|
Post by fretslider on Mar 24, 2015 17:19:21 GMT -5
A police force has been accused of putting a sex offender's 'human rights' before public safety after officers admitted they were trying to trace a missing individual but refused to reveal their name or gender. Yesterday MPs and locals in Bolton blasted GMP for their rigid stance - claiming it is a hindrance in actually finding the missing offender. Furious Julie Hilling, MP for Bolton West, said the police were offering protection to offenders who have 'broken the rules'. 'It is no wonder they have disappeared and cannot be found.' Police say they don't name victims to ensure their safety. If a sex offender was named and attacked by vigilantes they may try to sue under article 2 of the 1998 Human Rights act which protects 'any person from unlawful violence'. GMP initially refused to confirm the exact details of 23 missing sex offenders from their area - citing the risk of identifying individuals. Requests under Freedom of Information laws were refused, but police later disclosed that one offender from Bolton was missing after it was appealed by locals on the grounds of public interest. A police spokesman said routinely naming sex offenders could endanger them or lead to the identification of victims. Instead they said naming them was a weapon they only liked to use as a last resort. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007639/Police-desperate-hunt-missing-sex-offender-refuse-details-including-gender-protect-human-rights.html#ixzz3VLP8fr00 Catching the criminal is the last resort? Why are we not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 25, 2015 3:20:48 GMT -5
"""" they may try to sue under article 2 of the 1998 Human Rights act which protects 'any person from unlawful violence'.""""
and there you have it..ooooman rights yet again.....perhaps victims should be suing under article 2 of oooman rights of course ooman rights can always be used by police to save them the trouble of catching criminals...afterall catching motorists is much more financially rewarding
and when it comes to victims..most locals already know the identity of victims of rapists
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 25, 2015 3:26:23 GMT -5
"""" they may try to sue under article 2 of the 1998 Human Rights act which protects 'any person from unlawful violence'."""" and there you have it..ooooman rights yet again.....perhaps victims should be suing under article 2 of oooman rights of course ooman rights can always be used by police to save them the trouble of catching criminals...afterall catching motorists is much more financially rewarding and when it comes to victims..most locals already know the identity of victims of rapists There is a complete absence of common sense in the judiciary. Even a child gets this. Certain human rights are afforded to a criminal, no torture etc. But other rights are forfeit by virtue of being punished for the crime, imprisonment etc. Somebody in the legal world must understand the sheer stupidity of this? I would imagine that given some of them have some 'exotic' proclivities, there's a fair chance a lot of arm-twisting goes on in the chambers.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 25, 2015 10:12:06 GMT -5
There is a complete absence of common sense in the judiciary. Even a child gets this. Certain human rights are afforded to a criminal, no torture etc. But other rights are forfeit by virtue of being punished for the crime, imprisonment etc. Somebody in the legal world must understand the sheer stupidity of this? I would imagine that given some of them have some 'exotic' proclivities, there's a fair chance a lot of arm-twisting goes on in the chambers. Convicts who have paid their debt are entitled to their anonymity upon release, at least in California. You can't pick and choose "human" rights, Fret. If you believe in such a concept as "human" rights, which I don't, every human is entitled to them.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 25, 2015 17:16:12 GMT -5
There is a complete absence of common sense in the judiciary. Even a child gets this. Certain human rights are afforded to a criminal, no torture etc. But other rights are forfeit by virtue of being punished for the crime, imprisonment etc. Somebody in the legal world must understand the sheer stupidity of this? I would imagine that given some of them have some 'exotic' proclivities, there's a fair chance a lot of arm-twisting goes on in the chambers. Convicts who have paid their debt are entitled to their anonymity upon release, at least in California. You can't pick and choose "human" rights, Fret. If you believe in such a concept as "human" rights, which I don't, every human is entitled to them. "officers admitted they were trying to trace a missing individual"There was no mention of anyone having paid their debt. Most sex offenders are eligible for parole halfway through their sentence, as long as they have behaved themselves behind bars. Tagging etc are also used to keep some of the pressure off an overcrowded prison system. I'm not choosing rights, merely pointing out that once sentenced the punishment and the forfeiture of rights follow.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 25, 2015 17:50:26 GMT -5
There was no mention of anyone having paid their debt. Most sex offenders are eligible for parole halfway through their sentence, as long as they have behaved themselves behind bars. Tagging etc are also used to keep some of the pressure off an overcrowded prison system. If the state, and by that I mean the people who comprise the state, releases an inmate from prison, conditionally or otherwise, he has paid his debt. That's how I understand penology where I live. I'm not choosing rights, merely pointing out that once sentenced the punishment and the forfeiture of rights follow. What rights do the lawfully punished and released forfeit? Should she or he not enjoy the liberties of the law-abiding, if that she or he is, indeed, law-abiding? In California the taxpayer is on the hook for all injuries accruing to law-abiding parolees from violations of their privacy. I would think that is also true where you live.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 25, 2015 18:02:32 GMT -5
There was no mention of anyone having paid their debt. Most sex offenders are eligible for parole halfway through their sentence, as long as they have behaved themselves behind bars. Tagging etc are also used to keep some of the pressure off an overcrowded prison system. If the state, and by that I mean the people who comprise the state, releases an inmate from prison, conditionally or otherwise, he has paid his debt. That's how I understand penology where I live. I'm not choosing rights, merely pointing out that once sentenced the punishment and the forfeiture of rights follow. What rights do the lawfully punished and released forfeit? Should she or he not enjoy the liberties of the law-abiding, if that she or he is, indeed, law-abiding? In California the taxpayer is on the hook for all injuries accruing to law-abiding parolees from violations of their privacy. I would think that is also true where you live. They are out on licence. Breaching the terms of their licence means reincarceration. Disappearing is such a breach.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 25, 2015 18:16:47 GMT -5
They are out on licence. Breaching the terms of their licence means reincarceration. Disappearing is such a breach. That would be different, unless, of course, the state does such a poor job of tracking those released, or in punishing those who are caught, the offenders are hard-pressed not to disappear. Anyone would. In California, registered sex offenders are supposed to report their whereabouts, but few do, and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 26, 2015 3:23:10 GMT -5
when it comes to crimes against children..the offender NEVER pays his/her debt...regardless of going to prison because the crime lasts a life time.....the damage in many cases can never be repaired physically or mentally here we have a sex offenders register...and such scum are supposed to be where the police/social workers etc can find them plus of course the scum are hardly punished...they are sent to prison but kept away from other prisoners.. so often they do not have to face up to their crime...they do not have to face the public and its opinion of them of course what passes as sex abuse has widened its remit...but they are not going to be overly worried if some sad flasher does a bunk...so those who disappear are so often the hard cases..the real scrotes
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 26, 2015 7:52:27 GMT -5
when it comes to crimes against children..the offender NEVER pays his/her debt...regardless of going to prison because the crime lasts a life time.....the damage in many cases can never be repaired physically or mentally here we have a sex offenders register...and such scum are supposed to be where the police/social workers etc can find them plus of course the scum are hardly punished...they are sent to prison but kept away from other prisoners.. so often they do not have to face up to their crime...they do not have to face the public and its opinion of them of course what passes as sex abuse has widened its remit...but they are not going to be overly worried if some sad flasher does a bunk...so those who disappear are so often the hard cases..the real scrotes This is crap. There is nothing particularly different about a sex crime. All crimes last forever.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 26, 2015 8:28:48 GMT -5
They are out on licence. Breaching the terms of their licence means reincarceration. Disappearing is such a breach. That would be different, unless, of course, the state does such a poor job of tracking those released, or in punishing those who are caught, the offenders are hard-pressed not to disappear. Anyone would. In California, registered sex offenders are supposed to report their whereabouts, but few do, and for good reason. Our lot couldn't organise a p... up in a brewery
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 26, 2015 8:38:35 GMT -5
when it comes to crimes against children..the offender NEVER pays his/her debt...regardless of going to prison because the crime lasts a life time.....the damage in many cases can never be repaired physically or mentally here we have a sex offenders register...and such scum are supposed to be where the police/social workers etc can find them plus of course the scum are hardly punished...they are sent to prison but kept away from other prisoners.. so often they do not have to face up to their crime...they do not have to face the public and its opinion of them of course what passes as sex abuse has widened its remit...but they are not going to be overly worried if some sad flasher does a bunk...so those who disappear are so often the hard cases..the real scrotes This is crap. There is nothing particularly different about a sex crime. All crimes last forever. but in very differeing degree.....and to say there is nothing different about sex crime..shows a total lack of understanding of the natures of sex crimes which vary greatly in both physical violence and mental violence....
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 26, 2015 9:06:20 GMT -5
but in very differeing degree.....and to say there is nothing different about sex crime..shows a total lack of understanding of the natures of sex crimes which vary greatly in both physical violence and mental violence. I reject the whole concept of mental "violence." Making someone feel bad is not a punishable offense, at least not where I live, nor should it be. I've known many sex crime victims over the past 30 years, some in my own family. You would be hard-pressed to divine any impairment in the way they live their lives as compared to those spared those experiences in childhood.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Mar 26, 2015 10:51:05 GMT -5
but in very differeing degree.....and to say there is nothing different about sex crime..shows a total lack of understanding of the natures of sex crimes which vary greatly in both physical violence and mental violence. I reject the whole concept of mental "violence." Making someone feel bad is not a punishable offense, at least not where I live, nor should it be. I've known many sex crime victims over the past 30 years, some in my own family. You would be hard-pressed to divine any impairment in the way they live their lives as compared to those spared those experiences in childhood. You can't see inside their heads, Joe. You don't know how messed up they might be. I'll bet they prosecute child rapists in CA even fi there is no physical violence beyond the rape.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 26, 2015 11:09:16 GMT -5
You can't see inside their heads, Joe. You don't know how messed up they might be. We all are. I'll bet they prosecute child rapists in CA even if there is no physical violence beyond the rape. They do, and I would not change that, depending on the legal definitions of "child" and "rape." 288 doesn't define either.
|
|