Paedophiles should be allowed to adopt?...
 

Story in todays Telegraph,

'Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.'

"There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”



Individuals are placed on the “Barred List” and banned from working with youngsters or vulnerable adults if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence, or one involving the mistreatment of a child.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-May-told.html

if this is a question then, umm.. NO, obviously. they shouldn't be allowed to have biological children either.

They shouldn't be allowed near any child, ever. How ridiculous...

they should be sent to live in an african village, and let the africans do what they will to them.

When I was looking into adoption, a couple at the meetings had been told they couldn't adopt because they guy had an assault conviction for a drunken bar fight years before. I thought that was a little unfair, it was many years before and a one off, nothing to do with children (he actually had children from a previous relationship). They were gutted that that one mistake meant they couldn't give a child a warm loving home.

Anyone with previous records against children obviously should be a definite NO

She highlighted the case of a grandfather with a conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old dating back to when he was 29, who was refused permission to adopt his own grandchildren


..so she's not saying paedophiles as such, just that there are flaws in the barring list atm..?..

The list or criterion for adoption has got tougher over the years as more stringent demands are made on any potential adopters.

I'm no expert in this field but I'm fairly sure NOT being a Paedophile must by pretty high on the list...

What nonsense.....!!!!

She is saying this...
'Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.'

'Comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples, she suggested that if blanket bans on the former were allowed, it would make sense to bar those who were not married from adopting because parents who were wed were less likely to separate with harmful consequences for the child.'

And I disagree.

we don't get to choose our parents but in the case of adoption we get to choose who should be parents, common sense, would say no to sex offenders, but like in life, people don't come with a life time guarantee.

..so far as paedophiles and child abusers are concerned, I doubt her views would be even taken seriously, I hope they wouldn't but in the case of the grandfather, it would appear without knowing the exact facts that he was convicted of statuary rape a long time ago perhaps... and if that's the case and having been convicted of it, and now looking to care for his grandchildren, I do think that's something that should/could be looked at...so I do see her 'blanket scenario' from that point of view...

Really?

Has this woman and the adoption process not got better things to do

ffs

this is taking human rights to a whole new ridiculous level, what about the childs human right to innocence and a childhood. Honsestly what is wrong her her.

imo, when it comes to this issue, it should be 1 strike and you're out.

no ifs ands or butts(no pun intended) you touch a kid, that's it, game over.

I tend to agree with that actually. You can't be too careful when it comes to kids

It's a bit more complicated than is being made out as its specifically referring to sex offenses - not paedophiles - anyone suggesting otherwise is just stirring up hysteria. Of course child molesters, abusers and paedophiles shouldn't be able to adopt.

However she specifically talks about someone having sex with a verbally consenting 15 year old who was probably charged with statutory rape, which is the right charge. Its statutory rape. Its not child molestation, and its definitely not paedophilia, despite what the mainstream media would like you to believe. For reference, paedophilia is having sexual impulses towards prepubescent children (whether theyre acted upon or not). Child molestation is acting on those impulses. It has nothing to do with age of consent. nevertheless, statutory rape is considered a sex offense and think about this scenario:

A just-turned-18 boy could engage in consensual sexual activity with his almost-but-not-quite 16 year old girlfriend and her parents could feasibly push for charges of statutory rape. Is it right that 10 or 20 years down the line this man, who has arguably done nothing wrong and is certainly not a danger to children, should be "blanket" blocked from even being considered as an adoptive parent?

Its about common sense, surely. No one is saying that they MUST be allowed to adopt, only that they should be eligible to be considered. Anyone who is a risk to children will obviously be rejected. Not all people with criminal records for minor sex offenses are a danger to children.

:joker: [IMG]http://www.breatheheavy.com/exhale/public/style_emoticons/default/***********[/IMG]

You can be a 16yr old boy who's had sex with his 15yr old long term girlfriend, and still be classed as a sex offender, and placed on the register. So some discretion wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but no doubt this issue will be blown up in the media, and the daily mail will run an exclusive about Romanian paedo's being flown over specifically to look after our innocent children.

I think the law should be relaxed in some cases such as that of Annie's story about the couple being unable to adopt due to a one off assault charge from yonder years ago. I also have sympathy for the Grandfather being unable to adopt his own children because of a one off mistake from an age ago.

A criminal record shouldn't be as damning as it generally is, what should be important is if the person in question has re-offended since. Everyone makes mistakes, punching someone ages ago shouldn't prevent a person from giving a child a loving home.

Clearly half the people in this thread didn't actually read what was said beyond the title... I agree with her, the law is deeply flawed. Nobody's saying repeat offenders should be allowed access to children; but not all sex offenders are twisted monsters. A guy I knew had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 18 and he was put on the sex offender's register because her family found out and were livid. They ruined his life. It is completely unfair that that will haunt him for the rest of his life.

It is completely unfair I agree, that is a good post Zee.
Maybe more rational guidelines are called for.

I think theres a massive difference between someone who has sex with someone who is 15 and what I would define as a pedophile. I actually think its really wrong to lump them together in the same category really...I know having sex with someone underage is very wrong, but its miles apart from it being an actual child. Also some people have sex with 14/15 year olds without even knowing about it...given that you can find them in clubs and such, and they can look much older than even 18 year olds these days..and honestly, has anyone ever asked someone for proof of age before doing them?

I will never forget when one of my best mates took a girl home, she told him the next morning she was 16 in a few months time, and he was ****ing mortified. I actually saw her and I would have put her at about 20 ish :S Nothing ever came of it, but if she had reported him, he could have been stuck with the pedo label for life(assuming she wasnt jut saying it to shock him of course...some girls are sick like that)

I think sex with a minor (15) when young yourself shouldnt affect you for the rest of your life.

Oh I think it goes deeper than that...

'This will retain the best features of the VBS, but will not require registration or
monitoring (meaning that there will no longer be an intrusive database
containing the details of 9.3m people) and will only cover those who
may have regular or close contact with vulnerable groups, defined as “regulated activity”
in legislation.'

'The following are examples of roles where the law would have required
registration with the Vetting & Barring Scheme, but
where the new
arrangements will let organisations decide whether and how to check, as
either the individual’s role does not require them to interact with vulnerable
groups for a sustained length of time, or they do so under supervision:'
•
Cleaner in an old
people’s care home
•
Sunday school helper
•
Medicines counter assistant
•
Volunteer parent literacy helper
•
Maintenance worker in a children’s hospital



https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...vbs-report.pdf

..I do agree on the volunteer parent literacy helper and parent helpers in general, it's silly all the procedures they have to go through to hear children read and there is usually a member of staff present when they're with the child...all it does is put people off volunteering to help at their child's school and schools rely on helpers quite a bit...

In regards to Greg's post, mine was referring to paedophiles, guilty i'll admit of skimming the OP

I think underage sex between two post pubescent teenagers where one is 14,15 and the other 16,17 or 18 should not be classed as statutory rape and the older party whilst facing some kind of punishment this should not result in the application of the term Paedophile and this person should not be put on a sex offenders register.

I think there needs to be more classifications within the existing law because clearly two teenagers having sex where one is 15 and the other 16 does not make the 16 yr a sexual deviant , rapist, Paedophile nor should this person suffer by classed as such by society.

A good example of a well meaning law which is too broad and clearly covers the actions of groups of people who should be dealt with under different legislation.

The thing is, someone having sex with an underage (but post-pubescent) teenager is NOT classed as a paedophile or child molester by law... It's the mainstream media that is quick to scream "Paedo!!!" because it makes a flashy headline. Most of the Yewtree investigations, for example, are not about paedophilia but rather about men using positions of power to abuse underage - but sexually mature - young women. A crime in itself obviously but distinctly different from paedophilia. The headlines just brand it all paedophilia though, and all under age 16 "children" (biologically, most people aren't children past around 13).

I agree though there should be a clear distinction in the offenders registers, or even THREE separate registers. One for minor offenses (consensual underage sex, daft things like someone drunkenly groping people in a club, anything else that obviously doesn't indicate that the person is dangerous or violent), another for serious sexual offenses against adults (rape and violent sexual assaults) and then another completely separate lists of true paedophiles and child molesters who have harmed pre-pubescent children.

Lumping all onto one register is ridiculous, given the vast differences between the most minor offenses and the most severe.

..(I think..)..it does normally say on a Disclosure and Barring certificate, what exactly it is...

I think for the most part the law works. we all know teenagers are having sex and 99/100 times the law never gets involved. usually when the law gets involved there are other things going on.

The thing is where do people draw the line with what is acceptable.. i definitely agree in the case of someone say 17/18 sleeping with a bf/gf whos 15, that is not rape, but i've seen so many people in real life argue someone shouldn't be classified as a pedophile for sleeping with someone 15 years of age, but where do you draw the line? the age of consent is there for a reason..
If an older guy consistently sleeps with girls who are 14/15, he's not a pedophile in the traditional sense i suppose, but theres still something wrong there.. besides theres such a big disparity between 14/15 year olds too, so there could be some they are sleeping with who are still not fully developed, whilst others are, so theres such a big grey area, and with the age of consent, a line is drawn, even if it does seem unfair on certain cases, it is there for a reason
When people justify say the limit going down to 14/15 and not being classed as a pedophile, how long until people then go well look at this 13 year old shes fully developed etc
Idk

I think it's more about the power imbalance. A 15 y/o and a 17 y/o in high school, there isn't a big power imbalance, they are both just students in the school. but if it's a 15 y/o student with a 19 y/o teacher's aide, that is a big power imbalance.

I think it's more about people in positions of power taking advantage of children.

The court case that was discussed at the end of last year back that up, blame is shifting from groomer to the victim, however I don't feel the changes will solely concentrate on this one area.

You draw the line accurately in a case by case basis. Someone who has sexual desires towards pre-pubescent children is a paedophile, someone who has sexual desires towards anyone who has reached sexual maturity is not a paedophile. Paedophilia is "abnormal psychology", it has nothing to do with the law or age of consent, it is what it is. Having sex with an underage teenager is, without a doubt, MORALLY questionable but it's not biologically or instinctually "wrong" - e.g. early humans pre-civilisation would have been mating and having children as soon as they physically developed the ability to do so. The word "paedophile" has a literal meaning, so it should be left as what it is. Theres no need to turn it into a blanket term. Especially as its not even a term in criminality at all - being a paedophile isn't illegal, only acting upon it is, in which case the charge is child molestation (or various charges related to possessing or taking images), not "paedophilia". It's only the media that likes to use it as a buzz term e.g. "convicted paedophile".

The law does make that distinction anyway - hence, statutory rape and child molestation are completely different charges and any punishment would reflect that.

Blurring the line between the two by specifying mandatory age cut-offs isn't helpful to anyone when trying to address the issue overall. As has been said - with statutory rape of teens the issue tends to be abuse of authority or using a position of trust to persuade or "groom" emotionally naive young people. It's obviously still very "wrong", but should certainly not be lumped in with the violent abuse of young children.

Well seeing as we are not dragging each other into caves any longer it has been deemed by civilised society that sexual maturity is deemed to be when the maturity is psychological as well as physiological.
I'm thinking the thread is getting bogged down with the age of consent.

they say the human brain hasn't fully matured til about the age of 25 though...

well maybe they took the two and found a median?...

There is a huge difference between blocking a convicted paedophile and an adult who, at the age of 17, had sex with a 15 year old, from adopting children. The former makes perfect sense, the latter is a very obvious flaw in the law and should be amended. I agree with Toy Soldier's posts. Perhaps having different sex offender registers is the way forward, just to make it clearer.

Did you click the link on my post on page one zee?.... nobody else has

Yes Kizzy. I don't agree that convicted paedophiles should be allowed to adopt but I do think there's some merit in the argument that if they've served their punishment then in theory why are they still being punished? It depends entirely on whether or not, in each individual case, experts reckon the person in question has reformed and whether they can or can't be trusted around children. My instinct would be that they can't, because paedophilia doesn't seem like something that can be cured any more than any other kind of sexual preference can be 'cured'. It can be managed, but it seems like the ultimate risk to allow someone with paedophilic tendencies to raise a child, it's asking for trouble.

It would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. Even if you hadn't touched a drop in years, would you really want to put that person in an environment where a relapse would be totally devastating, and it would have been totally avoidable if they hadn't put them in that situation? It's not just something you get over, but rather something you learn to manage with self control, and in my mind that's the level that paedophiles can get to at best if they're "reformed". They just learn to manage their impulses.

But as I said, not all sex offenders are dangerous to children so it's not fair to have them all under the same umbrella.

Sorry I meant the second link not the OP.