Should sex offenders be allowed to appeal?

[fredv3b]

What I hear you saying is: "Yes Mr. Phuckskids has caused irreparable damage to an innocent child, and yes there is a good chance that he will do it agin, but since he may not we shouldnt keep track of where he is and what he is doing. Lets wait and see if he rapes another one."

Then I suggest you re-read what I have written.

[Beaux]

Then I suggest you re-read what I have written.

I have read everything you have written, I even agreed with you on some of your earlier posts. However, when it comes to your lackadaisical attitude to the safty of the victims in these crimes I do not agree.
So, how many childern do you think society should allow pedophiles to molest before they are monitored? Would 2 emotional and physically scared childern be enough for you? More? Three? Four? How many monstorous acts should the pedophile be allowed to commit before society monitors them?

[fredv3b]

Personally, I think a right of appeal is a natural and necessary part of justice. (Incidentally, it was also part of the Supreme Court's reasoning.)

Fair point, however one cannot be placed on the Sex Offenders Register in definitely, only for a specified number of years or for life. A newly convicted offender cannot convincingly argue that, say, in 15 years time he would not be a risk to the public, a court would view that as 'crystal-ball gazing'. The only reasonable appeal would be when the offender was arguing he was no longer a risk to the public.

First there is no way a non-clairvoyant trial judge could determine that an offender would never be 100% safe, all they could do is say that they would not be safe for the forseeable future. The letter of the law does not allow them to order that the registration be reviewed in, say, 10 years time. Second 100% safe is not a reasonable standard, random members of the public are not 100% safe.

Not for life without possibility of appeal.

I have never said that offenders should not be monitored, one offence is certainly enough. All I have said is that they should not be monitored for life without possibility of appealing that they are no longer a risk.

I will not be continuing this debate as I am tired of being accused of things that are not true.

[Beaux]

I have never said that offenders should not be monitored, one offence is certainly enough. All I have said is that they should not be monitored for life without possibility of appealing that they are no longer a risk.I will not be continuing this debate as I am tired of being accused of things that are not true.

Statistics show that they are a RISK (look up the word risk). If they have done it one time they are a RISK of doing it again. Risk doesnt mean that they WILL do it again, it means that there is a high statistical chance that they MAY. It is really a question of what you believe to be an acceptable risk. I for one, having read MANY books on the subject, particapated in MANY forums, and spent YEARS in counseling as a direct result of my own molestation, I look at the RISK and say that it is not acceptable.
I suggest you do some research of your own.

[Paul1]

I know this is 4 months later, but I've read through the entire of the topic and no one has mentioned the science behind paedophilia. All the other sex offences aside, I believe paedophiles should never be let free.

From wikipedia:

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[64][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[87]

Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[84]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."[89]

Louis Theroux did an interesting documentary in America about the treatment centre that paedophiles go to after they finish their gaol sentence. It basically ends with one conclusion: Castration is the only cure.