Sex Offenders Register Anomoly

[bluereynolds]

Hi. I've just discovered an anomoly with the register that could be letting some get away from justice, and I suppose playing devil's advocate, being unfair to others.

I've found out that a sex offender can get a sentence of say, 28 months, then be required to sign the register for 10 years. However, someone receiving a more lenient sentence of, say 6 months, then get an extended licence of 3 years to do a sex offender programme will have to sign for the rest of their life!! Even if they get NO prison sentence, but are put on a community sentence for 3 years to do a programme, they still have to sign for life!!!!

Where is the sense in that? Assault someone, go to prison for 14 months (half the original 28 months), and get 10 years on the register, or commit a lesser crime in the eyes of the law, never go to prison, but has to sign for life.

Who makes up these rules?? Should everyone who gets a sex conviction sign for life to make it easier?

[LS]

Being on the register is often punishment enough for some. It forces you to have to speak to plod regularly, and for them to see that you're not committing further offences, so just because the one who got 6 months & a community order may seem lenient, the likelihood is that somewhere along the lifelong register they are bound to trip up and face a prison sentence.

As I've always said, the prison sentence is the easy part, because prison's what you make it.

[bluereynolds]

Being on the register is often punishment enough for some. It forces you to have to speak to plod regularly, and for them to see that you're not committing further offences, so just because the one who got 6 months & a community order may seem lenient, the likelihood is that somewhere along the lifelong register they are bound to trip up and face a prison sentence.

As I've always said, the prison sentence is the easy part, because prison's what you make it.

That's not what I'm saying really. Why should the one who went to prison get less time on the register than the one who didn't? Where is the justice in that? Surely he should get the register for life too?

I agree that prison is probably the easy part, so why should the one who did the 'worse' crime only get that?

[Faith]

I think LS has effectively backed up what you're saying.

It is a strange system but I suppose, the reasoning behind it is that the person has served a jail sentence...and the government want to prove how good they are at rehabilitation.

And, as LS says, the prison sentence is the easy part...it's living the rest of your life in the community with a spotlight labelling you as a sex offender where the real fun begins.

Such is our 'justice system' What a larf.

[bluereynolds]

Sex Offender Register Anomoly

It still don't explain why someone who went to prison ONLY gets 10 years on the register, ie being seen as rehabilitated after that time, but the community sentence guy is considered NEVER rehabilitated. Where does that thinking come from? If the judge feels this, why not send him to prison for those 3 years?

It's like saying that someone who assaults a kid and gets 28 months, is a lesser crime than someone who, eg, makes a dirty phone call, and gets a comm order.

[LS]

It's all to do with what sentences are set out in the guidelines, and also down to the judge at the time and what he feels.

Irony also means the person who, in your view, got the lesser sentence but with lifelong register, actually got the rougher deal and the judge probably balanced that.

[bluereynolds]

Sex Offenders Register Anomoly

It still don't make sense to me.

Assault a kid, assualt a woman, go to prison, be under scrutiny for 10 years.

Flash a granny in the park, don't go to prison, be under scrutiny for the rest of you life.

[LS]

That's the way the cookie crumbles in this flaky country.
Not much in it makes sense, I've learned.

[bluereynolds]

Sex Offenders Register

There must be something that can be done. It cannot be right that a judge passes down a sentence, some years later, a police solicitor says 'ooh thats not right, I'll just correct it', and increase the sentence.

I can tell you, no other area of offending would be treated this way. All sex offenders are scum etc.

I intend to make David Camerons lovely smooth baby-bum face get redder and redder in faux outrage.

[LS]

Good luck. He's a millionnaire t*sser out of touch with the rest of the uk (thankfully) but only due to the LibDems keeping him in check.

You wait until the next election, when it's Conservatives only. It's going to get a lot like medieval times, as far as sentencing goes. It's going to be very tough with no playstations etc, and add in the Bill of Rights, where the European Courts are no longer in charge, we will see many wanting to move abroad just to continue breathing.

[Faith]

See you there, LS!

[Casehardened]

I was interested to read that the Home Secretary has promised to close four 'loopholes' in the system as I thought there was already no possible 'wriggle room'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rs-ruling.html

However, though I have no love for the European Court of Human Rights whatsoever, I would have thought it is eminently fair to eventually have a right of appeal against a lifetime registration requirement, especially for anyone convicted as a youngster.

[bluereynolds]

One problem I can see is that the appeal/review for those on the SOR will be heard by the police, not a judge, then no right of appeal for another 8 years! How are the police qualified to interpret the law? They are there to uphold it only surely?

[LS]

People fail to realise, when they say they have no love for the Human Rights Act, that it does have a safety-net effect. The moment the ECHR is opted-out from, we will have some pretty draconian laws come in to replace it.

Top of the list will more than likely be the introduction of the death penalty, because that's what the public want. Especially when they can vote it in for others. They wouldn't be so keen on it if it was their necks being sized up for a noose.

For those who are in favour of it, you may well have gotten an NFA, but what about those of us who weren't that lucky? Thank you for considering how "your choice" will affect me.

The Human Rights Act may well have been abused by people using it for scenarios it wasn't intended for, but signing out of the ECHR is a very dangerous option, and will see us onto a slippery slope to disaster.

[bluereynolds]

It's interesting to note that Italy, Germany & Spain have all denounced our sex offenders register as a breach of human rights. France have only recently introduced a version, with a max period of 30 years. Good job for Sarkozy this doesn't include outlawing sex with midgets.

Bythe way LS, whats the story with Julie Hall?