Ethical question about a convicted paedophile.

greendom

My name is URL wrote: »

I can't believe you needed to ask the question considering you know there are kids on either side of your property

wtf tbh

tbh it did cross my mind that the whole thing was a bit of a wind up.

Johnnnybravo

PCPhoto wrote: »

Rebelheart .... have you ever been the victim of a crime ?
Robbery, assault, rape, ever had your home burgled or had your wallet stolen ?

I think that anyone who has suffered at the hands of criminals will have little pity for them.....Personally I hate "do-gooder" types that defend criminals - if a criminal didnt break the law in the first place everyone would be happier.

Ditto, dogooders are the reason these people are back out on the street being rehabilitated. Hes ruined somebodys life, sexual abuse is not something you just get over. Why the hell should people give this guy an easy ride purely because it might look bad if they dont.

The death sentence would be too good for him.

Whispered

really? I was sure it was absolutely down to the LL who he rents to. I suppose if LL decides not to rent it to him, there is nothing he can do. It would be very hard to claim discrimination. Even if he did go on to claim it, could the LL could say he was doing what he felt best with his own house considering the circumstances of the mans past and the current neighbours?

Handsome Bob

invalidusername wrote: »

Im a regular user on boards, ive requested special permission from the powers that be, to go as a re reg on this issue for obvious reasons.

Recently we had a property for lease which we advertised. One of the prospective tennants that came impressed because of their manner and because of their demeanor and they were interested in taking the property.

Subsequent to taking a deposit it soon transpired that the person was a convicted paedophile and on a sex offenders list. It was also made clear to me what the offence included, it involved a very young child, and frankly i felt ill...

My concern is more for the neighbours, this man has offended before, not in the distant past - in this decade, there are young families either side of the property, if i were one of those families i wouldnt want that person near us. As a "landlord" im sure he'll pay his rent but that frankly not the issue

My question is, as he now is a free man in the eyes of the law do i rent him the property or do i go with my gut feeling and not rent the place to him..

This is solely down to your judgement. I think you know what will happen if you tell your neighbours, I guarantee you that they will lean on you to not let him stay on your property. Even if you ignore the pressure from your neighbours this guy will inevitably be run out of the place eventually.

So, telling your neighbours is quite futile, it's pretty much a way of you washing your hands of the situation.

Personally I wouldn't rent to him if kids are around the property. This guy should be making a conscientious decision to seek property that doesn't leave him in frequent contact with children. He may be rehabilitated (I would weep for the system if a decision like this was made to let a guy out lightly), but that doesn't mean he can't be tempted. It's just not worth the trouble, especially if you have more than one candidate who are looking to rent from you.

The End Of Days

My name is URL wrote: »

I can't believe you needed to ask the question considering you know there are kids on either side of your property

wtf tbh

The OP has a very serious moral problem.

That is why they asked on AH and included Spotted pedo choclate sauce as an opition in the Poll.

Less of the wtf tbh! :mad:

:pac:

MagicMarker

snyper wrote: »

I dont think thats entirely true. You cant be seen to discriminate against certain people from what i understand..race religion ..etc

Being a racist isn't illegal. It's the OP's house and he can do with it what he wants, regardless of personal preferences, colour or creed.

dvpower

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

mink_man

no!

Whispered

Either prison or a minimum security facility which allows them to have a "normal" life within reason, a curfew, random checks etc.

ronbyrne2005

Convicted criminals who pose a long term risk to society should be stuck in a gated town in the middle of nowhere or an island and be monitored in this gated town by police/parole officers etc.

herya

Look at it another way, at least you know who he is and if you decide to let him live there the neighbours will know too so they can take precautions.

If you make him go elsewhere and another landlord rents a place to him without a background check (most probably don't do such detailed checks) he will be living next to totally unsuspecting families. I don't think you can find a house with no families around at all. Actually the risk of potential reoffending will be bigger as people won't be wary of him.

For your neighbours perhaps it's better to know for sure that a (former) offender is nearby than to live in a cuckoo land - I'm sure there are active paedophiles and rapists living in your estate already, the only difference being that they have not been caught.

galwayrush

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

I'd prefer if he didn't live .:mad:

Ickle Magoo

Legally, landlords cannot discriminate against any of the nine protected groups under the Equal Status Act 2000...

From

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#parti-sec3

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

They are perfectly entitled to deny tenancy on the grounds of prior convictions or that they are in receipt of benefits & so on. That said, it's very difficult for a prospective tenant to prove they are being discriminated against for those reasons.

Ickle Magoo

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

The question wasn't where I expect convicted paedophiles to live, it was whether the OP should let him rent his house in the knowledge that his tenant was a convicted paedophile & his children have neighbours. Me, I'd like convicted paedophiles to live in jail/secure accomodation.

MagicMarker

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Legally, landlords cannot discriminate against any of the nine protected groups under the Equal Status Act 2000...

From

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#parti-sec3



They are perfectly entitled to deny tenancy on the grounds of prior convictions or that they are in receipt of benefits & so on. That said, it's very difficult for a prospective tenant to prove they are being discriminated against for those reasons.

Even if they can prove they are being discriminated against, they can be prosecuted/charged whatever, but they can't forcefully be made rent out their own property to someone.

TPD

I wouldn't, OP. I know he's served his time etc, but I couldn't live with myself if he did reoffend and did something to my neighbours kids. Not worth the risk, because you can never be 100% sure that he is rehabilitated properly.

Sucks to be him, not being able to get a house as easily as somebody else might have, but that is the stigma that comes with the crime he committed.

Abi

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

Not in an estate with young families is a good start. If it was me I'd probably go looking for an apartment in a complex in town that seems to have mostly working professionals in it.


And another thing, he should have mentioned the fact to the OP before the agreement. That was a sneaky move on his part if you ask me. And if its because he is having difficulty finding accomodation for previously being honest about it, well tough tits.

herya

Re: living in town, actually it's the other way round, I used to live in town now living in a "family" estate - there were loads more kids around in town.

In town they were playing around the buildings, in the backyards, in the hallways, walking up and down the street to get sweets from the newsagents. Probably due to space constraints in the apartments, and it was a "professional" area. If I wanted to snatch a child or drag it into a back lane I'd have no problems at all.

Where I live now - in a family area - there are probably much more children per capita but you don't see them around nearly as much only hear them, they are all playing at home or in their back gardens.

Jay P

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

Not our problem, it's his problem. I wouldn't rent to him even if there weren't kids living on either side, I just wouldn't feel comfortable about it. In fact, I'd be totally fraked out by it.

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

He doesn't need to even do anything, the fact that he even might be thinking of these poor children in an obscene way is enough to say no no no.

brownbinman

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Continuing to punish a man that society has deemed to have served his sentence or withholding information that could result in a child being abused.

They should always be punished for abusing a child.There is no excuse

Sneakee

The prospective tenant in question is silly enough to choose a property close to children which will always put temptation there for him, reformed or not.
I would say no to him in this case. If it was a house in the countryside where there was no families close by, I would maybe consider it. As there are families with children on either side of the property in close proximity, that would sound alarm bells for me.
If I was in that prospective tenants position and wanting to truly reform, I would keep well away from anything related to the crime in the first place. For me, stay away from schools,creches, playgrounds and families with kids.
OP, I'd say trust your gut on this one, and maybe talk to a local Garda as well if you still consider taking him.
It's a toughie, and you are prob desperate for tenants as well in this economic climate.

galwayrush

Deleted User wrote: »

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

He doesn't need to even do anything, the fact that he even might be thinking of these poor children in an obscene way is enough to say no no no.

Agree, and OP, You know that kids live beside your house, you know what he is, why not let an ex alcoholic stay there and leave plenty of bottles of booze lying around.:rolleyes:

herya

Deleted User wrote: »

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

I'd find this type of naivety disarming if it wasn't so dangerous.

They should feel unsafe already because there are paedophiles and rapists around and loads of them, including all those nice fathers, uncles and neighbours from the estate who go out to work and pay for their homes, then return to molest each others kids or to rape their neighbours daughter on a night out.

It's this type of thinking - that kids should be scared of strangers only - that puts them at risk once uncle Kevin next door wants to go play Wii with them.

Ickle Magoo

brownbinman wrote: »

They should always be punished for abusing a child.There is no excuse

That wasn't what I said. Read the post again. The two points are in relation to a question of ethics for the OP not in relation to each other.

herya

herya wrote: »

I'd find this type of naivety disarming if it wasn't so dangerous.

They should feel unsafe already because there are paedophiles and rapists around and loads of them, including all those nice fathers, uncles and neighbours from the estate who go out to work and pay for their homes, then return to molest each others kids or to rape their neighbours daughter on a night out.

It's this type of thinking - that kids should be scared of strangers only - that puts them at risk once uncle Kevin next door wants to go play Wii with them.

Well I think scaremongering is no help to anyone but if there is a convicted paedophile living next door to me I'm alot less likely to let my child out to play.

I'm sorry but your idea of society is f*cked up.

Abi

Surgical castration ftw. How the hell else would a parent be happy with a paedo living next door??


"Forgiveness" my arse.

AckwelFoley

Sneakee wrote: »

The prospective tenant in question is silly enough to choose a property close to children which will always put temptation there for him, reformed or not.

OP, I'd say trust your gut on this one, and maybe talk to a local Garda as well if you still consider taking him.
It's a toughie, and you are prob desperate for tenants as well in this economic climate.

Its not overtly apparent that there are young families either side of the property. So i wouldnt think, thats his motive.

Ironically ive had quite a number of enquiries. Ive shown it to 2 and could have shown it to alot more, but tbh, i was so sickened by the second guy the paedo, i didnt show it to anyone else. The frst gut is a known headcase junkie. Its a decent apartment / flat, but in an attempt to find a good tennant i advertised it at a very low price... it seems to have dragged "them" all out of the woodwork.

Carsinian Thau

OP, this is a terrible position to find yourself in.

He's served his time and it may look like you're continuing to punish him if you refuse to let him live there.

But any parents in the area will be utterly terrified if you let him move in. It doesn't matter to them that he's reformed. They will still be afraid. It's not really fair on them.

As another poster suggested, perhaps he ought to live elsewhere, somewhere where there aren't that many (preferably none) children.

Both of your choices here involve you doing something wrong. You can either punish a man who's already served his time or punish your neighbours by forcing them to live in fear. And make yourself live in fear too of what your new tenant has the potential to you.

In the long run, it'll be easier to live with the consequences of refusing to let him live there.

To avoid any legal ramifications, could you take the property off the market (for like a month or thereabouts) , tell him you simply changed your mind about renting it and then put it up for rent again later?

herya

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but your idea of society is f*cked up.

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Some horrendous statistics on child abuse - 10% of women and 3% of men admit to having been sexually abused. 6% as girls, 6% as adult women.

They say that child rapists are 20% family members, 20% neighbours, 20% figures of authority (teachers etc), 20% strangers (where's the last 20%?). In adults 40% are strangers.

My name is URL

Abigayle wrote: »

Surgical castration ftw. How the hell else would a parent be happy with a paedo living next door??


"Forgiveness" my arse.

That's like cutting off a thief's arms. He'll still be a thief though

Why the fcuk are these people released and expected to reintegrate with society when the chances of re-offending are so high?

CrazyRabbit

phasers wrote: »

Children live nearby. No way in hell.

There isn't a part of the country where there are no children 'nearby'.

This sex offender's risk of reoffending doesn't increase/decrease depending on where they live. Children will always be within walking/driving distance no matter where he is.

Things to consider:
1. Has he shown remorse for his actions?
2. Has he, or is he receiving treatment from either the Lighthouse Centre or Granada institute?
3. Does he have the support of his family and/or friends?
4. Do you live on/near the property as well?
5. Does he have a reliable job/income?
6. Is he receiving assistance from the Probation Service?

As someone who has studied treatment methods for sex offenders, I can tell you that it's not as clear cut as many people would think. Some offenders are at a very high risk of committing another offense. Others pose practically no risk. The answers to the 6 questions I mentioned above will help you determine the level of risk.

One of the most effective methods of preventing reoffending is to give the person every reason NOT to do so. If you take their friends/job/family etc away from them, then they have nothing to lose...they have little reason to be lawful.

My advice thus is: Check if he has had or is getting treatment and speak with him about your concerns. Keep a close eye on him, and warn him that he is not to interact with any child.

Would you rather he lived where you can keep an eye on him, or have him live somewhere else where nobody knows his background?

galwayrush

My name is URL wrote: »

That's like cutting off a thief's arms. He'll still be a thief though

Why the fcuk are these people released and expected to reintegrate with society when the chances of re-offending are so high?

Because our legal system is very ****ed up in some ways. That Barry bastard in Galway who murdered the Swiss student was only on the streets because some stupid judge decided he should be released from custody despite objections from the Gardai after he raped a French girl and was clearly a threat to other women at the time.

Ickle Magoo

herya wrote: »

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Surely there is a distinction between renting to someone & accepting the potential they have to be a paedophile and knowing they are and renting it to them anyway?

I agree with your sentiments - it's terrifying but the statistics show that by far the majority of paedophiles are unwittingly invited into the family home by the parents.

herya

herya wrote: »

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Obviously this guy is someones relative and about to be someone's neighbour. I'm not ignoring facts at all. This guy could fall into any of those categories. There are statistics for everything and you could live your life in sheer terror if you allowed yourself.

This guy has been convicted and he is a registered sex offender therefore the simple fact is that you will feel more unsafe living beside someone like this.

edit: I might also add the 'statistics' are a little bit too tidy and even to be accurate.

galwayrush

OP, you have asked the audience and the verdict is over 87% saying no.
If it was my street, i would not accept a known kiddie fiddler live here, i could see me and other neighbours burn the bastard out even if he owned the house.
You know he is a sick pervert, don't dump him knowingly on the other people on the street.

now I realise I'm taking things a little too far here OP but here's a hypothetical situation for you.

This guy befriends the neighbours, one of the kids comes into your apartment, and he abuses this child, your apartment is now crime scene, you will have a serious amount of trouble renting it to anyone else and the value of your property just dropped.

I know it may be a little far fetched but it's just something to think about.

renraw

Rebelheart wrote: »

Would you have statistics to support this "always" claim?

I'm for giving people second chances but paedos are a different story. They are an incurable disease and no, I don't have stats to further the claim but know from personal experience of people who were abused repeatedly, even when the scumbags get out of jail. Jail is too good for them...I'd castrate them

Nodin

invalidusername wrote: »

My question is, as he now is a free man in the eyes of the law do i rent him the property or do i go with my gut feeling and not rent the place to him..

I wouldn't. I'm all for giving second chances but there's somethings I couldn't live with. It would be different if all the neighbours were informed.

My name is URL

galwayrush wrote: »

Because our legal system is very ****ed up in some ways. That Barry bastard in Galway who murdered the Swiss student was only on the streets because some stupid judge decided he should be released from custody despite objections from the Gardai after he raped a French girl and was clearly a threat to other women at the time.

That pisses me off to no end. Is it just easier to deal with heinous crime when it happens rather than take measures to prevent it from happening in the first place?

The law really is an ass

tfitzgerald

the op has no children because if they had we would not be having this discussion and as the father of young children the youngest is a four year old girl the answer to this question can only be NO how can you even contemplate renting to someone convicted of harming children is beyond me normally i would say forgive and forget but where children being harmed is concerned i would say hang him

galwayrush

Deleted User wrote: »

now I realise I'm taking things a little too far here OP but here's a hypothetical situation for you.

This guy befriends the neighbours, one of the kids comes into your apartment, and he abuses this child, your apartment is now crime scene, you will have a serious amount of trouble renting it to anyone else and the value of your property just dropped.

I know it may be a little far fetched but it's just something to think about.

That is not in the slightest bit far fetched, Kiddie fiddlers are masters in deception and manipulation, often spending months grooming their selected victim/s .

herya

Deleted User wrote: »

There are statistics for everything and you could live your life in sheer terror if you allowed yourself.

Not terror, just reasonable awareness. What happens to me is my responsibility, but in many cases parents fail to make kids aware where the danger is - and it's both in and outside of the house.

This guy has been convicted and he is a registered sex offender therefore the simple fact is that you will feel more unsafe living beside someone like this.

You may but it's an illusion not rational reasoning - any estate does probably host several sexual offenders unknown to you. In case of a convicted offender at least you know and can take precautions.

I'm not saying the OP must rent the place to him, it's up to him. It's a huge responsibility whether he does or doesn't.

I just find it naive and potentially harmful to kids that you'd find a known convict living next to you - even if it's in their own house and they've been there for ages - more dangerous that several offenders living in the vicinity and unknown to you. If nothing else, he will have the inhibitor of "all eyes are on me" while other predators who were never on the radar still believe in their invincibility.

Yes they are there.

kumate_champ07

Abigayle wrote: »

And another thing, he should have mentioned the fact to the OP before the agreement. That was a sneaky move on his part if you ask me.

"hi there, Im ringing about the ad for the 1bed apartment in Clontarf. Can I view it tomorrow evening? Oh and Im a kiddy fiddler.. .. hello?"

herya

In case I didn't make myself clear, whatever you do OP you should not keep your neighbours unaware - the guy has lost his right to privacy.

Hagar

I can see the OP's dilemma, if he rents to the person and informs the Gardaí of the address then that person will be under observation. If he turns away th person and they subsequently rent from an unsuspecting landlord the person has dropped off the radar and may not be under observation.

If it were me, I would refuse to rent on some pretext so as not to put him on his guard and inform that Gardaí that the person is seeking acomodation in the area. There in't a lot else you can do.

994

Lux23 wrote: »

Would he not have to tell the neighbours what hes done?

No, because this isn't America.

Pompey Magnus

NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!1!!11!!!

humanji

OP, as you can see by many peoples opinions here, the guys life is f*cked. It doesn't matter if he's remorseful or rehabilitated. He will always be viewed as sub-human and be hounded out of any neighbourhood he moves into. So, knowing that his life is f*cked, just do what makes you feel better, ie don't let him live there. You're uncomfortable with it, so why would you want to?

But keep in mind that the next guy who comes along could always be a pedophile who never got caught.

dvpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Me, I'd like convicted paedophiles to live in jail/secure accomodation.

The options of the death penalty, or life in prison are currently not available. This guy is free and is going to live somewhere. This is'nt the OP's responsibility but that address is probably as home as any other