Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again

MungBean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

On an offtopic bit then, I've never understood the previlance of hyperbole on the internet. Is it the joys of the anonymity provided by a username? I can't help but find that OTT statements only ever serve to weaken arguements in discussions like this but they become commonplace...

For me they were made in haste and anger after reading about the convicted paedophile being allowed to remain in a job where he raped again. You more than likely see it in people first posts I think. When people wish to express how they feel in a small paragraph. Ends up being more of a rant than a coherent argument and alot of the time goes overboard. Thats my story anyway and I'm sticking to it.

Lord TSC

Skunkle wrote: »

For me they were made in haste and anger after reading about the convicted paedophile being allowed to remain in a job where he raped again. You more than likely see it in people first posts I think. When people wish to express how they feel in a small paragraph. Ends up being more of a rant than a coherent argument and alot of the time goes overboard. Thats my story anyway and I'm sticking to it.

Yeah, I get that.

Going back on topic though, it's over-reactions like that which make me worry about the list being made public. (Note, this isn't an attack on you or anything. Just a general point).

It's easy to overreact to subjects like this but thats why I don't want the list being made public; because again I say, the wrong people will be targeted and hurt by initial reactions like this. People will hear a rumour or misread something and suddenly the idea is implanted into their heads that someone is a pedo. It doesn't matter if they are on the list for something stupid or if there's been a mix up, the idea becomes engrained into people's minds. Suddenly then, people are making angry first decisions and going out to enact their own brand of justice. It's the pediatrition (sp?) story, where someone mishears or misunderstands but in a rash overreaction, they do something stupid without thinking about it.

Its well and good looking back in hindsight and saying "oh, I over-reacted". We can do that on a message board with minimal consequences. But if it happens in real life, and someone gets wrongly hurt over such an overreaction, then its a little more difficult...

actuallylike

Skunkle wrote: »

The reason they are locked up is to remove them from society where they cannot cause any more harm or abuse other kids. It is a problem, they are twisted. They take pleasure from abusing and raping children. You cant fix that with a bit of counselling no more than you can stop someone being attracted to women or men. And seeing as you cant stop them having those urges then they should not be permitted to be in a position to act on them.

But paedophilia is seen as a psychiatric disorder rather than a sexual preference. Psychiatric disorders can be treated as far as I am concerned, I'm not saying that there is a proven method right now but soon I'm sure it'll be recognised as such in time. Putting them in a cell for a fixed amount of time isn't the answer. It's not the easy route but demonising people who have a psychiatric disorder is wrong in my opinion. I agree that if they show no sign of changing they shouldn't be on the street but if they show real improvements in controlling their urges then I think they should be given a chance. Prison shouldn't be a punishment, it's rehabilitation and if there is no danger of the person committing another crime then why keep them locked up? This should obviously be up to a qualified psychiatrist.

Skunkle wrote: »

They are not called monsters for the hell of it. People see them as monsters, they prey on the vulnerability of children and abuse them to gain sexual gratification. I know it cant be easy for them trying to fight those urges but the fact that they have them means they are dangerous and I dont have much pity for them. No more than I'd have pity for someone with an anger problem beating his wife. Some things are inexcusable.

People see them as monsters because they don't want to believe that one of their close friends or family or even them themselves could ever be a 'monster'. There's no such thing as monsters and I think that's why people like to assign this tag to them, distancing themselves from the problem at hand.
If someone beat his wife, I would also be disgusted but I'd be more open to exploring the psychological reason why he had this anger problem and how we could eradicate it.

MungBean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yeah, I get that.

Going back on topic though, it's over-reactions like that which make me worry about the list being made public. (Note, this isn't an attack on you or anything. Just a general point).

It's easy to overreact to subjects like this but thats why I don't want the list being made public; because again I say, the wrong people will be targeted and hurt by initial reactions like this. People will hear a rumour or misread something and suddenly the idea is implanted into their heads that someone is a pedo. It doesn't matter if they are on the list for something stupid or if there's been a mix up, the idea becomes engrained into people's minds. Suddenly then, people are making angry first decisions and going out to enact their own brand of justice. It's the pediatrition (sp?) story, where someone mishears or misunderstands but in a rash overreaction, they do something stupid without thinking about it.

Its well and good looking back in hindsight and saying "oh, I over-reacted". We can do that on a message board with minimal consequences. But if it happens in real life, and someone gets wrongly hurt over such an overreaction, then its a little more difficult...

Over reacting on the spot and saying something stupid is not the same as hearing a paedo moved in next door, getting angry and going over there with the intention to cause harm. If your a person who will do harm to someone for a particular reason your going to do it regardless of whether its on the spot or a week later. Yes you might say something or pass remark but how is that different to a murderer or rapist being released after his name was in ever paper. They have to live with it, but paedophiles who commit a much worse crime should be protected from it?

I'm not sure about publishing the register. If it was to be published then it should be in different grades. grade 1 someone caught with child porn, not an immediate threat and name not published. grade 3 someone who has been convicted of abuse or rape and is a threat name published to allow parents to protect their children. In this case if his name was published he would not have been in a position to abuse and rape again. Yes his life might because very unpleasant but in trying to avoid that the state has left several kids with very unpleasant lives after being abused and raped.

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

But paedophilia is seen as a psychiatric disorder rather than a sexual preference. Psychiatric disorders can be treated as far as I am concerned, I'm not saying that there is a proven method right now but soon I'm sure it'll be recognised as such in time. Putting them in a cell for a fixed amount of time isn't the answer. It's not the easy route but demonising people who have a psychiatric disorder is wrong in my opinion. I agree that if they show no sign of changing they shouldn't be on the street but if they show real improvements in controlling their urges then I think they should be given a chance. Prison shouldn't be a punishment, it's rehabilitation and if there is no danger of the person committing another crime then why keep them locked up? This should obviously be up to a qualified psychiatrist.

In time maybe it can be treated but at the moment it cant. So as far as I'm concerned the priority is making sure they are not able to act on those urges by removing them from situations involving children. Prison should be a place where people are rehabilitated but its not and likely wont be for a very very very long time. Its a place to stick people who have no place in society. Your right a qualified psychiatrist should be advising on the matter but as you also said there is no treatment for paedophilia so releasing a convicted paedophile is basically taking a chance, its a gamble. And allowing them into an environment with access to children is more than a gamble its almost encouraging more abuse.

People see them as monsters because they don't want to believe that one of their close friends or family or even them themselves could ever be a 'monster'. There's no such thing as monsters and I think that's why people like to assign this tag to them, distancing themselves from the problem at hand.
If someone beat his wife, I would also be disgusted but I'd be more open to exploring the psychological reason why he had this anger problem and how we could eradicate it.

I dont think its distancing, I think the tag is as of a direct result of the crimes they commit. And in the eyes of society raping a child is a monstrous act.

Temptamperu

Skunkle wrote: »

In time maybe it can be treated but at the moment it cant. So as far as I'm concerned the priority is making sure they are not able to act on those urges by removing them from situations involving children. Prison should be a place where people are rehabilitated but its not and likely wont be for a very very very long time. Its a place to stick people who have no place in society. Your right a qualified psychiatrist should be advising on the matter but as you also said there is no treatment for paedophilia so releasing a convicted paedophile is basically taking a chance, its a gamble. And allowing them into an environment with access to children is more than a gamble its almost encouraging more abuse.



I dont think its distancing, I think the tag is as of a direct result of the crimes they commit. And in the eyes of society raping a child is a monstrous act.

I dont think it can be treated as much as homosexuality cant be treated its the way your wired as far as i can tell.

Lord TSC

grade 3 someone who has been convicted of abuse or rape and is a threat name published to allow parents to protect their children. In this case if his name was published he would not have been in a position to abuse and rape again. Yes his life might because very unpleasant but in trying to avoid that the state has left several kids with very unpleasant lives after being abused and raped.

See though, the problem still remains that this doesn't protect those who could be wrongly accused by people who have misread, who have similiar names, etc etc. It doesn't get rid of my main concern which is that the list will lead to vigilanty justice and lead to attacks on wrong people.

Its also something else I was thinking about last night. The problem with a list is two-fold...

1. It's a reactive solution rather than a proactive one; someone only gets added to the list after they've not only abused someone but been convicted. At that stage, it's too late. Sure it offers protection against reoffenders but again, the list in its current state should do that since schools, police etc have access to it. The OP topic is an example of a failure in that process but not proof the list should be made public.

2. What about those who have not offended yet and/or those who have and are offending but have not been caught and conviceted? People talk about making the list public as if it will provide complete protection for parents and their kids, when the truth is it won't. The truth is if a parent does not trust someone, they should not leave their kid in a position whereby he or she could be abused. The logic seems to be that a parent can check the list to see if someone is on it, and if they aren't, then everything is perfectly ok and the person can be trusted. That doesn't make real sense though since a list can only ever be a list of those caught and convicted, which may not even make up the majority of acting pedos in the country.

If you don't trust someone, you don't leave them alone with your kids. I think it's also hugely important that as a parent, you make sure your kid knows they can talk to you about anything, and if anything bad ever happens, they should tell you straight away. Meanwhile, as a parent, you should always keep an eye out for signs, that a kid doesn't trust or like someone or acts weirdly around them. To protect your kid, you've got to accept responsibility for them and not overly rely on a list which is by no stretch definitive. After that, you place trust in schools. Not just with pedos but with who they hire in general, with their safety policies, with how well they education your kids and so forth.

actuallylike

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont think it can be treated as much as homosexuality cant be treated its the way your wired as far as i can tell.

I don't think it's like that, for instance some people who are abused as children go onto abuse children. There must be a connection there.

Lord TSC

actuallylike wrote: »

I don't think it's like that, for instance some people who are abused as children go onto abuse children. There must be a connection there.

There's a whole nature vs nurture debate there. Is someone gay because they are born that way or because of how their parents bring them up? Are people attracted to older people because they have parental issues? Are evil people born evil, good people born good, and no one can change that? Or is everyone born neutral and shaped by their upbringings?

As far as a connection go, I don't think all abused children grow up to be attracted to other children. I think they learn that attraction is about power and dominance and in a bid to overcome their past where they were forced into submission, they try and move to the other end of the scale and become dominant. Furthermore, they may rationalise the reasons for their abuse in ways that may lead them to believe what happened to them is the norm.

MungBean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See though, the problem still remains that this doesn't protect those who could be wrongly accused by people who have misread, who have similiar names, etc etc. It doesn't get rid of my main concern which is that the list will lead to vigilanty justice and lead to attacks on wrong people.

Its also something else I was thinking about last night. The problem with a list is two-fold...

1. It's a reactive solution rather than a proactive one; someone only gets added to the list after they've not only abused someone but been convicted. At that stage, it's too late. Sure it offers protection against reoffenders but again, the list in its current state should do that since schools, police etc have access to it. The OP topic is an example of a failure in that process but not proof the list should be made public.

2. What about those who have not offended yet and/or those who have and are offending but have not been caught and conviceted? People talk about making the list public as if it will provide complete protection for parents and their kids, when the truth is it won't. The truth is if a parent does not trust someone, they should not leave their kid in a position whereby he or she could be abused. The logic seems to be that a parent can check the list to see if someone is on it, and if they aren't, then everything is perfectly ok and the person can be trusted. That doesn't make real sense though since a list can only ever be a list of those caught and convicted, which may not even make up the majority of acting pedos in the country.

If you don't trust someone, you don't leave them alone with your kids. I think it's also hugely important that as a parent, you make sure your kid knows they can talk to you about anything, and if anything bad ever happens, they should tell you straight away. Meanwhile, as a parent, you should always keep an eye out for signs, that a kid doesn't trust or like someone or acts weirdly around them. To protect your kid, you've got to accept responsibility for them and not overly rely on a list which is by no stretch definitive. After that, you place trust in schools. Not just with pedos but with who they hire in general, with their safety policies, with how well they education your kids and so forth.

Publishing the register isnt going to protect everyone from abuse. Nobody is saying that. But it will help in certain cases such as the one mentioned here. If parent were aware that a convicted paedophile was working at the school where their kids went he would have been removed. Now you cant say that not publishing his name or informing parents was right in this case.

Just as some paedophiles might be on the receiving end of violence and some people might be mistook for paedophiles with similar names doesnt mean that publishing certain names is not a good thing to do. When as this case showed the other side of the coin is children being abused. Just because it wont be the end of all abuse doesnt mean either that its not worth doing.

Now I'm not saying it should be published, I'm just saying that when the state fails to protect kids using the list and their screening process then publishing has to be reviewed. And in my opinion the protection of paedophiles from vigilante justices and the protection of possible people with similar names maybe being confused with someone on the list has to play a distant second to the safety and protection of children.

In an ideal world we should have both but it doesnt look like we can have them both at the moment. So if we cant have both straight away which one do ya choose in the meantime ?

Lord TSC

If parent were aware that a convicted paedophile was working at the school where their kids went he would have been removed. Now you cant say that not publishing his name or informing parents was right in this case.

See though, that pedo should NEVER have been allowed to work at the school in the first place, and its shocking the school allowed him to. I think this was a major failing on the schools part, but I don't agree its an example of why the list should be published. Its proof that there was a hole in the system one man snuck through and that the system needs to be tightened up somewhat.

HellFireClub

Ah yes, a rapist get's to keep his job "for legal reasons, can't be named, "for legal reasons", rapes a child and gets a suspended sentence, "for legal reasons".

The problem is clear, the judicial system in this country protects rapists and the likes of them to the absolute displacement of justice that ought to be owed to the victims of such horrendous crimes.

I'm currently a witness to something along the lines of a case like this and it's the exact same form as above, the offender gets completely protected by the law and the victim essentially gets raped again by the same judicial system.

MungBean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See though, that pedo should NEVER have been allowed to work at the school in the first place, and its shocking the school allowed him to. I think this was a major failing on the schools part, but I don't agree its an example of why the list should be published. Its proof that there was a hole in the system one man snuck through and that the system needs to be tightened up somewhat.

He didnt sneak through though. He was suspended for 6 months and then allowed back. Its not as if his file wasnt checked. Someone said "I know he's a paedophile rapist but we'll let him back anyway" meaning that his name being on the register was pointless. I'm not saying its proof that the list should be published, just that the entire system need to questioned even the publishing of the list.

Its all well and good saying we'll tighten up the thing and close this particular hole every time a kid is abused. But that means that kids have to be abused before others are protected. The entire system needs to be opened up to scrutiny and a system put in place that doesnt rely on kids being abused in order to find the holes. I'm not saying publishing the list should be part of it but if no other solution is found then it has to be considered.

randylonghorn

mackg wrote: »

I wonder if the garda vetting missed him because he was already in the position and you only have to go through it when you apply. When did the laws on garda vetting come into place, maybe the case preceeded it.

I suspect probably a combination of both, I can't remember which year exactly vetting became standard but the regulations have been strengthened several times since then.

mackg wrote: »

You would have to imagine a check of all people that were employed in these positions at the time the laws were introduced would have taken place. All that would have been necessary would be to ask all schools, youth clubs etc to give a list of employees to their local garda station and then cross referencing it with the sex offenders register.

It would be logical, but I do know there was a fair backlog / waiting-list in the early years, and I suppose as usual with most new laws / regulations they concentrated on those coming in new and then started to work back through existing people by degrees.

Certainly now it's got to the point where for example first years going into college at 17+ into relevant courses have to be vetted. It amused me last year when a 17 year old girl I know starting Med in college had to get it, even though she probably won't see a child on a ward for years. A bit OTT? Maybe. Preferable to the other extreme? You bet your bloody life!!!

Skunkle wrote: »

O
I'm not sure about publishing the register. If it was to be published then it should be in different grades. grade 1 someone caught with child porn, not an immediate threat and name not published. grade 3 someone who has been convicted of abuse or rape and is a threat name published to allow parents to protect their children. In this case if his name was published he would not have been in a position to abuse and rape again. Yes his life might because very unpleasant but in trying to avoid that the state has left several kids with very unpleasant lives after being abused and raped.

I think the "different grades" idea is interesting actually, no idea whether anything like that exists at the moment.

I do know that *technically* as the law stands a 17 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend could not only be charged and convicted but placed on the sex offender's list. I'm not sure if it has ever happened, I would hope that common sense has prevailed, but it's technically possible. Nor would the register say "shagged his girlfriend who was 6-12 months younger than him", either. If the register was generally available, he's simply a "sex offender" and people will assume the worst, especially once chinese whispers gets hold.

There's lots of reasons like that, some have been mentioned on this thread, why I don't thing publishing the register is a good idea, certainly without a lot of thought and a reform of the register itself. And your grades idea might be a part of that reform process.

Skunkle wrote: »

He didnt sneak through though. He was suspended for 6 months and then allowed back. Its not as if his file wasnt checked. Someone said "I know he's a paedophile rapist but we'll let him back anyway" meaning that his name being on the register was pointless. I'm not saying its proof that the list should be published, just that the entire system need to questioned even the publishing of the list.

He wasn't suspended for six months, he got a six months suspended sentence.

And what I really don't understand is, regardless of how strongly in place vetting was at the time, how the Board of Management continued to employ him after that?! It beggars belief, tbh.

Skunkle wrote: »

Its all well and good saying we'll tighten up the thing and close this particular hole every time a kid is abused. But that means that kids have to be abused before others are protected. The entire system needs to be opened up to scrutiny and a system put in place that doesnt rely on kids being abused in order to find the holes. I'm not saying publishing the list should be part of it but if no other solution is found then it has to be considered.

I'd agree with you about constantly monitoring and re-evaluating the systems rather than just reacting to the next case, though I do think great strides have been made in the last 10 years or so. No system is perfect though, and complacency is never a good idea, even on issues which are far less important / have less potential for horrific damage to someone's life.

7sr2z3fely84g5

update-jailed for 18 years,final 4 suspended-

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0718/ferrym.html

Sunnyisland

This is shocking how could they allow this to happen and why has some of his sentence being suspended, He is a repeat offender for Gods sake.He should be doing the full 18 years,end of.
__________________

Show Time

Sonny Mammoth Television wrote: »

update-jailed for 18 years,final 4 suspended-

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0718/ferrym.html

He will be out in six years so.

Overheal

actuallylike wrote: »

Then having vigilantes killing people?

How many pedophiles and sex offenders in the US have been killed by vigilantes since the US register was made public? Refresh my memory.

sollar

Overheal wrote: »

How many pedophiles and sex offenders in the US have been killed by vigilantes since the US register was made public? Refresh my memory.

not enough

arybvtcw0eolkf

Does anyone have a clip of the young lad, victim of this bastards abuse, who spoke out on the RTE Six One news this evening please?.

Very brave lad speaking out like he did, I'd love to see this clip again.

Speaking of brave people, this clip still makes my blood boil.

I applaud this man's bravery and the bravery of those like him.

Bravo.

sadman18

Yamileth Swift Pantry wrote: »

Does anyone have a clip of the young lad, victim of this bastards abuse, who spoke out on the RTE Six One news this evening please?.

Very brave lad speaking out like he did, I'd love to see this clip again.

Speaking of brave people, this clip still makes my blood boil.

I applaud this man's bravery and the bravery of those like him.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0718/ferrym.html#video
Link to young man speaking of the abuse.

expectationlost

who owned or owns ard scoil mhuire, derrybeg

actuallylike

Overheal wrote: »

How many pedophiles and sex offenders in the US have been killed by vigilantes since the US register was made public? Refresh my memory.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-vigilantes-charter-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html

Just an example. That refreshed enough for you?

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

I'm exploring better ways to stop it from ever happening in the first place..

Fantastic for you. Unfortunately nobody was discussing how to stop it from happening in the first place, we'd all love to find the magic key to preventing abuse before it happens, however they were discussing measures taken against people who have already been convicted of it. Reassuring your "family man/pillar of the community" that he doesn't have to worry about the neighbours ever finding out about the child porn on his computer does not stop abuse from happening. Your posts veer left and right on some bizarre line of reasoning that only you seem to be following.

sollar

Will anyone in charge of that school face prosecution or even lose their job? Not in this country. Can you imagine the furore if this happened in England.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

Fantastic for you. Unfortunately nobody was discussing how to stop it from happening in the first place, we'd all love to find the magic key to preventing abuse before it happens, however they were discussing measures taken against people who have already been convicted of it.

Yes they were discussing that, and I suggested and explained my reasons against publishing the offender list which seemed to be the consensus of some people. Not going to get into it again to be honest, this has been covered before from what I remember.

prinz wrote: »

Reassuring your "family man/pillar of the community" that he doesn't have to worry about the neighbours ever finding out about the child porn on his computer does not stop abuse from happening. Your posts veer left and right on some bizarre line of reasoning that only you seem to be following.

No it doesn't stop abuse from happening if the sex offender's list is hidden (assuming this is what you meant) but Megan's Law has shown that it doesn't stop abuse from happening by making it public either.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Just want to point out there seems to be a soft approach on sentencing on sex crimes *well you could say soft approach on most crimes in ireland*, a similar case in the uk lead to caretaker abuser being jailed indefinably,with a min term to be served of 9 years-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/retired-school-caretaker-jailed-for-abusing-boys-2185407.html

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

No it doesn't stop abuse from happening if the sex offender's list is hidden (assuming this is what you meant) but Megan's Law has shown that it doesn't stop abuse from happening by making it public either.

So the only gain is giving some people convicted of child abuse the safety of a certain level of anonymity.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

So the only gain is giving some people convicted of child abuse the safety of a certain level of anonymity.

No, it limits the chances of violence against them from members of the public (which would happen), it also keeps them part of the system where they can be monitored by police (if they were subject to abuse and public reaction, they would go underground out of the police's detection), it would also limit the abuse centred on the abuser's family and would limit attacks on people who people think they might be a convicted abuser because they happen to have the same name (has happened).

The original case that this thread is about was a failing on the part of the police but it's not a case to make the list public. Making the list public only appeases to mass hysteria and as Megan's Law has shown has not limited abuse, just increased vigilante attacks. That's not a society I would want to be a part of to be honest.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

No, it limits the chances of violence against them from members of the public (which would happen)...

So that's a yes, it gives a level of anonymity for their own benefit.

actuallylike wrote: »

it also keeps them part of the system where they can be monitored by police (if they were subject to abuse and public reaction, they would go underground out of the police's detection)...

They would still part of the system. You just need a rigourous monitoring system to make sure they don't 'go underground', and any that do face the full force of the law.

actuallylike wrote: »

it would also limit the abuse centred on the abuser's family...

So yes, anonymity for the convicted and their family. What limits the abuse on the family of murderers? Or rapists? Or tiger kidnappers? Why do the families of child abusers deserve extra protection?

actuallylike wrote: »

and would limit attacks on people who people think they might be a convicted abuser because they happen to have the same name (has happened)....

That's the first real reason tbh, then again that could happen with anyone. Has anyone called Larry Murphy been attacked on the street I wonder?

actuallylike wrote: »

Making the list public only appeases to mass hysteria and as Megan's Law has shown has not limited abuse, just increased vigilante attacks. That's not a society I would want to be a part of to be honest.

You've also failed to point out that Megan's Law is applied differently in various US states with, some states provide a lot more information than others, some states only publish certain categories of people from the Sex Offenders List and with limited information etc.

Ever put thought into how many children have been raped, abused and murdered by previously convicted sex offenders? How many kids are you willing to sacrifice to protect paedophiles from (the tiny possibility) of vigilante attacks?

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

So that's a yes, it gives a level of anonymity for their own benefit.

You said it was the only gain, I pointed out it was not. And I didn't refer to it as a gain, you did

prinz wrote: »

They would still part of the system. You just need a rigourous monitoring system to make sure they don't 'go underground', and any that do face the full force of the law.

Very, very hard to enforce. If someone wants to go underground, monitoring them isn't going to stop them. Perhaps a tracking device but I'm not sure what the legal implications of are of them.

prinz wrote: »

So yes, anonymity for the convicted and their family. What limits the abuse on the family of murderers? Or rapists? Or tiger kidnappers? Why do the families of child abusers deserve extra protection?

Because these wouldn't be subject to the same amount of abuse or risk of violence then a child abuser. This all has been covered in the thread before.

prinz wrote: »

That's the first real reason tbh, then again that could happen with anyone. Has anyone called Larry Murphy been attacked on the street I wonder?

Don't know to be honest?

prinz wrote: »

You've also failed to point out that Megan's Law is applied differently in various US states with, some states provide a lot more information than others, some states only publish certain categories of people from the Sex Offenders List and with limited information etc.

So what's your point? If there's limited information what's the point? Just putting up a name and let assumptions take over?

prinz wrote: »

Ever put thought into how many children have been raped, abused and murdered by previously convicted sex offenders? How many kids are you willing to sacrifice to protect paedophiles from (the tiny possibility) of vigilante attacks?

THERE IT IS!!! Yes spot on, I am willing to sacrifice kids, amazing, brilliant. Not worth a response. I have answered every one of your questions to the best of my ability, even when you repeat yourself but this? Not going to discuss anymore if this is the type of sensationalism you resort to.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

You said it was the only gain, I pointed out it was not. And I didn't refer to it as a gain, you did.

Right so you admit it is a gain then.

actuallylike wrote: »

Very, very hard to enforce. If someone wants to go underground, monitoring them isn't going to stop them. Perhaps a tracking device but I'm not sure what the legal implications of are of them..

But isn't that what they are attempting to enforce already?

actuallylike wrote: »

Because these wouldn't be subject to the same amount of abuse or risk of violence then a child abuser. This all has been covered in the thread before...

Yes. Assumptions.

actuallylike wrote: »

So what's your point? If there's limited information what's the point? Just putting up a name and let assumptions take over?...

Or you know just put up the fact that say in the last month a registerd paedophile has moved from one town to another..

actuallylike wrote: »

THERE IT IS!!! Yes spot on, I am willing to sacrifice kids, amazing, brilliant. Not worth a response. I have answered every one of your questions to the best of my ability, even when you repeat yourself but this? Not going to discuss anymore if this is the type of sensationalism you resort to.

Do you think the Megan of Megan's Law fame would still have been abducted, abused and murdered if her parents knew that the three people sharing a house across the street from theirs were three paedophiles? If you say no, she'd probably still be alive, then yes you are choosing to sacrifice her in order the three across the street keep their status secret.

I'd love to see a study on the numbers of sex offenders reoffending, versus the number of vigilante attacks. Here's a start..

Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misunderstood-crimes

Compared to a study which indicated only 5% of sex offenders have been physically harmed vigilante style.

But there is widespread evidence that other registered sex offenders have suffered violence and - much more commonly - harassment and abuse. A study carried out in Florida and published last year in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice found that a third of convicted male sex offenders sampled had experienced "dire events". The study found that only 5 per cent had suffered assaults or injuries...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-vigilantes-charter-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html

So yes the argument seems to be better to protect the 5% from vigilante attacks than warn people about the 14-24% who are going to reoffend. As for verbal harrassment I wouldn't even consider it noteworthy tbh.

charlemont

mackg wrote: »

The abuse took place in the 80s but he was convicted in 2002.

Its crazy, How could the school or local Guards not know about it.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

Right so you admit it is a gain then.

You said it was a gain!

prinz wrote: »

But isn't that what they are attempting to enforce already?

What, the tracking device?

prinz wrote: »

Yes. Assumptions.

:rolleyes: Brilliant comment, no point made at all.

prinz wrote: »

Or you know just put up the fact that say in the last month a registerd paedophile has moved from one town to another..

And what would that do? Get parents to tell their kids to be vigilant? Don't parents already do that?

prinz wrote: »

Do you think the Megan of Megan's Law fame would still have been abducted, abused and murdered if her parents knew that the three people sharing a house across the street from theirs were three paedophiles? If you say no, she'd probably still be alive, then yes you are choosing to sacrifice her in order the three across the street keep their status secret.

For Christ sake, you obviously have just refused to look at any of the documents outlining that Megan's Law hasn't worked. Just appeasing to mass hysteria without looking at the big picture. I'll say if for the final time and this time in capital letters because you just refuse to address it!!!

MAKING THE LIST PUBLIC DRIVES OFFENDERS UNDERGROUND WHERE THEY CAN'T BE MONITORED!!!!
FAMILIES OF OFFENDER'S AND PEOPLE OF SIMILAR NAMES ARE SINGLED OUT FOR ABUSE!!!

I'm sorry but this has just been repeated over and over again and you just won't address it and honestly I'm bored to death of it, unsubscribed!

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

You said it was a gain!

I said it was a gain. You said no. Then you went along some path about objecting to my use of the word only...

actuallylike wrote: »

You said it was the only gain, I pointed out it was not.

Emphasis yours. That leads me to believe that you acknowledge it as a gain, not the only gain. Who used the word first is irrelevant. I asked a simple question, which could have been yes/no.

actuallylike wrote: »

What, the tracking device?

Keep track of where offenders are/what jobs they are in etc.

actuallylike wrote: »

:rolleyes: Brilliant comment, no point made at all.

..because it was unworthy of comment.

actuallylike wrote: »

And what would that do? Get parents to tell their kids to be vigilant? Don't parents already do that?

Jesus. No attempt to actually refer to Megan's case either I note. Madcap stuff. Perhaps it would be best if you concentrated on feeling sorry for the family men who purchase/download/look at child porn. With a side-thought you know, for the actual real victims.

sadman18

SF's Doherty recalls 'inappropriate' behaviour by paedophile Ferry.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/sfs-doherty-recalls-inappropriate-behaviour-by-paedophile-ferry-513477.html

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-vigilantes-charter-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html

Just an example. That refreshed enough for you?

A couple of deaths at the hands of lunatics isnt proof of anything. Plenty of people are killed needlessly each year at the hands of mentally unstable people with access to firearms.

A scientific study on the other hand is a different story.

A study carried out in Florida and published last year in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice found that a third of convicted male sex offenders sampled had experienced "dire events". The study found that only 5 per cent had suffered assaults or injuries, but that the 33 per cent who said they had suffered negatively had typically undergone the "loss of a job or a home, threats of harassment or property damage". It added: "Some participants noted positive effects of Megan's Law, including motivation to prevent reoffence and increased honesty with friends and family."

That study showed that very few offenders had been attacked. And that some saw the possibility of suffering negatively as a result of a published register as motivation not to re-offend and to be open and transparent about their activities.

pragmatic1

I know one of the lads that was abused by this cnut. Nice fella. People would be surprised at the number of people who have been abused in this country. Shocking stuff.

sollar

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/07/21/revealed-ferry-taught-sex-education-in-school-and-worked-for-youth-organisation/

The abuser taught Sex Education also.

He was a trainee priest too but was kicked out... so he must have been really bad. How do schools not know these things before letting them near children?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Went to that colaiste cholmchille gaeltacht in gweedore for three weeks when I was 13. The bean on ti of the house I stayed in had the same surname, ferry. she had a son who would have been around this guys age, wonder was it the same guy or just a common name in the area.

fryup

The boys were repeatedly assaulted and raped over several years -- in one case until the victim completed the Leaving Certificate

this is what i can't get my head around

why didn't they make a complaint at the beginning?? surely one of them had the cop on to tell their parents/guardians??

sollar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Went to that colaiste cholmchille gaeltacht in gweedore for three weeks when I was 13. The bean on ti of the house I stayed in had the same surname, ferry. she had a son who would have been around this guys age, wonder was it the same guy or just a common name in the area.

Ferry is a very common name up there

MungBean

fryup wrote: »

this is what i can't get my head around

why didn't they make a complaint at the beginning?? surely one of them had the cop on to tell their parents/guardians??

You think the reason a kid didnt report being raped was because of lack of cop on? Nothing to do with fear or intimidation ?

randylonghorn

Skunkle wrote: »

You think the reason a kid didnt report being raped was because of lack of cop on? Nothing to do with fear or intimidation ?

And guilt and shame.

Totally inappropriate guilt and shame on the part of the child, ofc, but nevertheless part of the normal human psychological response to such events.

We're wired strangely sometimes.

MungBean

randylonghorn wrote: »

And guilt and shame.

Totally inappropriate guilt and shame on the part of the child, ofc, but nevertheless part of the normal human psychological response to such events.

We're wired strangely sometimes.

True. Inappropriate as ya say but impossible to avoid. Must have been hell for those kids, and then when they failed to report it and it continued the shame probably deepened and it became harder and harder to report it.

Karlrove

the director of the school 'o loinsigh' must have a lot to answer for. is there a more sinister reason? there seems to be a link to this director in this piece. what do you think?

http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/sw-irish-crime.php?aid=8221