A good step

August 4th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Government is pushing ahead with a child-sex offender register, which could eventually be expanded to include other sexual offenders.

Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley has confirmed ministers signed off on plans to establish the database with an announcement expected within the next few weeks. The database will not be open to the public.

It will be managed by the police, and only available to officials with security clearance from agencies such as the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development.

If National is returned to Government at September’s election, Tolley hopes to introduce the register by the end of the year.

That’s a very worthy thing to do.

I would hope that in time, the public would have access to it also, excluding those with name suppression of course.

Tags:

40 Responses to “A good step”

  1. tvb (4,364 comments) says:

    I hope the register is NOT available to the public. It would encourage vigilante groups and there may be prejudice elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    “I would hope that in time, the public would have access to it also, excluding those with name suppression of course.”

    A very small step in the right direction. What justification is there for giving a sexual predator or a kiddie fiddler permanent name suppression unless the victim requests it.

    We currently have the ludicrous situation where if the victim breaks a name suppression order they could end up in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Viking2 (11,413 comments) says:

    Well until we remove name suppression and all the attendant palaver around that then its useless. Once it there though it will become the tool of destruction against those people.
    While not in any way supporting them it seems to me that its a bit like going back to the days of witch hunts. And that will be.
    Its 2014 and it seems we can’t do better to protect people including those on the list. They have a mental problem, lets get to work and find a way to fix that, if its possible.
    At the end of the day they are still people even if with warped minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ed Snack (1,849 comments) says:

    It seems that where there are such registers, they are misused. I disagree with name suppression unless the victim supports it (for their own protection), but a register, why ? (Answer, PR, to be seen to be doing “something”, the efficacy or usefulness of said “something” not being important).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gump (1,635 comments) says:

    @Ed Snack

    >but a register, why ?

    To stop them from living together or associating with each other.

    It will also make Police inquires easier as potential suspects can be identified or eliminated faster if their whereabouts are keep on a central register.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lolitasbrother (669 comments) says:

    best not to go crazy, most men are good, In my own life i had all my daughters friends around to stay, I was a single man, and the mothers came to check me out. One child at 18 year of age later said :
    ” you were my father away from home and you are a good man”
    I said I know , some times quite late at night women would come to check me , I said you want to wake up the children from sleep, and they went away

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lolitasbrother (669 comments) says:

    The medal of Quixote given to Farrar is rescinded he is an idiot parrot. Your strength will fade Farrar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. backster (2,152 comments) says:

    A verymild aid to departmental efficiency, but hardly worth public notice. An open register is whats required to deter offending and protect the Public. Name suppression promotes offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    I hope the register is NOT available to the public. It would encourage vigilante groups and there may be prejudice elsewhere.

    I think you’ll find people just get on with their lives safe in the knowledge that they know where and who these people are. That’s how it works here in Texas, where all the sex offenders in my neighbourhood are listed online. As far as I can tell, people largely leave them alone despite the availability of the public record.

    The list should be made public, otherwise what is the point of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (3,136 comments) says:

    I would hope that in time, the public would have access to it also, excluding those with name suppression of course.

    Which is about 90% (my guess).

    I would hope at the same time the new government addresses name suppression, particularly when the excuse is to protect the victim, a bizarre Victorian measure that suggests that the victim has done something wrong, is somehow to blame for being victimised.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. lolitasbrother (669 comments) says:

    oh God here they come the idiot man fems like Tinman , weaklings all , answer here jerks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Fentex (937 comments) says:

    he Government is pushing ahead with a child-sex offender register, which could eventually be expanded to include other sexual offenders.

    If this gets abused as they have been elsewhere it will be a disaster. Over-subscription to such things as an easy populous claim by politicians to be doing something has been very destructive elsewhere.

    It must be tied to heavy sentencing and never divorced from strong process or it will be diluted to the point of ineffectiveness at the cost of widespread destruction.

    I’m sure current supporters of it wouldn’t want it to exist if a government that treats the accused of sex crimes guilty until proven innocent was in place and that sufficed to be entered on the register.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jack5 (5,053 comments) says:

    No problem with most of the entries, but what of the cases of a boy of say, 17 or even 16, convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge because of shagging a girl of 15.

    Does he deserve to have his name on such a register and perhaps even available to the public for ever?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chris2 (762 comments) says:

    In some States in the USA you can download an app and it will identify if there are registered sex offenders living nearby. Seems to work without the vigilantism that the opponents here, claim would happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Zebulon (97 comments) says:

    Make it public. Children come first, not perverts.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. goldnkiwi (1,280 comments) says:

    lolitasbrother (499 comments) says:

    August 4th, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Really? If there was any doubt they would surely have been better having your children over to stay with them or didn’t you allow that?

    Sleep overs are not a Human Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Not before time, but such an index cannot be public. It should always only be limited to adults, who will be told the best way of handling the information given out.

    Children should not be able to access the information, for many reasons, including the fact that they may try, without adult supervision to make contact with the person, for whatever reason children do these sorts of things.

    People should always be aware of the fact that such a list will never be all inclusive, those names on it will only be those that didn’t get name suppression, and of course, only those sex offenders that have been apprehended. There are many that are never caught, or are never reported.

    Parents should never fail in their duty to teach their children stranger danger – a list will not protect your children, and people that believe it does/will, are frankly stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Chris2: I agree…and note that BlairM actually lives in a state where there is an open register (effectively) and if he says vigilantism is not a problem then I am prepared to believe it.

    Judith: who the fuck do you think you are decreeing that “such an index cannot be public?” We are a sovereign country entitled to make our own laws – laws which suit us..and by “us” I mean the majority…I am not so much a libertarian as a utilitarian… I am far more interested in the rights of children to enjoy their innocence than in the supposed “human rights” of some child molestor…

    In fact I would go a little further…there is increasing evidence that paedophilia is a sexual orientation with a biological basis…that being the case paedophiles who are “cured” is an oxymoron, or at least at this time, science fiction. It is such an abominable crime that frankly I don’t much care what happens to them…If they live in fear, and scuttle from their homes to their places of work and back home again, and never venture out at night for fear of attack, then that’s pretty well fine with me.

    Whoever raised the “17 year old shagging a 15 year old” has a valid point…perhaps young guys convicted of a first such offence should not qualify for the register.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    We are a sovereign country

    LOL

    Tell us how your legal system isn’t really corrupt, David.

    http://www.actsinjunction.info/corruption.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (6,508 comments) says:
    August 4th, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    Wow, aren’t you an over the top angry little bird today –

    It might have missed your notice Mr HotHead, but this is a blog – it is not a place where laws are made. As a poster on this blog I give my opinions – with good certainty that they won’t effect the law.

    My opinion is that such a list cannot be open to general public, because it would be extremely dangerous for unsupervised children to access it. If, say for example, a young ‘know it all’ 12 year old should access the list, and decide they were going to check out someone on it, out of curiosity – which teenagers are prone to doing – it could in fact be very dangerous for them.

    The same for little children, who not having the ability to understand what they are looking at – but being able to read, could also become curious.

    So Mr-Quick Temper -But failed to read post – Garrett – if you’d bothered to read my post properly you would have got that information.

    Of course you would prefer that anyone and everyone – even children who want to annoy their parents have access to the names and addresses of dangerous people so they can drop around for a visit – Christ you’re weird!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Garrett

    And where did I mention anything about a pedophille being able to be cured, or even hint at such a thing. I have said very strongly in the past that is not possible.

    You really need to start being objective Garrett, your particular little vendetta is seriously effecting your reading skills and your objectivity. You’re seeing things that aren’t there!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Judith: The one thing you can be pretty certain of is that your opinions will NEVER affect any laws in this country…

    Some of us find our opinions sought on the drafting of policy, which in turn may in time become law…when that happens, it is indeed satisfying…a satisfaction that sadly will be denied you.

    And funnily enough, every comment I make is not directed at you! You may not be familiar with the concept of a paragraph break (such details may be out of fashion wherever you are “studying”) but you will note that my reference to the fallacy of “curing” paedophiles occurs in a NEW PARAGRAPH from that responding to you… that means – using the tried and true rules of English usage – that I am not addressing you there…

    Ugly: You are clearly a silly conspiracy theorist whose “arguments” are simply not worth addressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Oh my, David, aren’t we all pompous today.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,635 comments) says:

    @David Garrett

    Could you explain why you think the register should be accessible by children?

    Because that’s the only restriction that Judith has suggested, and you seem to have taken issue with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    gump: I didn’t actually “take issue” with Dr Judy…but she gets so full of herself if you praise any of her ideas!

    Of course she makes a valid point – There would need to be a way to ensure kids didn’t access it…But there is almost certainly a simple and reliable method…Many states in the US have such “open” registers, and one or more of them will have addressed this problem and found an answer…or several answers.

    I do have to be somewhat circumspect about my views on paedophiles simply because they differ so greatly from my fellow lawyers…Some American writer has referred to paedos as “God’s mistakes”, with all that implies…While I am not a religious man, that is pretty much my view…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    If a law change is needed for a register, then at the same time it should look at making some sort of restriction where the perpetrator of sexual offences against children under 12 years of age is required to register their address and any changes. Plus they must register any changes of name.

    In other countries sex offenders have avoided detection, despite registers, by simply changing names and moving to other areas. Sadly, family members and extended family members often keep their secrets out of a sense of loyalty, making it easier for them to ‘hide’.

    Experience has demonstrated that it is only when a pedophile accepts his offending, and is open and aware of the danger he is, informing people of his need to be supervised etc, that they can control their desire to offend against little children. However, curing that desire appears to be virtually impossible, so they remain a risk for life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Judith: Very lucid…I’ll be kind and not add any qualification to that praise…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    BlairM (2,292 comments) says:
    August 4th, 2014 at 11:12 am

    I think you’ll find people just get on with their lives safe in the knowledge that they know where and who these people are. That’s how it works here in Texas, where all the sex offenders in my neighbourhood are listed online. As far as I can tell, people largely leave them alone despite the availability of the public record.

    For this we have to take the word of the author and administrator of one of NZ’s own vigilante groups? One that exists for the purpose of hounding a man who has been found not guilty of the crimes he was charged with? Get a grip.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “I’ll be kind and not add any qualification to that praise”

    Condescending much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    KANZ: I am genuinely entirely ignorant of what – and who – you are referring to…What is the “vigilante group” you refer to, and who is the “man found not guilty…”??

    Ugly: At least they all know who I am…but you’re probably right to hide behind a pseud…i’m sure the GCSB has a big fat file on you…best to give them as little as possible eh?

    do you see any cars parked in your street which don’t seem to belong there??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    David Garrett (6,514 comments) says:
    August 4th, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    KANZ: I am genuinely entirely ignorant of what – and who – you are referring to…What is the “vigilante group” you refer to, and who is the “man found not guilty…”??

    Sound like a cause you would enjoy joining?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Well if you stop playing games and tell me who you are referring to I might have a better idea…

    I have always believe AA Thomas was probably innocent, and definitely framed by the Police if that helps you to stop being so coy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. goldnkiwi (1,280 comments) says:

    I read the list on sex offenders written by Deborah Coddington and found it quite interesting but I hardly think that it is a likely coffee table book to be easily accessible to children. Hardly likely to be of interest I would think.

    As for thinking that a ‘child’ even if armed with the knowledge of a sex offenders address is going to trot over for a visit, quite bizarre. Children are the targets, informing parents thereby allowing them to protect their children better gets my vote for the Register being public.

    Is sunlight not a good disinfectant for any and all sexual predators?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    goldn: yes, I tend to think you are more correct than Dr Judy…but then some kids are not as carefully nurtured as ours…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. goldnkiwi (1,280 comments) says:

    D.G. Surely no one is as innocent as David Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    David
    You wandered into the path of one of the Bainiacs…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Oh fuck….I wondered whether that was the “innocent” person… I don’t suppose it would help to point out that no-one in this country is “found innocent”, and “not guilty” does not at all mean the same thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. goldnkiwi (1,280 comments) says:

    D.G aren’t most sexual predators known, I do not think a child needs to visit, don’t they do home visits? or what seems to be in Northland deliver the children?

    If there was such a public register perhaps some of those parents might have taken the time to check.

    I thought I recognised one ‘character’ from Coddinton’s book.

    I was reading in the Waikato Times where a police officer recognised a sexual predator hanging around bars in Hamilton at closing time probably waiting for an opportunity. The more knowing eyes the better in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Longknives (4,690 comments) says:

    After reading all Judith and Rowan’s eerily similar rants of late I am starting to think that all convicted murderers behind bars in NZ must be innocent!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Maggy Wassilieff (344 comments) says:

    @Longknives… but there seems to be a disproportion in the number of nice white convicted murderers that are innocent. With the recent exception of Teina Pora, we don’t seem to have such a public upswell in favour of our brown brothers. It must be so reassurring to know that all their convictions are safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.