Do you agree with "Sarah's Law" ?

Question

I think it's long overdue and it's about time our right to now where paedophiles live was recognised. We have a duty and a right to protect our children from these people.

Answer 1

Yes, why is there more protection for paedophiles than children? It's insane!

Hang them all I say!



Now i'm not often one to start ranting, and i'm all for people having differing opinions on things... but why are some of us getting the thumbs down on this one??? Are there some paedo-supporters on here or what?!?

Answer 2

People are saying that Sarah's Law 'will drive paedophiles underground' - how many paedophiles known to the police and already on the sex offenders register continue to abuse children????? Just look at a newspaper/news programmes - just about every week there is another example of this happening. The current system obviously isn't working.

Answer 3

Your children are and always have been more at risk from people that you invite into your home or from their own family. Paedophiles or anyone convicted of a sex offence are still citizens and their crimes should be dealt with in the same way. If someone has done their time and the authorities think they are fit to return to society then that's it. No other person who commits a crime is expected to pay the price forever unless they are given a life sentence. If the sex offender is a danger to society then they should be given life otherwise they should be free to go back into the community. At the end of the day, all you people with children, it is up to YOU to protect your children (and that doesnt mean giving them their own mobile phone).

Answer 4

No, absolutely not.

I don't really care what happens to these criminals, but if you stop and think about the important issue - PROTECTING CHILDREN - you will see why any Sarah's Law is a bad idea.

At present, with these people on the sex offenders register, the authorities know who they are, where they are and can keep tabs on them.

If their whereabouts is made public knowledge, these people would quickly be hounded out of anywhere they lived. They would adopt new identities and disappear from the system. With no one from the authorities keeping watch over them, they would still be not known to local people but not known to the local police as well.

They would pose a much bigger threat to children, without the supervision that being on the sex offenders' register provides.

I'm afraid any Sarah's Law in an understandable, but emotional response which is more to do with a desire for revenge on the part of adults, than protecting children.

Hey Katie, how does calling anyone who disagrees with you a paedophile help to protect children? Or is that not your aim?

Answer 5

I would agree with it if it was done fully, that is to say the names and addresses of paedophiles were given. In Wansdyke (UK) they are proposing to give limited information such as there is a paedophile in the area but they will not give the precise address. This might be dangerous because stupid people may well make up their own minds who the paedophile is and they may get it wrong leaving innocent men in danger of reprisals. You can not under-estimate the ability of stupid people to add two and two and make five.

Answer 6

agreed, if there are peadophiles out there that don't go out and actually perform these acts, then they don't get put on the register, and nobodies the wiser, it remains a private fantasy, thats their tastes, i dont want to know.

if someone goes out and performs a crime like that, then being put out on a public register is no less than what they deserve, they've forsaken their human right to privacy the moment they started taking advantage of the vunerable.

the punishment is there, if they don't want to get put up there, then dont commit the crime, kids need to be protected from the monsters that prey on the innocent and vunerable.

Answer 7

Do you think that the public knowing where a pedo lives will protect children ?

It will drive them underground where no-one will know where they are - which is no way to protect kids.

Tighter surveillance of offenders by the authorities is what is needed - not by an over emotional public.

My fear is that it will lead to 'pack' behaviour of local residents, with tragic loss of life on both sides of the debate, as offenders try to protect themselves.

Answer 8

that's a racial term? Crap....Having grown up on those airplane video clips in the 70's I suggestion it replaced right into a pop subculture ingredient. Now, bear in mind this, i'm not the crispiest chip in the bag....I surely admit to my IQ shortfall...i'm although easy years smarter than Ms Palin....If i did not understand it replaced right into a racial ingredient & i'm in Canada, bypass even extra north to Alaska & see what proportion peeps up there, for this reason a procedures eradicated from plantation historic previous, understand. thank you a freakin lot, putting me equipped to shield Palin..... reliable gravy, you experience slaves are the single peeps to shuck corn? Crap, even up here in the wilds of Canada we shuck corn.....

Answer 9

i think the idea for us knowing where they are appeals to us - but in reality it would never work. you would have people taking the law into their own hands. shouldnt it also be up to the parents to check where their kids are going and when. just the other night my partner and i saw a young girl - couldnt have been more than 10 out on the street at 8pm on here own. if the parents werent so caught up in work and other crap, perhaps they could be spending more time with their kids?

Answer 10

It is about time children are protected properly