by weasley
on August 07, 2010 at 12:26PM
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.
The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
Why the contribution is important
Believe it or not, some people are wrongly convicted of sex offences, but are required to continue registering each year and for the rest of thier lives. They are also subjected to constant harrassment by the police carrying out home visits without a search warrant. This is a breach of Human Rights legislation.
Of course offenders who pose a continuing threat to public safety should be monitored, because in those cases they are likely to re-offend. However, they are most likely to re-offend within ten years.
Those who have been wrongly convicted, and those who have not re-offended within ten years, are unlikely to offend in future, and should not therefore be required to continue registering.
Every case should be reviewed after ten years maximum, and each year thereafter, by a panel hearing evidence by the police and the alleged offender and/or his legal representative. The onus should be on the police to prove that the individual is a positive threat beyond a reasonable doubt. If that cannot be proved then the individual should not be required to re-register each year, and should not be subjected to police home visits without a warrant.
By reducing the number on the register it will allow police to spend more time monitoring those who pose more of a threat.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Posted by
Lew354
August 07, 2010 at 17:01
An engagingly-written report in Counterpunch by American peace worker Paul Shannon makes a compelling case for the complete scrapping of the VSOR (Violent and Sex Offenders Register), the American equivalent.
"There is today in our country a growing threat to our legal system, to the rights of all of us, to the quality of life of children, and to common sense. This threat has been fanned by prosecutors, nurtured by the media, and ignored by those who usually speak out against such dangers.
"In its most narrow sense this threat can be defined as the particular approach to sexual deviance embodied in ever-more-draconian laws against all behaviors labeled "sex offenses" -- including those committed by minors -- and in the sex offender registries of every state and the Federal government. In this approach to sex offenses slander, hysteria and demonization often replace reason, solid research and proportionality. "
For continuation see link below. (Scroll past the bit about Hilary Clinton.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/shannon07102007.html
"There is today in our country a growing threat to our legal system, to the rights of all of us, to the quality of life of children, and to common sense. This threat has been fanned by prosecutors, nurtured by the media, and ignored by those who usually speak out against such dangers.
"In its most narrow sense this threat can be defined as the particular approach to sexual deviance embodied in ever-more-draconian laws against all behaviors labeled "sex offenses" -- including those committed by minors -- and in the sex offender registries of every state and the Federal government. In this approach to sex offenses slander, hysteria and demonization often replace reason, solid research and proportionality. "
For continuation see link below. (Scroll past the bit about Hilary Clinton.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/shannon07102007.html
Posted by
Lew354
August 07, 2010 at 19:19
Just as a minor correction to what I said above, Paul Shannon is calling for the REFORM of the S.O.R. (as opposed to its scrapping).
Posted by
Angry
August 07, 2010 at 22:31
This is why i am Angry! your right wanderer and i am gaining a hate of the UK and its breach of human rights! if OUR human rights cant be upheld i should do some taking of my own
5 star on your true comments
5 star on your true comments
Posted by
Angry
August 07, 2010 at 22:32
A sex offender is MORE likely to re offend if there BASIC needs are not met, by this i am talking about ..
http://psychology.about.com/[…]/hierarchyneeds.htm
(maslow's hierarchy of needs)
Any offender if they lose hope will do crime, look at Moat... so it can be seen what any and every human needs are from the maslow's hierarchy of needs information.
The SOR stops people meeting the needs also as seen on the pyramid sex, Employment, friendship ..... in fact look for yourself as there is a lot, its a pyramid as it starts at the bottom and goes up but with the state interfering with the basic needs of a human will cause more social problems and more offending!
What do you think of this comment ?
http://psychology.about.com/[…]/hierarchyneeds.htm
(maslow's hierarchy of needs)
Any offender if they lose hope will do crime, look at Moat... so it can be seen what any and every human needs are from the maslow's hierarchy of needs information.
The SOR stops people meeting the needs also as seen on the pyramid sex, Employment, friendship ..... in fact look for yourself as there is a lot, its a pyramid as it starts at the bottom and goes up but with the state interfering with the basic needs of a human will cause more social problems and more offending!
What do you think of this comment ?
Posted by
Angry
August 07, 2010 at 22:33
I seen the mod closed the other down! love to know why as the SOR is about the law! and it needing to be changed
Posted by
Angry
August 07, 2010 at 22:36
Why would the MOD state this...
-------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to post your idea.
At the moment this site focuses on which laws and regulations you think we should remove.
Your idea seems to fall outside this remit as it involves the creation of an entirely new law or regulation, rather than the repeal or amendment of an existing one, so we’ve closed this idea for comment and voting.
Flag this comment as inappropriate
----------------------------------------
Easy answer for the mod re the lines of
"At the moment this site focuses on which laws and regulations you think we should remove"
Its to remove the (LAW) of people being on the SOR for life and so messing with there human rights! if a person cant be human then you have a animal and a animal is likely to attack
-------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to post your idea.
At the moment this site focuses on which laws and regulations you think we should remove.
Your idea seems to fall outside this remit as it involves the creation of an entirely new law or regulation, rather than the repeal or amendment of an existing one, so we’ve closed this idea for comment and voting.
Flag this comment as inappropriate
----------------------------------------
Easy answer for the mod re the lines of
"At the moment this site focuses on which laws and regulations you think we should remove"
Its to remove the (LAW) of people being on the SOR for life and so messing with there human rights! if a person cant be human then you have a animal and a animal is likely to attack
Posted by
weasley
August 08, 2010 at 01:33
Thanks for your comments everyone.
Angry: I'm not sure why the Moderator didn't understand which law my previous contribution was regarding. I thought it was quite obvious that I was talking about those parts of the Sex Offences laws which are in contravention of the EU Human Rights Article 8.
In April 2010 the Supreme Court ruled against the appeal by the Home Office/Government, of the High Court ruling, and stated that it was against Article 8 for offenders to be expected to register for life without any possibility of their case being reviewed. Having lost in both the High Court and then the Supreme Court (i.e. The Lords) the Government have still failed to revoke or amend those parts of these laws which are illegal.
Angry: I'm not sure why the Moderator didn't understand which law my previous contribution was regarding. I thought it was quite obvious that I was talking about those parts of the Sex Offences laws which are in contravention of the EU Human Rights Article 8.
In April 2010 the Supreme Court ruled against the appeal by the Home Office/Government, of the High Court ruling, and stated that it was against Article 8 for offenders to be expected to register for life without any possibility of their case being reviewed. Having lost in both the High Court and then the Supreme Court (i.e. The Lords) the Government have still failed to revoke or amend those parts of these laws which are illegal.
Posted by
Angry
August 08, 2010 at 10:28
weasley
Its obvious to me and this subject does qualify the need for the law to be changed or the next step will be the ECHR. As the UK government are doing things of a illegal nature compensation should be paid or lets hope ( freedom fighters ) do there job as my anger is still growing about this country
Its obvious to me and this subject does qualify the need for the law to be changed or the next step will be the ECHR. As the UK government are doing things of a illegal nature compensation should be paid or lets hope ( freedom fighters ) do there job as my anger is still growing about this country
Posted by
johns1970
August 08, 2010 at 12:47
Agree........ If prostitution was legal i see sex offences coming down as a man has had a need to plant his seed so if he aint getting any then he will look for it in different ways and to make a crime out of a human need is wrong... yes people need protection but this matter is a whole chain of events! and no one should be on a register for life as they will offend more by not having a relationship as the register will prevent that as in a breach of article 8 of the human rights act, so as the guy needs to plant his seed and cant have a relationship what will he do! offend... so he needs to have the chance of a normal life / relationship to prevent the possible occurrence of a offence
Posted by
foxcliffe
August 10, 2010 at 04:28
@Angry & weasley haven't got any idea why the original post was deemed inappropriate. It was quite clearly about the repeal of unfair practice. Did anyone else take opportunity to flag the moderator's comment as inappropriate?
Posted by
Angry
August 10, 2010 at 10:56
foxcliffe
Possible it was flagged but as its a topic that has a fairly strong presence on here i would guess it would not be classed as inappropriate. But facts are facts and yes it is 100% clear that a repeal of a unfair practice is needed.
And my anger is still growing! in ways i dare not say about!
Possible it was flagged but as its a topic that has a fairly strong presence on here i would guess it would not be classed as inappropriate. But facts are facts and yes it is 100% clear that a repeal of a unfair practice is needed.
And my anger is still growing! in ways i dare not say about!
Posted by
foxcliffe
August 10, 2010 at 16:11
Sorry Angry you misunderstand me. What I was referring to was the 'Flag this comment as inappropriate' option not the 'Is this idea inappropriate? Report this idea to a moderator'. The moderator made a comment and took action that was as inappropriate to both the idea and the raison d'etre for this site. That makes hitting the 'Flag this comment as inappropriate' option, in this instance, an appropriate response. I just wondered if anyone else had reported the moderator to the moderators.
Posted by
Angry
August 10, 2010 at 23:02
Sorry foxcliffe ...... I would think if a individual comment was way out of line that one comment would be removed...
I also post on sky news and if i say anything out of line it has my ID up and puts comments removed by mod.
I also post on sky news and if i say anything out of line it has my ID up and puts comments removed by mod.
Posted by
Fifi
August 11, 2010 at 00:49
Were all screwed in this country now we have no rights anymore were all little lab rats running round our little lives wanting money all of us no one gives a shit about anybody else may be a good idea if the island fell into the Sea and it all started again from scratch?
Posted by
johns1970
August 11, 2010 at 12:26
i would love to see the UK nuked! yes it does need to start again. If Germany won the last war there would be more freedom and no NAZI's in the UK dictating to us any more.
I HATE this country! and if i could afford it then i would be out of here
I HATE this country! and if i could afford it then i would be out of here
Posted by
Churchill
August 13, 2010 at 22:59
Agree with the host comments
The old PM Tony broke the law but you wont see anything happen to him same as the UK breaks laws so who will prosecute the UK government ?
The old PM Tony broke the law but you wont see anything happen to him same as the UK breaks laws so who will prosecute the UK government ?
Posted by
justinleveller
August 18, 2010 at 00:54
I totally agree with this proposal and the reasons given, with one correction: the police don't have the right to enter registered sex offenders' homes without a warrant, although they would certainly like to have that right. There have been cases before the Court of Appeal in which the police have applied for Sexual Offences Prevention Orders worded in such a way as to give them unfettered rights of entry, but the judges have thrown them out. Visits from or to the police are by consent, unless there is a warrant for arrest.
The trouble is that the police rely on the average person's ignorance of the law to intimidate him with their own version which is, of course, advantageous to them in the pursuance of their own agenda. One of the best ways to engender the wrath of a police bully is to make your knowledge of the law very clear. However, in many cases it may well make him think twice about trying to misapply it.
But back to the point of this thread. This is not so much a case of repealing unnecessary law, but of removing a law that clearly breaches human rights, according to the European Convention on Human Rights. The last government's failure to do so speaks volumes about the Machiavellian administration's ethos when it comes to our basic freedoms and rights.
Registration is unfair. It targets sex offenders only; it attaches the same stigma to a flasher as to a rapist; it includes children as young as ten; and it places those registered at the mercy of police profiling (which tends to obviate the need for proper investigation), thereby, for many, becoming a life sentence in constant fear of false accusations. This, quite apart from the threat of years in prison for forgetting to inform the police of any changes.
The 10-year limit before application can be made to have oneself removed from the register is a step in the right direction, but really the whole thing should be scrapped. Other countries have tried it and found that it serves no real (or, I interpolate, genuine) purpose. It is worse than "unnecessary" law: it is bad law and should be repealed post haste.
The trouble is that the police rely on the average person's ignorance of the law to intimidate him with their own version which is, of course, advantageous to them in the pursuance of their own agenda. One of the best ways to engender the wrath of a police bully is to make your knowledge of the law very clear. However, in many cases it may well make him think twice about trying to misapply it.
But back to the point of this thread. This is not so much a case of repealing unnecessary law, but of removing a law that clearly breaches human rights, according to the European Convention on Human Rights. The last government's failure to do so speaks volumes about the Machiavellian administration's ethos when it comes to our basic freedoms and rights.
Registration is unfair. It targets sex offenders only; it attaches the same stigma to a flasher as to a rapist; it includes children as young as ten; and it places those registered at the mercy of police profiling (which tends to obviate the need for proper investigation), thereby, for many, becoming a life sentence in constant fear of false accusations. This, quite apart from the threat of years in prison for forgetting to inform the police of any changes.
The 10-year limit before application can be made to have oneself removed from the register is a step in the right direction, but really the whole thing should be scrapped. Other countries have tried it and found that it serves no real (or, I interpolate, genuine) purpose. It is worse than "unnecessary" law: it is bad law and should be repealed post haste.
Posted by
weasley
August 18, 2010 at 12:40
Foxcliffe (& Angry) Thanks to your suggestion of using the "Flag this comment as inappropriate" button on my previous contribution, which I did twice, the contribution has been re-opened.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]-offenders-beyond-ten-years
So others who have had their contributions closed should try the same.
I am very grateful to all of you who are supporting these suggestions. This legislation leaves anyone on the register without any human rights, no chance of becoming rehabilitated, no chance of getting employment, and no chance of living without harassment by the police.
To justinleveller: I guess technically you are right about the police right of entry, however if they fail to gain entry on two occasions without a warrant, they can obtain a search warrant from a magistrate. Of course they can call at any time, when you may be out, and say they failed to gain entry. The threat that they offered locally was that if they are not allowed in when they want, they will come back with an army of plods and smash their way in and turn the place over. This is the usual kind of intimidation tactics that they use.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]-offenders-beyond-ten-years
So others who have had their contributions closed should try the same.
I am very grateful to all of you who are supporting these suggestions. This legislation leaves anyone on the register without any human rights, no chance of becoming rehabilitated, no chance of getting employment, and no chance of living without harassment by the police.
To justinleveller: I guess technically you are right about the police right of entry, however if they fail to gain entry on two occasions without a warrant, they can obtain a search warrant from a magistrate. Of course they can call at any time, when you may be out, and say they failed to gain entry. The threat that they offered locally was that if they are not allowed in when they want, they will come back with an army of plods and smash their way in and turn the place over. This is the usual kind of intimidation tactics that they use.
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate