There's a reason Gary Glitter likes it there. I guess I would rather see a case by case analysis than just grouping them all together on the basis of what happens amongst a majority. As I say, I'm sure a lot of other people have a tough time avoiding returning to their previous crimes, which is why the US has the three strikes law.Its funny I thought the same thing myself, why not keep them locked-up. Indeed there isn't really a way to 'rehabilitate' as yet and I'm not sure why they just don't levy really long heavy sentences so their willy falls off before they ever see the streets again. But the law doesn't say you have served your time and now you're free to go. The law says you have to stay away from children and I don't think that is too much to ask. Why? Because the safety of children is more important and outweighs some pedo's right to invite kiddies over for cake and ice cream. It outweighs their ability to indulge themselves in relation to children.
There are no laws such as Megan's Law that carries over to violent rape and murder mostly because there isn't any documentation that shows the same kind of recidivism...at least not that I know of.
You are not alone in the argument you're making and its a quite reasonable one too. Personally I would go for very long sentences that keeps them out of society period. But I also think that if they are not going to to do that and have Megan's Law then they should also deprive them of the right to a passport, because for years convicted pedo's would go to poor developing nations where they could more easily abuse children. An inordinate high number of pedo's caught in Cambodia for example were men who had been convicted of the crime in the US.
Of course I got it, but again you are making an assumption about his (and all other pedophiles) motives based on the past. Are we to base all our decisions on a persons past? Not that I necessarily disagree but at the same time we're often told how people can change. So what if he had no intention of molesting those kids?Sigh. You didn't get the whole thing about grooming, did you? I know the pedophile in our apartment complex where I lived for a couple of years while I was growing up let all the kids come in his apartment, babysat parent's kids for them, got them thinking it was okay to come in and out of his place...good old "uncle" Jerry.
To this day I wonder whether he dealt in child porn, as he was a photographer as well. It would explain how he didn't have a job...
Here's an abstract of a study for you:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a915083362
Where is the line between "grooming" and doing what any average person does to look after kids?
Victims of many crimes can be haunted for life, so should we have lists for all of them and tell the public? Are we concerned about mob justice? Is it not better for everyone if we leave the uncurable in jail?So, 1 in four will go on to abuse kids again.
I'm wanting to say incestuous offenders are less likely to re-offend? but they do far more damage psychologially.
A sexually abused child, depending on severity and number of incidents involved, can suffer from the damage for a lifetime.
There's a practical reason for registering the sex offender...but also one that...rather fits the way a victim of abuse gets to be haunted...
Also if 1 in 4 goes on to repeat their offense, that means that 3 in 4 don't, so are these people re-habilitated? If so then they should be able to live a normal life having served their time should they not?
Frankly I'd want to know if any unsavoury characters moved into my neighbourhood. I don't much like the idea of having a murderer or a rapist next door, but apparently I have less right to know about that; and I'm hardly going to give my neighbour keys to the house to look after the dog while I'm on holiday if I know he's a thief.No, but what do the statistics reveal about convicted child molesters? I'm not sure but I seem to remember about an 80% failure rate for rehabilitation. Not exactly a confidence builder there. Now picture yourself as a parent with small children and your child gets raped and killed by a convicted child rapist that moved into your neighborhood after serving his time and being released and you didn't know anything about it, as a matter of fact you hired this guy to babysit for you. Who are you going to hold responsible for your dead raped child? Who is the whole community going to hold responsible? The rapist for sure, but who else?
Sure I'd like to know about murders living in my neighborhood, but I'm not to worried that one of them will kill one of my kids. Most murders are the result of bad guys killing each other, or robbery related killings. But chances are anybody convicted of murder is fairly old when they get released and won't be much of a problem any more.
The idea of releasing them though is so they can have a normal life after rehabilitation. If that is failing then we should look at why and what we can do about it. We should not be releasing anyone if we aren't sure they won't re-offend, be it a murderer, a rapist, a thief or a pedo.
Then the system is failing in a big way by releasing him in the first place, the answer is probably to have a tougher sentence in the first instance, but sadly once you've failed to implement that you've dug yourself a hole. He can only be arrested for breaching his conditions, not for what he "might" be about to do by breaching them.The laws here are fairly clear on child sex abuse.
He knew that he could never have contact with children or he would be placed back in jail. Yet he befriended his neighbour's 5 children, gave them presents and gifts, invited them over for meals and cooked for them. And invited them over for video games at his house, without the presence of their parents.
I'll put it this way. There was nothing in place which indicated this man would not rape another child. He resisted rehabilitation, in fact, he did not believe he had committed an offense in the first place. Hence why his supervision order was so strict. In many parts of Australia, for child sex offenses and some other sex offenses, if you deliberately breach that supervision order, which Buckby did repeatedly, then yes, that order would be rescinded and you would find yourself back in jail, until such a time where you show that you would not have contact with children. Since he was re-arrested for having breached the order (in 2007), Mr Buckby faced rehabilitation and was offered treatment. He took only the beginner's course in the rehabilitation and then refused all else... because he does not believe he raped little girls in the first place. He does not believe he committed a crime in raping those girls. So yes, that is a sure enough indication that he will rape again. This guy has gone through a ridiculous amount of psychiatric testing. Believe me, I know. And all of it points to the very simple fact that he will re-offend. He was caught last time before he had a chance to, as he was grooming the children.
In short, he cannot be rehabilitated. We have a few paedophiles in the system who cannot be rehabilitated and they are repeat offenders - in that they breached their supervision orders by grooming and raping others - before they were caught again.
Not that I disagree with the punishment overall, but I don't think that's proportionate once he's been released. The idea is people serve their time, rehabilitate into society and become normal, productive members. At the time someone clearly felt he was ok to be released and at that point we should only take into consideration his past - not repeatadly sentence him for the same past transgressions as that is effectively trying him for the same crimes.That's what you are not getting. He was and the punishment was proportional. If you breach a supervision order (and boy did Buckby breach his), and then go on to refuse rehabilitation or treatment and declare raping a child wasn't or shouldn't be wrong in the instance, then yes, you could find yourself locked up indefinitely...
For child sex offenses it carries an indefinite sentence if you breach supervision orders and if after years of testing and refusing rehabilitation and stating that you actually didn't do anything wrong in raping children, then yes, the State can deem you too dangerous to be released into the general public. If he had children of his own, he would not have access to them. Many have been released and many still have been re-released only to re-offend again.
This was of course wrong and he should never have been released as he cannot be a normal member of society - but the way this is being handled is less than encouraging.
Personally I think they dug a hole for themselves by releasing him, and are now trying to cover their tracks. It's slightly admirable that they realise their error but also concerning at the same time. I just don't think we can actually consider him a re-offender until he actually re-offends. He's just at very high risk of re-offending, like many others, but it's still wrong to punish people as if they've commited a crime when they've yet to do it. No matter how disgusting the person, it sets a bad precedent.He was released in the first place because they assumed the supervision order would have been obeyed. But he instantly befriended the neighbour's children, started inviting them over, giving them presents.. So he was arrested for that and given further treatment in the hope that he would be rehabilitated. But he has been found by doctors to be a high danger to children in society if he was released again. Because his behaviour upon initial release indicated that he was going to re-offend and because he refused rehabilitation and treatment and didn't think his raping those girls was wrong... It's taken years for the doctors to try and they reported to the courts that he cannot be rehabilitated as he resists it and refuses it and because he doesn't think he's even done anything wrong.