John Hayward Posted: 25 January 2010
Keywords: Crime & Justice, Sex & Relationships,
Last week the news, when not updating the death toll and aid efforts in Haiti, was filled with accounts of the Edlington 'torture attack' brothers. The pair, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were aged just 10 and 11 when they threatened to kill their nine and 11-year-old victims in a 'sadistic' attack.
This week we learn that more than 21,000 sex offences against children were recorded last year - the equivalent of 60 every day - and the government is considering rolling out the 'Sarah's Law' sex offender alert scheme currently being trialled in Southampton, Warwickshire, north Cambridgeshire and Stockton-on-Tees. The scheme allows parents to find out whether anyone who has access to their children has a conviction for sex offences or has been previously suspected of abuse, though some children's charities initially voiced concerns that it might drive sex offenders underground, away from police and probation supervision, and put children in danger.
It seems somewhat ironic that parents may be permitted to know which adults pose a threat to their children in their neighbourhoods, but the identity of which children might prove a menace to them should be kept secret.
What do you think? What principles do you think should determine the balance between the privacy of some and the safety of others?
In the US we have such laws already and it works for the most part. It only makes sense to keep people who have committed sexual offenses -whether against children or not - away from children. There does need to be a line drawn between children and adult offenders. The child offenders need not be publicly paraded for their abuses, thereby potentially abusing them, but one expects they are getting guidance and being watched by the adults in their life more closely now. What age do you call a child and what age old enough to be exposed ... is a debate for another day.
Walt R (via FB) 26 January 2010