16 February 2012

Making life harder for paedos

| johnboy
Join the conversation
34

Simon Corbell has announced he’s legislating today for more court powers when dealing with child sex offenders:

“Under these tough new measures, the bill proposes to increase maximum penalties, tighten reporting requirements and introduce new prohibition orders that will limit circumstances in which registered child sex offenders can be near children,” Mr Corbell said.

“Courts will have the power to ban offenders from being within a certain distance of a school or child care centre, engaging in some types of employment, or taking photographs of children.

“ACT Policing will be able to intervene in circumstances where there is evidence that the registered offender poses a risk to a child or children through breaching of this order without a reasonable excuse.”

The Magistrates Court will decide what behaviour will be prohibited after considering the behaviour and circumstances of the registered offender’s conduct.

“This intervention is aimed at protecting those children identified as at risk, and at addressing the rates of reoffending child sex offenders,” he said.

Mr Corbell announced that these amendments will also require registered offenders to report electronic communication identifiers not previously required, including email addresses and chat room usernames.

Penalties for offences are also being increased.

Join the conversation

34
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Lookout Smithers6:27 pm 17 Feb 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Lookout Smithers said :

The_TaxMan said :

Lookout Smithers said :

I would be willing to assume life might be already hard for perpetrators and victims. One versus the other in observation is not helpful for anyone.

Sorry but the fact that perpetrators are allowed to keep breathing is enough to make me ill. So ‘hard for perpetrators” who gives a rats arse about the perpetrators 🙁

Well if it matters that much to you then we will assume that you are hard at work looking for better ways to deal with this very confronting issue. I could not care less about perpetrators or victims myself. But I have no bright ideas on how to best tackle the issue. So I will just comment on the article the way it is written, rather than shout out on how much I pretend to give a shit.

You ‘could not care less’ about children who are victims of sexual abuse? You are not fit to be a member of our society.

Well I am glad that you don’t have a say in who is fit and who isn’t. I spent 5 years in court as a witness against a known repeat offender. I gave evidence for 7 others being the only one with evidence. I learnt about how courts render themselves largely inaffective regarding this issue. Im not going to go out and preach what is the way forward. I let the learned chaps like you stand around with moral tears for all the victims. You don’t have to cry if you don’t feel like it mate. Pfft. Expert.

JB – hmmm, law enforcement AND paedos. Did you think to check what matter might be slipping under the radar while this is being put out by the government?

HenryBG said :

Proboscus said :

Deref said :

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Paedophilia has been “demonised” because it is an atrocious act upon our most vulnerable.

But if you want to defend the scum who choose to conduct themselves in this way instead of applauding any legislation that protects kids – you’re a bigger tool than I gave you credit for.

Thank you. Saved me the trouble.

You’ll find there is a certain section of the community which is (at best) ambivalent about protecting children from sexual predators, and Deref’s contribution contained more than just an echo of that attitude.

That’s two. Thanks for proving my point so well.

I wonder who’s going to be first to charge me with actually being a paedophile.

Deref said :

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Three paragraphs of rampant stupidity. Thanks for that.

Proboscus said :

Deref said :

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Paedophilia has been “demonised” because it is an atrocious act upon our most vulnerable.

But if you want to defend the scum who choose to conduct themselves in this way instead of applauding any legislation that protects kids – you’re a bigger tool than I gave you credit for.

Thank you. Saved me the trouble.

You’ll find there is a certain section of the community which is (at best) ambivalent about protecting children from sexual predators, and Deref’s contribution contained more than just an echo of that attitude.

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Last Saturday, as I accompanied my 3 year old boy to gymnastics, it did cross my mind that if I took out the iphone to take a pics that I might be viewed with suspicion by the many other parents.

I therefore have no pics of my boy doing his first gym.

Not saying I don’t agree that our children deserve the best protection the State can offer from rock spiders, but in my situation is this what the world has come to?

As a parent I would have issues if you took photos of my children without my permission. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take photos of your own child?

Seriously? You would have a problem with another parent taking pictures of their kid if yours just happened to also be in the shot? That’s nuts.

Proboscus said :

Deref said :

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Paedophilia has been “demonised” because it is an atrocious act upon our most vulnerable.

But if you want to defend the scum who choose to conduct themselves in this way instead of applauding any legislation that protects kids – you’re a bigger tool than I gave you credit for.

Wow – that was faster than I expected.

Perhaps you’d be kind enough to indicate that part where I defended paedophilia and/or paedophiles.

Deref said :

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Paedophilia has been “demonised” because it is an atrocious act upon our most vulnerable.

But if you want to defend the scum who choose to conduct themselves in this way instead of applauding any legislation that protects kids – you’re a bigger tool than I gave you credit for.

Roadrage77 said :

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

It’s interesting coming from a gubmint that believes that gaol is a last resort, reserved only for people who kill politicians – everyone else gets a finger-wagging.

But paedophilia has been so demonised that it, like “terrism”, is the perfect soft target for any pollie who wants an instant headline and easy votes.

I eagerly await the “won’t somebody think of the children” responses.

Pandamony said :

The sentencing model doesn’t offer a lot of protection for the community when the offender is eventually released. How about a model where if someone is assessed that they are likely to re-offend then they are not released, with an ongoing periodic reassessment process? That way the community will be protected until they are truly reformed.

You’re model has some merit for your normal, everyday, run of the mill criminal – unfortunately paedophiles cannot be reformed.

And because we’re in the ACT, the un-silent minority would predictably bang on about the lack of Human Rights, Privacy, etc, that they believe these scum bags deserve.

Ironically the issue always that is skirted around in this is “why does the incidence of this continue” along with “what happens behind closed doors across canberra” is more worrying.
The simple and sad fact is that this kind of thing is usually a symptom of the family life at home disintegrating, from either internal or external issues, such as money problems, marital issues, external influence (supposed friends, etc!)
Because of that, to be blunt, we’re always going to have this group of criminals in society. The worst thing is that the amount of unreported abuse that goes on is (personal figure) roughly between 2 to 6 times as high.

I think while the abuse is wrong, other ways of approaching this need to be considered. Just labelling and discarding people, combined with making their lives miserable will further drive them down the path that they may have (in some cases) inadvertently stepped on. Especially as more and more the feeling of disempowerment by people (parents, fathers, grandparents, etc) is being felt through ‘benelovent legislation!’ Never mind fiscal pressures.

Note also, there are many ‘forms’ of child abuse, and in some cases (well publicised) children can be ‘accused’ of child abuse, and put on a sex offenders list for life. Explain how that will ‘help’ them to be ‘cured’ or protect the community from them? This issue is contentious, yet I agree with JonahBologna – we can’t just create an underclass of citizens.

I’m not a bleeding heart about this, seen too much myself to not get angry, but if we can’t approach this rationally – we’re not going to make a dent in it. Emotional response (egged on by media) will create a worse world for us all. I know the feeling where I can’t take pictures of my kids in public, because I had someone yell at me once – ‘he’ was standing off to one side, and thought I was taking pictures of ‘him’ – go figure. Had others say the same, so my amateur photography sticks to scenery from now on – people are too stupid to deal with.

Yet another attention-grabbing stunt from Corbell who’s determined to leave his initials in the pavement or die trying.

Political stunts like this merely foster moral panic amongst paranoid parents.

The sentencing model doesn’t offer a lot of protection for the community when the offender is eventually released. How about a model where if someone is assessed that they are likely to re-offend then they are not released, with an ongoing periodic reassessment process? That way the community will be protected until they are truly reformed.

Uh, oh. Looks like I’ll have to lock up all those Polaroids I took of myself in the nude when I was a young teenager in the 1970s. My cousin – a professional photographer – who took pics of his newly born son without clothes on back then would also be under the gun. And its a good thing I grew up in the 1970s before all this hysteria about pedophilia started. All those sex partners in their 20s and 30s I had as a teenager would

qbngeek said :

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Last Saturday, as I accompanied my 3 year old boy to gymnastics, it did cross my mind that if I took out the iphone to take a pics that I might be viewed with suspicion by the many other parents.

I therefore have no pics of my boy doing his first gym.

Not saying I don’t agree that our children deserve the best protection the State can offer from rock spiders, but in my situation is this what the world has come to?

As a parent I would have issues if you took photos of my children without my permission. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take photos of your own child?

If it is a case of other kids getting in the shots then too bad. I have always taken pics of my son at soccer adn I am not subtle about it with a DSLR and nice big lens. Never had anyone say ‘boo’ about it. There is no law to stop you from taking pictures of people, kids included, in public. If you are tking pics of your own kid and their kids are in the shot just tell them where they can jump.

I took pics of a Kings Cross bouncer at Heffron Pool Maroubra in 1992. Randwick City Council banned all photography at the pool in 2003 regardless of the age of the person being photographed. As Joe Jackson sang in 1982: “We think it’s getting better but nobody’s really sure”.

Skidd Marx said :

I, like Simon Corbell think we should blindly follow the US model of law-enforcement. After all it’s worked so well for them.

+1

Also, it saves us having to think about things that might actually work.

This could cause a lot of problems for the Catholic Church, of course.

colourful sydney racing identity3:05 pm 16 Feb 12

Lookout Smithers said :

The_TaxMan said :

Lookout Smithers said :

I would be willing to assume life might be already hard for perpetrators and victims. One versus the other in observation is not helpful for anyone.

Sorry but the fact that perpetrators are allowed to keep breathing is enough to make me ill. So ‘hard for perpetrators” who gives a rats arse about the perpetrators 🙁

Well if it matters that much to you then we will assume that you are hard at work looking for better ways to deal with this very confronting issue. I could not care less about perpetrators or victims myself. But I have no bright ideas on how to best tackle the issue. So I will just comment on the article the way it is written, rather than shout out on how much I pretend to give a shit.

You ‘could not care less’ about children who are victims of sexual abuse? You are not fit to be a member of our society.

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Last Saturday, as I accompanied my 3 year old boy to gymnastics, it did cross my mind that if I took out the iphone to take a pics that I might be viewed with suspicion by the many other parents.

I therefore have no pics of my boy doing his first gym.

Not saying I don’t agree that our children deserve the best protection the State can offer from rock spiders, but in my situation is this what the world has come to?

As a parent I would have issues if you took photos of my children without my permission. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take photos of your own child?

If it is a case of other kids getting in the shots then too bad. I have always taken pics of my son at soccer adn I am not subtle about it with a DSLR and nice big lens. Never had anyone say ‘boo’ about it. There is no law to stop you from taking pictures of people, kids included, in public. If you are tking pics of your own kid and their kids are in the shot just tell them where they can jump.

Lookout Smithers2:12 pm 16 Feb 12

The_TaxMan said :

Lookout Smithers said :

I would be willing to assume life might be already hard for perpetrators and victims. One versus the other in observation is not helpful for anyone.

Sorry but the fact that perpetrators are allowed to keep breathing is enough to make me ill. So ‘hard for perpetrators” who gives a rats arse about the perpetrators 🙁

Well if it matters that much to you then we will assume that you are hard at work looking for better ways to deal with this very confronting issue. I could not care less about perpetrators or victims myself. But I have no bright ideas on how to best tackle the issue. So I will just comment on the article the way it is written, rather than shout out on how much I pretend to give a shit.

I, like Simon Corbell think we should blindly follow the US model of law-enforcement. After all it’s worked so well for them.

Alderney said :

Last Saturday, as I accompanied my 3 year old boy to gymnastics, it did cross my mind that if I took out the iphone to take a pics that I might be viewed with suspicion by the many other parents.

I therefore have no pics of my boy doing his first gym.

Not saying I don’t agree that our children deserve the best protection the State can offer from rock spiders, but in my situation is this what the world has come to?

As a parent I would have issues if you took photos of my children without my permission. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take photos of your own child?

The_TaxMan said :

Russ said :

“or taking photographs of children”

Great. Looking at this from the other direction, if someone sees you taking photos that happen to have kids in shot, one can look forward to the cops then checking if you’re a registered sex offender, as this law shows that the two go hand-in-hand.

Simple answer to that mate is You are a dickhead.

You think being labelled a paedo just ’cause your male and taking photos with kids in shot is OK?

The sentiment already exists due to the media hysteria surrounding the issue, this law now adds extra weight to it.

Last Saturday, as I accompanied my 3 year old boy to gymnastics, it did cross my mind that if I took out the iphone to take a pics that I might be viewed with suspicion by the many other parents.

I therefore have no pics of my boy doing his first gym.

Not saying I don’t agree that our children deserve the best protection the State can offer from rock spiders, but in my situation is this what the world has come to?

Lookout Smithers said :

I would be willing to assume life might be already hard for perpetrators and victims. One versus the other in observation is not helpful for anyone.

Sorry but the fact that perpetrators are allowed to keep breathing is enough to make me ill. So ‘hard for perpetrators” who gives a rats arse about the perpetrators 🙁

HenryBG said :

I think this should go much further: I think we should have a website called “crimwatch” – all criminals with a recidivist history of criminal convictions are recorded there and user-generated content would be relied on track exactly where they are at all times, provide pictures, addresses, the lot, so we can all be aware if a criminal has moved into our street.

+100

These laws are probably intended to allow prosecutions where previously there have been no available charges. Like the guy in O’connor who was filming his neighbours kids all the time in their paddle pool a few years ago.

Lookout Smithers1:10 pm 16 Feb 12

I don’t think making life harder is really what is the intention here. Making process more practical? Applying common sense to the issue? I would be willing to assume life might be already hard for perpetrators and victims. One versus the other in observation is not helpful for anyone.

Russ said :

“or taking photographs of children”

Great. Looking at this from the other direction, if someone sees you taking photos that happen to have kids in shot, one can look forward to the cops then checking if you’re a registered sex offender, as this law shows that the two go hand-in-hand.

Simple answer to that mate is You are a dickhead.

JonahBologna said :

Do we really need another underclass of citizens? This is the route that many municipalities in the US have taken and it has not reduced crime; instead it has driven criminals underground.

Only US states that still have the death penalty can put their paedos “underground”.

I think this should go much further: I think we should have a website called “crimwatch” – all criminals with a recidivist history of criminal convictions are recorded there and user-generated content would be relied on track exactly where they are at all times, provide pictures, addresses, the lot, so we can all be aware if a criminal has moved into our street.

I thought youd make the list if you had the sex channel and Cartoon network?

“or taking photographs of children”

Great. Looking at this from the other direction, if someone sees you taking photos that happen to have kids in shot, one can look forward to the cops then checking if you’re a registered sex offender, as this law shows that the two go hand-in-hand.

I am often forced to join random forums (or fora, if you roll that way) in order to read certain posts. I often never visit the site ever again. Just how often do you inform the Gov’t?

JonahBologna10:49 am 16 Feb 12

Do we really need another underclass of citizens? This is the route that many municipalities in the US have taken and it has not reduced crime; instead it has driven criminals underground. Since there are restrictions on where people can live they register at a halfway house and then live elsewhere. The reporting of email addresses and chat room handles is just ridiculous (do they really think that will work?).

Not all child sex offenders are pedos.

Teenagers: If you are over 18, better make sure your sex partner is really 16+. One
Ittle lie will end up with your name stuck on the child sex offenders register.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.