Human Rights For Child/Sex Abusers?

The Supreme Court have ruled it is illegal to force sexual offenders to be on the British sex offenders register without the right for an appeal to be taken off the list!

Supreme Court London

Inside the Supreme Court

The Home Office who were against this decision unfortunately lost their battle. This means that if a sex offender can prove by law that they are no longer a threat to the public they will no longer have to tell police where they live!

In England and Wales there are around 24,000 registered  sexual offenders. These people have to tell the police when they are travelling abroad and of their personal details when required.

If sentenced to 30 months or more under the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 an offender, “Shall be subjected for life” to the notification of the sex offenders register without reviewe.

In 2008 two sex offenders brought their cases to the High Court to argue that the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 was “incompatible”  with their human rights!

The Home Office lost the challenge by the sex offenders in the Court of Appeal in 2009 and recently on the 20th April 2010 five Supreme Court justices agreed with the sex offenders that the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 was “incompatible” with the human rights of some sex offenders.

Lord Phillips spoke on behalf of the rights sex offenders. He justified his view by quoting statistics from research conducted for the Home Office over a 21-year period. The research showed that 3 out of 4 sex offenders do not get caught after their first offence.

Phillips helps clean the Estate!

Lord Phillips

What do you think about this new way of thinking by Lord Phillips?

Take part in my poll and express your view.

Advertisements
    • vishsofly
    • April 23rd, 2010

    This topic is highly annoying because it just gets under my skin- the system is fucked up, where is the justice for victims in this? It just doesn’t make any sense. Why are they allowing loopholes for predators to jump through in order to remain politically correct. Fu*k being PC, especially when you take someone’s innocence, livelihood and life. This is exactly why society is the way it is today, the law is a joke.

    • This is an issue that effects everybody. Thanks for sharing your view with us! I look forward to hearing what other people have to add to the discussion. How do you feel about this issue of law?

  1. its not this easy an issue- everyone has right for a second chance, but that cant be given at the cost of danger to innocent people.

    what have the innocent, harmless people done that they should be pushed toward such danger?

    and as for the offenders, i really believe that they should be saved from harm but anonymity? i have my doubts on that. serious doubts.

    have you read a book called “deadly deviates”?

    i dont believe in lynching them or believing that they will be repeating themselves but i dont believe in endangering innocents either.

    • I have not read the book “Deadly Deviates” but I will have to get a copy now!

      Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I think you are fair yet firm with your ideas of justice.

      Not everybody who has had the finger pointed at them is guilty but is seems many of the guilty ones manipulate the law in order to cause harm to innocent people. Which makes me ask the question who does the law really protect?

    • Karl Chads
    • June 2nd, 2010

    A lot of these issues about who should be afforded human rights boils down to whether you believe in the blanket rule that no human should lose their life or dignity.

    Back in 1988 a man called Michael Dukakis ran for the Presidency in USA; he was asked whether he would favour the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis replied “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life”.

    This answer cost him percentage points in the polls (some say seven per cent, overnight), as many people couldn’t understand how he could give such an un-angry answer to such a heart-rending scenario. People wanted to hear him say “yes, I’d kill him with my own bare hands”; when they didn’t get that, they couldn’t understand it.

    • emily
    • July 8th, 2011

    I don’t agree that they should be allowed to be taken off the list!! They committed a disgusting crime so they should pay for it.
    There’s no saying they are not going to do this again in the future, and there is no record for this to innocent people. If any of my children were victims to this abuse i’d want who ever done it to carry the shame and name with them! not be able to be taken off and look like any innocent man/women.
    I wouldnt want to be living next door to a man/women who had been taken off the list whether they think they won’t attack again or not! I just would hate that

  2. Good post however , I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this subject?
    I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Appreciate it!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: