Sex offenders to be E_tagged, Good or bad idea? .

smallBiscuit

Ok, let me retract a portion of my knee jerk reaction to sex offenders and punishment
My opinion hasn't changed, I still believe the same thing, but not for all technical sex offences. I mean rape, child abuse crimes like that. Crimes which impact greatly on the victim and their families.
But sheep shagging should not be the same level of crime (sheep may disagree though), nor should under-age consensual sex. I'm guilty of that my self (we where both under-age, who's the victim?).

I guess it isn't a black and white issue, like most things there are many shades of gray also.

As for the comment on rehabilitation, I thought that was already in place?

thebman

smallBiscuit wrote: »

As for the comment on rehabilitation, I thought that was already in place?

Its worked out great, no repeat offenders :P

Deedsie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Funny how "sex offender" has morphed into "predatory paedophile".

Well they all sicken me.

Boston

Terrible idea. It will only be used as a mean to allow sex offenders early release from prison.

As an engineer I can tell you a GPS system is no good enough to monitor where these people are. If you go indoors you can no longer be accurately tracked.

P. Breathnach

Deedsie wrote: »

Well they all sicken me.

Your having a delicate stomach is not a sound basis for making public policy.

me_right_one

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your having a delicate stomach is not a sound basis for making public policy.

No, but Deedsie's sense of right-and-wrong is. Why are you defending sex offenders? Its one thing to get a speeding fine, far worse to deal in drugs, even worse to murder, but sexual offences are the worst and lowest form of crime of all

Boston

Says you.

P. Breathnach

me_right_one wrote: »

No, but Deedsie's sense of right-and-wrong is. Why are you defending sex offenders? Its one thing to get a speeding fine, far worse to deal in drugs, even worse to murder, but sexual offences are the worst and lowest form of crime of all

I hate the lynch mob mentality -- the sort of mind-set that makes no distinctions about differences in type or degree of wrongness and that, when somebody suggests that people should consider the positions they take, accuses them of defending sex offenders.

me_right_one

Boston wrote: »

Says you.

Says common sense and ordinary morals, right and wrong, that sort of thing, and the vast majority of people I know

me_right_one

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I hate the lynch mob mentality -- the sort of mind-set that makes no distinctions about differences in type or degree of wrongness and that, when somebody suggests that people should consider the positions they take, accuses them of defending sex offenders.

Who's got a lynch mob mentality? Are you accusing me? I gave 4 examples of differences in type and degrees of wrongness, starting with the least wrong and ending with the worst.

If you were suggesting people consider their positions, you didnt put it across very well. My position is that those who commit any type of crime should endure a fair and fitting punishment. Do you not agree? You might not think getting raped or molested is such a bad thing, but people who understand right from wrong do.

If your point is that ordinary rape is less of a crime than rape and stabbing, or that sexual harrasment is less wrong than racial/ethnic/some other comparable type of harassment, then the rules of right and wrong have trapped you again.

If you are not actually defending sex offenders, then my apologies. But your posts come across like you are. Maybe you should consider and state your own position?

P. Breathnach

me_right_one wrote: »

... If you are not actually defending sex offenders, then my apologies. But your posts come across like you are. Maybe you should consider and state your own position?

Show me where I defended sex offenders. When you fail to, then you might make an unconditional apology rather than the give-it-once-and-take-it-back-twice one you tendered.

I don't like lynch mobs, and I see a lynch mob mentality in this thread.

SeanW

While on the surface, this might seem like a good idea, I don't think it is.

First of all, technology of any kind is far from absolutely robust. Second "sex offender" is a very broad term, does it for example include solicitation?

My third and final fear is that this technology would be subject to "Mission Creep" whereby a mechanism introduced to fulfill one task inevitably ends up being called on to fulfill others.
We must be particularly vigilant where this involves potentially Orwellian schemes like tracking bracelets.

It could start out being used to track convicted paedophiles, then there would be a "need" to use it to track people guilty of other crimes - in the worst case scenario the government could start slowly with just a small subset of crimes, expanding to a wider range of civil offenses, to eventually tracking people found to be speeding (why not? it would let Big Brother know whenever you were on a road travelling above it's speed limit? Great way to track serial speeders!) to, at the absolute worst case scenario, when the gov't gets us all to believe that E tagging is a fundamentally good idea, do it to everyone?

We ought to nip this one in the bud. As for how to treat rapists and kiddie diddlers, my first instinct would be to lock them up - paedophiles in particular - to the point where we can be sure they are no longer a threat, in addition to a "3 strikes" system. At which point they'd either get an actual life sentence, or a date with the business end of .45 pistol.

Run_to_da_hills

SeanW wrote: »

While on the surface, this might seem like a good idea, I don't think it is.

First of all, technology of any kind is far from absolutely robust. Second "sex offender" is a very broad term, does it for example include solicitation?

.

I would agree here, whats stopping someone from being framed by someone even the authorities. All it would take would be a Trojan virus containing child sex images onto a computer to make someone a "sex offender".

You also have the possibility of "their word" against yours, Ie if you were accused of soliciting or carrying out "lude activity" in a public place ie pi**ing up against a wall, Could you be deem as a "sex offender" exposing yourself worthy of this tracking device.? All it takes is one bad cop or a CCTV to catch you with your pants down.

(I have heard of corrupt horror stories from the Spanish Authorities.)

SeanW wrote: »

My third and final fear is that this technology would be subject to "Mission Creep" wh

ereby a mechanism introduced to fulfill one task inevitably ends up being called on to fulfill others.
We must be particularly vigilant where this involves potentially Orwellian schemes like tracking bracelets.

It could start out being used to track convicted pedophiles, then there would be a "need" to use it to track people guilty of other crimes - in the worst case scenario the government could start slowly with just a small subset of crimes, expanding to a wider range of civil offenses, to eventually tracking people found to be speeding (why not? it would let Big Brother know whenever you were on a road traveling above it's speed limit? Great way to track serial speeders!) to, at the absolute worst case scenario, when the gov't gets us all to believe that E tagging is a fundamentally good idea, do it to everyone?.

I agree here, next it will be joyriders and shop lifters who will be offered early release if they wear this device. (Some get out early enough as it is through the revolving door prison system.) With the overcrowding of prisons anything could be possile to relieve this chronic situation.

SeanW wrote: »

We ought to nip this one in the bud. As for how to treat rapists and kiddie diddlers, my first instinct would be to lock them up - pedophiles in particular - to the point where we can be sure they are no longer a threat, in addition to a "3 strikes" system. At which point they'd either get an actual life sentence, or a date with the business end of .45 pistol.

I agree here, already lawmakers in Washington State want RFID tracking bracelets replaced with the Verichip implant, the reason being that the current electronic bracelet system has failed.

http://www.komonews.com/news/37623484.html#idc-container

RDM_83

Not condoning abuse of any kind but feel that the point should be made that
many of those that commit abuse were themselves victims of abuse.
Unless we leave europe we can't execute people, and as pointed out before its massively expensive keeping people in jail for life
Why not an open hospitilisation program which allows the offenders to work in the outside world (and pay towards their treatment)but have a strict curfew, this would allow them to undergo treatment in a controlled environment. in terms of security I can't see how it would be worse than tagging as if they didn't return for curfew a manhunt could be initiated (I can't see tagging having a response much quicker than this, and if somebody wants to go awol it isn't hard to disable the tag)
Oh and about the scandinavians and chemical castration these "liberal" countries have a rather nasty history of eugenics (sweden sterilised more people than anywhere except nazi germany)

Boston

me_right_one wrote: »

Says common sense and ordinary morals, right and wrong, that sort of thing, and the vast majority of people I know

You're morality is messed up.

Blangis

me_right_one wrote: »

Says common sense and ordinary morals, right and wrong, that sort of thing, and the vast majority of people I know

The vast majority of people are wrong about nearly everything, especially when they believe that their "common" sense, "ordinary" morals, and other down home qualities are the key to solving complex problems.

me_right_one

Boston wrote: »

You're morality is messed up.

Explain how? Are you condoning sexual offences?

Boston

You conclude that an action which takes life is better then an actions which does not. That it is worse to live with having being sexually assaulted then it is to be killed. The obvious extension of which is that a rapist who murders his victims is more moral then one who doesn't. You've fuked up morality, why do you defend murders?

Boston

Blangis wrote: »

The vast majority of people are wrong about nearly everything, especially when they believe that their "common" sense, "ordinary" morals, and other down home qualities are the key to solving complex problems.

Sometimes I like to pray that Jesus will come and save us all.

Run_to_da_hills

SeanW wrote: »

My third and final fear is that this technology would be subject to "Mission Creep" whereby a mechanism introduced to fulfill one task inevitably ends up being called on to fulfill others.

We must be particularly vigilant where this involves potentially Orwellian schemes like tracking bracelets.

It could start out being used to track convicted paedophiles, then there would be a "need" to use it to track people guilty of other crimes - in the worst case scenario the government could start slowly with just a small subset of crimes, expanding to a wider range of civil offenses

Right on, only reading about this in todays Irish Times.

"Electronic tagging for exiles of 'high net worth' proposed"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0401/1224243795000.html?via=mr

Tomk1

"No one allowed to speak" should be a sub-menu of this trend, from all the post I have read if one person says something as soft -touch approach, the mob rebels with lines from watching too much sky news and reading the first 3 pages of "The Sun" not seeing any problem with a 50yr old looking at a scantly clay girl 30 years their junior or even the latest young Disney-Hollywood actor/actress becoming the latest body for consumption.

1st. someone goes to jail but under tagging never finish serving their time, but I would agree with tagging but not just for sex-offences (aka rape, date-drug/drink rape, family abuse, clerical abuse, child-porn, child-sexual-abuse, stalking, exposure, prostitution, soliciting, thinline-borderline sexual offences, a 15 year old having baby?) but also murder, and yes repeat burglars/muggers -(that can have a lifeterm effect on their victims as well).

2nd fair usage if someone doesn't reoffend then after X-years, they are released from tagging.

3rd After reading books (note not the sun) some people would gladly take a .45 if given the choice.

4th Most sex-abuse is in family and those abused forgive and still love the abuser (read some books there's even some in Dunnes stores)

5th It's as if Sex-offences are a new thing, imagine this trend of talk in the 1960's, it wasn't allowed to discuss such things, yet things happened in every decade of every century for the whole of Human history, the fact that we can discuss this in an "OPEN" ??? way is a sign of progress. I remember a certain case which happened in the late 70's in Midleton (was on TV), no one would talk about it, but everyone knew.

I will not reply to this trend as I do not have anything more to add nor do I want to get into some form of obscure slinging match. Just tag for all groups or for none.

me_right_one

Boston wrote: »

You conclude that an action which takes life is better then an actions which does not. That it is worse to live with having being sexually assaulted then it is to be killed. The obvious extension of which is that a rapist who murders his victims is more moral then one who doesn't. You've fuked up morality, why do you defend murders?

No, rape + murder = worse than murder alone or rape alone, obviously.

And yes, there are worse things than death. I would far rather be somehow killed than raped and live. I personally know plenty of sexual abuse victims who unfortunately live that feeling everyday, so I know what I'm talking about. Please stop insulting me just because your opinion is different than mine

extragon

Executions, lock them up for ever - the stuff of right wing fantasy. There's no way a sufficient number of offenders will ever be caught and convicted, in good time, to make a real difference.
The only things the police are really good at is the protection of major items of property, public disorder, and road safety. If enough money is spent they can make people "feel" safe. In the world of murder, rape, child abuse etc. the whole system of justice prevents very little.

The people who do these things, irrespective of how evil they may be, are mentally ill. Tagging could be a useful way to manage minor sex offenders, who should be kept out of jail but followed up indefinitely, and have their anonymity preserved - if this is likely to help their rehabilitation.
Of course the govt. is only thinking of tabloid headlines.....

conlonbmw

techdiver wrote: »

Tagging is an excellent idea. I wouldn't stop there, I would also chemically castrate repeat sex offenders as other countries such as Norway etc are attempting to implement.

Chemical castration does not stop the urges, and can make these freaks voilently worse as they cannot achieve release.

All criminals should be chipped like dogs and placed on a DNA database then you always know where they are at any time.

If I get burgled I can phone cops with my location and they can do an electronic search for anyone who was within 5 metres of my property at the time, then they can correlate any DNA evidence. How simple is that.

biko

GPS bracelets - no.
House arrest with electronic tag - yes.