Rock and Roll pt. 1

I've been following this story for the last few days. I have mixed feelings about it. This morning I read comment in the Times....

Quote:

---

If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4575628.ece

On one hand, I'm on the 'lock the bastard' up and chuck away the key brigade. Then I get thinking, well the guys done his time so live and let live.

One thing I don't like is this knee-jerk reaction from the home secretary. It reeks of not just punishing the culprit twice but ad infinitum.

What do you guys think?

Considering the high recidivism rates for sex offenders, the procedures put in place to monitor their where-abouts, restrict any contacts with children, and make this information known to the general public is not unreasonable. This type of treatment of paroled/released sex offenders has come about because the public at large has no other way, except the death penalty or life in prison with no parole, to protect their children from repeat offenders. Sexual predators ruin young peoples lives, and the lives of their families, friends and loved ones. The emotional scars and inability to form normal trusting, loving relationships because of this abuse can be a life-long handicap for these victims.
Not a hard choice for me to make...

It should be treated as a crime, won't give them the satisfaction of labeling them as mental patients that really can't help it. Letting them go after they served their time is the consequence. The penalties for said crime should be higher, especially here in the netherlands.

The article makes some very good points, considering its high reoffending rate i always imagined it to be more of a mental disability than a choice to commit a crime anyway. I honestly think someone who wants sexual relations with a child is quite likely sick in some way, of course its a bit different if we are talking a 15 yr old girl and a 17 yr old boy, or a girl slightly under the legal age who pulls a man in a club, but for the 40 year olds snatching kids i think it is definetly a sickness...

I have a friend of a friend on the sexual offenders register because he had naked pictures of a girl in his year at school, just thought i would add this in reference to this part of the article

This sounds as titillatingly vast a number as it is meant to sound - although closer scrutiny shows that it certainly does not mean 30,000 icons of unparalleled evil are out on the loose; among those whose details are kept and lives monitored for ever, a great many are included for nothing more dreadful than slightly under-age, consensual sex.