Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » Britain considering tracking sex offenders by satellite

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Britain considering tracking sex offenders by satellite
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This article from Britain's Observer newspaper says that plans are in the works to implant chips under the skin of sex offenders (particularly those who've offended against children). The chips, in tandem with satellites, would monitor the person's location, and the chips themselves would monitor the person's heart rate and blood pressure. The Home Office claims that this could alert authorities of imminent attacks.

The implant tags, as they are referred to as, have been proposed by a group of abuse and child sex trade survivors. As you would pretty much expect, civil liberties groups are not pleased with the proposal.

And neither am I. It's the whole slippery slope, thing. And also, I disagree with the woman that people who've committed these sorts of crimes have forfeited their human rights. Once their debt to society is paid, then you've got to let them be. If you want to throw them in jail for life, lobby the legislators to change the laws.

Now, longtime posters will know that the distinction between the word 'p(a)edophile' and phrases such as 'sex offender' and 'child molester' is an important one around here. I'd just like to note that it's frustrating to no end to see reputable news sources like the Observer, the BBC and the CBC using the terms interchangeably.

------------------
"Frank, get back to work! And if the acid burns you, well, good!"
-Ms. Gusto, Grade 11 physical geography class


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This so hearkens of "MInority Reportt," it's eerie.

And that's really all I've to say at the moment.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In its defence, it is a better way of keeping track of previous offenders than another much desired solution: giving their identities out to the local community. This would pose far more actual risk to them in the form of vigilante attacks.

This system already exists to an extent in the form of curfew tags but without the satellite technology. If it were to be expanded, it would have to continue to only be an option for offenders who wish it as an alternative to a full length prison sentence. Surely it is less of an infringement on people's freedom to be observed remotely than simply to be locked up for an extra 5 years.

Of course, neither prison, satellites nor licence to lynch could solve the problem as much as a concerted program of rehabilitation, education and social inclusion (which has been done to an extent). Of course that is more complex and expensive than the other options.

------------------
'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky


Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Explain, though, what you mean by "observed."

Because an elevated heart rate is indicative of SO many things it's laughable. Having an elevated heart rate does not mean anyone os going to attack anyone, nor does it mean if one's heart rate is NOT elevated, that someone is NOT going to assault someone.

Honestly, I just think things like this are bullocks (I don't think any of the alternatives are sound, effective nor humane). And I think what needs to be done is bigger than dealing with offenders: it's about cultural changes our cultures don't want because it means accepting that consensual sex in all forms is okay, including fantasy that isn't so palatable. It means looking to understand and really combat the sexual problems as well as power issues our culture has overall that create the environment for sexual abuse.

(Suffice it to say, I still want to vomit when I see the great lengths people will go to when one is talking about sexual abuse of children, when sexual abuse of teen and adult women is so, SO greatly higher in occurence, it's obscene. That isn't to say one is more important or less than the other, but that it's clear where the priorities lie and it isn't really about tackling crime.)

AND it means being able to work to really understand sex offenders as well as pedophilies and hebephiles (and I thank you for making the distinction, Dzuun) and ceasing to consider them one and the same, which no one wants to do because it's far more comforting to demonize the whole lot, in part to protect the image of minors as asexual beings so that we can hold unto really bizarre and destructive (nor protective) notions of "innocence" and "purity."

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree in geneneral with your points accept for your assertion that

"it's about cultural changes our cultures don't want because it means accepting that consensual sex in all forms is okay, including fantasy that isn't so palatable."

This is not about consensual sexual activity being hindered. This is entirely to do with convicted rapists, child molestors and consumers of child pornography. I do not believe that the consumers are guiltless simply because they have not directly assaulted a victim as they support those who do with their money. I hope we all agree that children are unable to give consent to sexual relations and thus all these perpetrators have recognisable victims. This is criminal behaviour we are discussing. Criminals, of course, still have rights.

Those who have served their time could not be forced to wear these chips as long as the UK remains part of the European Union. The European Court of Human Rights (I jolly well hope) would never accept this policy unless it was purely a parole measure, and I am somewhat doubtful even then. I think the UK is safe from Big Brother for now, though pressure groups and populist government think tanks will keep civil liberty fears in the public mind.

------------------
'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky


Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I see what you're saying, Confused. But the thing is, from a perspective of sexual sociology, NONconsensual sexual assault and abuse likely has a great deal to do with how CONSENSUAL sex and human sexual behaviour is treated and viewed socially, legally, and politically.

In other words, when consensual sex becomes more and more curtailed, more shamed, more villified, it logically follows that people may start to behave sexually in ways which are less and less healthy or consensual in greater numbers because what IS acceptable becomes smaller and smaller.

It's a big topic, but it's also worth understanding that things like "child pornography rings" are NOT anything close to widespread in the US and Europe, and certainly not as close as the cultural and political panic would leave citizens to believe. Same goes with child sexual abuse (most of which happens within the family, and always has). And I have yet to see measures like this being suggested for rapists of those who are not children -- don't think that would change my mind here, but if that is the case in this instance, do correct me.

I absolutely agree that children cannot consent to adult sexual activities. However, "child molestation" has' over the last couple of decades, begun to include ALL those under the age of majority, effectively -- legally in many cases -- stating that a 3-year-old and a 16-year-old are equally incapable of consent, and making sex with those under the age of majority de facto abuse and sex crime.

Which is really a bigger issue than most people realize, and one that easily gets rolled under the rug by misrepresenting crimes and invoking panic and paranoia (which never protects anyone, but instead, endangers further).

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tjd
Neophyte
Member # 10292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tjd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with what you are saying Ms. Scarlett. I would however also have to ask, why should such proceedures, if enacted only apply to sex offenders, why not to murderers or burglars or muggers. Why does the incluysion of sex in a crime make it any more or less reprehensible than non sexual crimes.
Posts: 4 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with what you're saying, for the most part, tjd, and I've put forth that very same sentiment many times on these boards.

However, when it comes to violent crimes against children, I think non-sexual, physical abuse tends to happen much more often between family members. The reasoning then goes that if you can keep the offender away from that particular child, there will probably be no repeat offence. Meanwhile, with sexual offences, rightly or wrongly, people see it as a disease, or something that can't be helped. Therefore, the reasoning goes that if an offender can't get access to a family member, they'll go out in society and find other people's children to molest.

I hope I'm not misunderstood.

------------------
"Frank, get back to work! And if the acid burns you, well, good!"
-Ms. Gusto, Grade 11 physical geography class


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd agree, Dzuun, that that does appear to be the common logic.

Which is, perhaps not surprisingly, false, as most sexual abuse as well happens with family members or parties known by the victim.

Our culture's wish to make sexual abuse into "stranger danger" in order to avoid having to look at the real -- and more disheartening -- scenario, in truth likely endangers more children and teens than anything else.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FedLips
Neophyte
Member # 10723

Icon 14 posted      Profile for FedLips     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Once you've scarred society in some way, your debt can never fully be paid off. You can't molest a child and then be fine and clear later. The child won't be.

Personally, I find this to be an excellent idea not only to track known offenders, but also in the courts when someone is being tried. They wouldn't be able to prove an "alibi" if they were tracked to be at that particular place and time. I'm not sure how the courts work in Britain, however.

------------------
"Happiness is finding myself bundled in his arms, sleeping by his side, and sharing the same pillow..."


Posts: 4 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just an FYI: a registered sex offender may well have NEVER sexually assaulted a child.. Not only does widespread cultural panic -- which sometimes skips over many actual offenders and instead, "catches" those who are lesser dangers, because that is the nature of this sort of panic -- cause many people who are innocent of sexual assault to become such, sex offenders are, by legal definition here in the States:

Any person convicted of committing, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit any of the following violations (or any offense committed in this state which has been redesignated from a former statute number, or analogous offenses in another jurisdiction):

* F.S. 787.025 (Luring or enticing a child under the age of 12 into a structure, dwelling or conveyance for other than a lawful purpose);

* Any Chapter 794 offense (794s are forcible rape and battery);

* F.S. 796.03 (Procuring a person under age of 18 for prostitution);

* F.S. 800.04 (Lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in presence of child under the age of 16 years); Note: that would include , say someone who is OVER the age of consent in a state with a minor partner, such as a 17-year-old boy with a CONSENTING 16-year-old-girlfriend)

* F.S. 827.071 (Sexual performance by a child of less than 18 years of age); Again, note this.

* F.S. 847.0133 (Distribution of obscene materials to minor under the age of 18); This, by the way, is basically the sole reason we cannot give technnique advice here because that alone could be a sex offense, regardless of our good intent.

* F.S. 847.0135 (Computer pornography involving minor);

* F.S. 847.0145 (Selling or buying of minors for sexually explicit conduct).

In short, by legal defintion, if charged, we'd have a pretty decent handful of sex offenders right at this very board. And some registered sex offenders are those who had consensual sex with partners within their peer group due to AOC laws.

Food for thought.

(Note: I am not as familiar with the UK legal defintions, but I understand them to be very similar)

As well, as a sexual abuse and assault survivor myself, I just want to put in a nudge that we are not all permanently victimized. That isn't to excuse -- at all -- our atttacker's behaviour, but it is to say that it isn't positive or sympathetic to label us permanently damaged, because few of us are, and that attitude and approach can make becoming a healthy survivor really difficult.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson

[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 11-25-2002).]


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Miz Scarlet:
In short, by legal defintion, if charged, we'd have a pretty decent handful of sex offenders right at this very board.

But only those from Florida. You see, those are all Florida State Penal Codes, and are in no way representative of laws over the rest of the nation. Each state governs it's own form of the sex registration system, and it varies widely. Florida casts a broad brush and makes everyone register, but isn't as stringent about the conditions they attach to that registration. California casts a more narrow brush on who must register but is downright Draconian about the conditions that are applied to each registrant (pursuant to 290 PC).

Heather is dead-on about AOC though. That is one thing that is potentially problematic to everyone here on these boards. We get tons of posts about people who are sexually intimate with a partner who is below the line of consent. In every state in the Union, that is enough to get you in trouble. In quite a few states, it is enough to get you registered as a sex offender. Not good.

I think it would be a whole lot nicer if sex offender lists were dedicated solely to those who pose actual threats, but I can't see that changing anytime soon. It's subjective enough that even if you were allowed to dictate who was and who wasn't a "threat," it would be challenged in court endlessly. And we've already got a litany of sex offense cases that are held up in court, some of which could be there for several years before the dust settles.

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three"

"Battery Stolen; Youth Charged"


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dude_who_writes
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 5640

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dude_who_writes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with the sex-offender registry in my state (Michigan) if it were simply written in a more easily-understood language and not legal code and language. There's too much room for something as innocent as a violation of the age of consent laws to put on there, and branded as either a rapist or a child-molester.

While I ultimately think that there needs to be a great change in the laws as to how sex offenders are treated, etc, I think that there are some changes that could be made now. Since the sex offender registry has been upheld in court (again, at least in my state), I think that it could be revamped to be made much easier for the public to understand. While there will still be some negative consequences, I think it would help at least somewhat.

------------------
Tim
Scarleteen Advocate

I am not Dr. Freud, nor is he on staff. The talking cure this ain't.


Posts: 712 | From: Michigan, US | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3