with unsupervised (by them) contact. Today, with so many marriages ending in divorce and the loss of the extended family unit, it becomes easier for a predator to move into a family unit with the primary target being a child. As you have observed, many paedophiles do not see anything wrong in their behaviour and this is what makes them more dangerous than other types of offenders and most likely to re-offend. Also a fair percentage of paedophiles are well educated, successful businessmen, often involved in sporting or charitable activities and as such do not usually arouse suspicion. Many are never reported or exposed.

[eleanor2]

i think we have to see it in a broader sense.there are paedophiles and there are evil tyrants.when a group of men drug a young boy and then rape him to death.there is no other word or excuse to be given than that they murderous criminals with no conscience.sugar coating paedophilia is protecting the guilty and putting at risk the innocent vulnerable child.i do think there has to be a lot more study and care about allowing viewings to a register.as you say mistakes can be made.it can also be a bigger mistake to over protect criminals at the expence of the innocent.

[Healing Hands]

I would say yes Oola that a child that is fathered by a peadophile must be at risk and surely would have to go onto the danger list.

When Sarah was killed by that peadophile it happened where my daughter's used to go out on their horses my themselves I never gave it a thought back then that they could be a risk from such sick people. Then there really was not enough coverage as there is today, plus I thought that were we lived in a quite part of the country that it was safe for my children, I grew up going out on my own or with friends on our bike or horses through the fields.

I know that when my children have their own childen their lives will be so much more protected then mine or theirs was, which is such a shame that they will not be able to enjoy the freedom we had as children.

[sunflower]

This is a very complex subject. I remember at Uni having some seminars about child abuse. The major thing I remember is that, people who abuse children BELIEVE they are doing the right thing, and that the law of the land is wrong to stop them. Therefore, for child abusers to stop their attitudes and activities would mean a completly new mind set. Also, we have to remember that, child abusers do NOT work on their own. They have seceret groups with members swopping experiences. Their community,(where powerful citizens are part of) gives them the strength to continue their belief even when the community they live in turn against them. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that, it's highly probable that their secret groups actually know the whereabouts of most children who have gone missing and their fate.......they are not to be underestimated.

[eleanor2]

i did mention on another thread about a police officer in charge of paedophile cases.it gave him a nervous breakdown and he went into deep depression.he couldn't cope with what he saw.i really dont think we as citizens have a clue how bad it is.if we dont take a stand to combat paedophilia we are reinforcing a paedophiles view of it being o.k.i dont understand if the law is saying only convicted paedophiles will be on this list.

[Katelb]

Once again Jazz,you have instigated an interesting ,if alarming debate on this subject;eleanor,you have pinpointed my understanding of this register in that unless a paedophile is a known offender,his name won't appear on any register;this leaves us with those people who are possibly potential paedophiles and could be even more dangerous since they are not "known" to any authority.
I think that if parents are responsible and a suspect character moves into the area,then the parent s certainly have every right to at least check on his known credentials, and hopefully they will have enough responsibility as parents not to abuse the priviledge of the knowledge;the same applies to any teacher who perhaps has made an unusual advance on their son/daughter,a parent has a right to know if he has a' past' which has perhaps not been made known when he took up his teaching post.
It is a sad fact that our children/grandchildren will not be free to have the same sort of childhood that most of us enjoyed,and whilst I acknowledge that paedophilia is in a sense an 'illness', protection of children in home or school environment is paramount and if a child is suitably warned about untoward advances etc.and to confide such happenings to a parent then the potential offender could be screened and given help if applicable and the child ...hopefully...would be safe.
I am like you Oola,I do not know too much about paedophilia,so if any of my observations seem ill-informed,then please forgive me,but I do agree with Sarah's Law.

[sunflower]

I personally believe that, child abuse has changed over the years. In my Grandmother's time it was prevalent, however, children were not believed and it was considered a mortal sin to talk against an adult. Therefore, abusers got away with their activity. Nowadays, children are believed and abuse is taken very seriously. But the terrible result is that, instead of the abuser walking away from the child, they take their life to silence them.