[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

I am not aware of your views, but I would quite happily allow for the sterilisation of all convicted paedophiles in extreme cases.

With regards to the article, there are so many flaws in that:

1. "Ms Reece, a barrister and leading expert in her field, argues that strict regulations surrounding sex offenders adopting or fostering children should be relaxed to enable cases to be judged on their individual merits. A blanket ban, she argues, contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and therefore the government could be open to legal challenge if it does not recognise this."

As far as I am concerned, they do not have, or deserve the same rights as everyone else. Same as anyone convicted for a serious crime.

Well that's kind of entering into another debate but are those who have been guilty and served their time not deemed to have repaid their debt to society? Either way the point she's really making in this bit is that it's not really feasible to implement a blanket ban which relies on treating all incidents the same and not recognising important differences between cases, when there are so many things to be taken into account

2. Ms Reece says that Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children. This recognition has so far only applied to sex offenders who are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers.

I still would not be happy with that. Is she saying that children are at less risk of being abused by someone they are related to? I think we all know that is not true.

I don't think she's saying that, she's saying that if some sex offenders have been deemed capable of looking after kids, and presumably this has been backed up by practice else it would not be the case, then who is to say that other sex offenders would not also be suitable parents?

3. Ms Reece argues that there is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

I regard that as totally ridiculous.



She goes on to say "When someone has served a sentence, as far as you can, you should treat them the same as anyone else." I don't actually think most people can. The trust is not there. And I agree that all cases should be decided on their own merits, as should be the norm in most aspects of life.

"Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted." - not necessarily true. Statistics only come from known incidents.

Most of it is personal opinion.

What are the points you are referring to as particularly interesting?

She isn't just making a baseless claim with that third point though she's backed it up with several arguments, the points she makes that I found interesting were (a couple of which you've touched upon):

- Co-habiting couples are much more likely to split up than married couples, with potentially harmful emotional consequences for children, yet they are not banned from adopting and fostering - like she says "if blanket bans are an effective and legitimate means to protect children then we should no more allow cohabiting couples to adopt or foster than convicted sex offenders."

- Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children

- Sex offenders have relatively low reconviction rates compared to other types of offenders. Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted. Despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low and have remained virtually unchanged for 40 years - ok so there might be incidents not known about but that is the most accurate information we have at hand

I guess an important point here is that there's so many things that need to be taken into account and so many possible ways in which children can be negatively affected by parents that blanket bans are not a fair solution. Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is a unlikely. You might say it's better to be safe than sorry and prevent a risk if at all possible, but like the article says if that's your logic then why not ban co-habiting couples from having children too. Why not also stop alcoholics, why not stop drug takers, why not stop people convicted of assault or any other crime? This is why I'm against forced sterilisation because it starts you going down a very slippery slope