Rumours of a sex offender moving to town...

[Jandals]

So they can try and live a reasonably normal life and have some protection and aren't getting abused by vigilanties.

Remember that there are more than just peadophiles on the sex offenders register.

Surely they should lose the right to protection when they have violated someone elses? Particularly if they are repeat offenders. I understand they need to be able to live their lives, but IMHO the right of the general public to be protected must come first.

I know this isn't a black and white issue but just wanted to throw my 2 cents in

[LimeSlice]

As I said, there aren't just paedophiles on the Sex Offenders Register.
And unfortunately, when people find out a "sex offender" is moving in, there is no distinction made by the public (or effort to determine any) between a paedophile and a 18 year old convicted of sexual penetration of a minor - his 17 year old girlfriend.
That is why they are at risk, and why the register is not public. 'The Public' can simply not be trusted not to go off half ****ed and hurt people.

[~clover~]

I agree Jandals, but I also know that there are very little things that have people listed as sex offenders. I have a feeling something like a guy peeing in public & getting a fine for indecent exposure would be classed as a sex offence, so he gets listed. Even if there was noone around to see it but a cop iykwim. Not sure exactly where they draw the line, but thats the impression I get from American TV

I do agree we should have the right to know who could harm our kids though. Even though half the people who would do it, wouldn't be on that list anyway.

[Kazbah]

I guess this would be a great topic for general discussion.

To answer your original question Clover, if its what I remember and there was a blue station wagon involved, this was actually on Media Watch on the ABC last week - it appeared that over-zealous reporting linked a couple of blue cars that hadn't been linked by the police.

Getting back onto the sex offender register, there are reports where people (usually blokes!) get put on the register for Exposure - usually when they are urinating in public. So although I believe that there should be greater transparency, I'd hate to see the same kind of vigilante action in Australia as has been experienced o/seas. Putting a rule that "2 strikes and you're on" would leave authorities open to litigation if the worse were to happen. Add into that the whole "time completed for the crime" angle - where some naively believe that gaol is a rehabilitation chance as well as punishment ... and it's oh-so-messy.

I think by far the safest is to do as Onyx states - teach children stranger danger, teach about staying safe, and try to maintain the balance between safety and knee-jerk fear reactions.

That's my 5c worth (although I do have a 1c coin on my desk!)