Should sex offenders be allowed to appeal?

[Pseudo Rob]

Should sex offenders be allowed to appeal their place on the Sex Offenders Register after a certain amount of time or should they be kept on it for life?

The UK government wants to allow sex offenders to appeal after 15 years on the register after a Supreme Court ruling.

The Sex Offenders Register is a database which holds the records of those who have committed relevant offences (rape etc) who have been jailed for more than 12 months or those who are simply thought to be at risk of offending.
The Register can be accessed by the Police, National Probation Service, and HM Prison Service personnel. Private companies running prisons are also granted access.

In 2007, a freedom of information request showed that a quarter of all people on the register had never been convicted of a crime. The government says that these people are on the register because they have been judged to be at risk of offending. Should the people who have not been convicted of a crime be allowed to appeal?

[marshlander]

I am in favour of robust, but appropriate, procedures to protect the safety of children and other people at risk of harm, but there should always be an appeal mechanism in place. Any society that is afraid of taking another look at the facts is in trouble.

We surrender far too much information about ourselves far too readily. The authorities, particularly the law-enforcement ones, are generally only too happy to collude with us in this madness.

Although I am aware there may be a difference between people who have never been convicted of a crime and people who have never committed a crime both groups should absolutely have the right to appeal. Curtailing an individual's life prospects and potentially their freedom should be subject to the most rigourous of scrutinies. How do people get on the Sex Offenders Register without being convicted of a crime? :confused:

... but then I don't trust the average politician or police officer further than I could throw one.

[fredv3b]

The real question is what the Sex Offenders Register for? How should we treat those who have served there time or against whom the police have suspicions from random members of the public.

Also if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a suspect can end up on the register, but if the evidence is stronger but the jury not quite convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the suspect can't be entered on the register.

[simon]

The UK government wants to allow sex offenders to appeal after 15 years on the register after a Supreme Court ruling.

just to correct you,the Government don't want to allow offenders the right to appeal but the supreme court has said the government needs to look into the situation,Home Secretary Theresa May has siad she thinks the surpreme counrts ruling is "appalling" and that they would do as little as possible to carry out the ruling.

I think if someone needs to be on a register for life then it means they can't be trusted so why ever let them out? I say lock them up for life.

[fredv3b]

I think if someone needs to be on a register for life then it means they can't be trusted so why ever let them out?

How do you, or I, or the judge know if someone needs to be on the register for life?

[simon]

How do you, or I, or the judge know if someone needs to be on the register for life?

thats the point we never do know for sure,the way I look at it I'm gay for life so are they not pedos for life,even if they never commit another crime I beleive the first crime was enough to "keep an eye on them" and lets remember here we are not talking about a loss of freedom or such but in most cases just a name on a register,hardly much of a punishment for the crime!

[fredv3b]

You want to lock people up for life because you are not sure about them??

I challenge you to give an example of someone convicted of a crime whose only punishment was being placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

[Genersis]

I don't really mind if they can appeal.
15 years is a long time.
And if the evidence of a person being a sex offender still holds strong, we don't have to worry about their name coming off the list.

And are those the only people who can access the register?
If so. Then its not like being on the register ruins your life. Just means the police are more likely to consider you as a suspect if you have a conection to a sexual offence.

In 2007, a freedom of information request showed that a quarter of all people on the register had never been convicted of a crime. The government says that these people are on the register because they have been judged to be at risk of offending.

This worries me more.
WHO judged these people to have a risk of offending?
If they were judged fairly using a certain set of criteria or a system of some kind then MAYBE i'd be ok with that.

[fredv3b]

The police can reveal, albeit in confidences, that a person is a registered sex offender to anyone they see fit. Persons on the register have to inform the police of where they are, living, working, traveling to, etc. They are also in practice banned from having anything to do with any kids (other than their own).

It's quite significant, especially as it does not require the 'offender' to be convicted of anything in a court of law.

[Genersis]

The police can reveal, albeit in confidences, that a person is a registered sex offender to anyone they see fit. Persons on the register have to inform the police of where they are, living, working, traveling to, etc. They are also in practice banned from having anything to do with any kids (other than their own).

It's quite significant, especially as it does not require the 'offender' to be convicted of anything in a court of law.

I see.
In that case i think the system has some flaws.
And therefore i think the right to appeal is quite important.