[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

They may have paid their debt (even though I don't necessarily think that in this day and age, the punishments given, or the length of sentences served particularly are in accordance with the crimes committed), but as I said, I don't think that people are, and in my opinion should be, trusted implicitly after they have shown that they are capable of committing such crimes. Of course all cases are different, and again, as I said previously, "I agree that all cases should be decided on their own merits, as should be the norm in most aspects of life."

Originally Posted by MTVN

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?

I would not have thought that refers to those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Correct me if I am wrong. In what cases do you deem that it is ok for sex offenders to look after children?

Originally Posted by MTVN

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."

There is no comparison in those and that just is nonsensical to me. The concern here is about re-offending. Not whether a couple have a strong lasting relationship. You could use that argument against absolutely anyone at all.

Originally Posted by MTVN

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

In which cases? And just because it has been deemed acceptable by parliament in some cases, does not necessarily make it right.

Originally Posted by MTVN

- 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 would imagine most people who had been punished for a crime would hopefully be deterred from re-offending (although not in all cases). This is totally different though. This is not the same as, for instance, stealing one time because you were short on money. There is a desire in these people that is not necessarily quenched. Would you not say that there was actually a stronger possibility of an offence being made by a convicted paedophile to one being made by a seemingly normal average person?

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

"Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is unlikely", you say. How do you derive at that conclusion? And I re-iterate the fact that I would not exclude any member of society. Abuse of a child is wrong, and they should be protected by any means possible and beyond all reasonable doubt.