Do You Agree

[grandmoon]

Bravehearts wants indefinite detention for serious child sex offenders

A child protection group has urged the ACT to introduce severe measures cracking down on convicted paedophiles, calling for indefinite detention, public access to images of nearby sex offenders, and mandatory minimum sentencing.

But the proposal could spark heated debate over breaches of human rights, the encouragement of vigilantism, and the prevention of Canberra's judges from sentencing on the merits of each individual case.

Child sexual assault campaigner Bravehearts is behind the call to significantly toughen the ACT's approach to child sex offenders, making a submission to the current inquiry into sentencing practices in the territory.

It says that, in some cases, ''preventive detention'' is needed to protect the community.

The group argues that convicted paedophiles should not be released if they are still deemed by a court to be a risk of reoffending, regardless of whether they have served their time.

''Clearly there are some offenders who pose such a danger to the community that they must be kept in prison indefinitely,'' the organisation wrote.

''Bravehearts argue that this group would comprise all recidivists and others whose offences were so heinous as to indicate a lifelong high risk.''

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/bravehearts-wants-indefinite-detention-for-serious-child-se...

[azureline**]

Instead of waiting for them to serve their sentence and then say they are a potential risk if released, sentences need to be set correctly the first time.

[*crikey*mate*]

Do i agree? Nope.

This is one group in society that I support the death sentence for, regardless of how "minor' the offfence.or at the very least transportation via a one way ticket to Manus Island once it is empty of those seeking asylum. If we have to respect their right to life, at least let us respect it whilst keeping our kids safe.

Maybe iot's a psychological condition and they can't help it, and we are trampling on their rights to "be themselves' etc, but I don't care.

Our kids need protection.

[polksaladallie]

Would you then be prepared to pay exorbitant taxes to support their families?

[*crikey*mate*]

so we should let them "run free" to abuse our children so that their families may not claim welfare? Seriously?

I would suspect that in some circumstances at least that the families or family members may be victims and in need of far more than just welfare, like maybe some counselling and other support?

and nope, I wouldn't have a problem with welfare or aid for the families if they were in need of it.

I just can't see how saving a few thousands dollars is justifcation for letting these animals free to prey on kids, so lock em up NTBR or zap em, I don't care.

just keep out kids safe.

[polksaladallie]

You didn't differentiate in your answer, so I assumed you meant all offenders.  You did say "regardless of how minor the offence".  But you obviously don't mean all offenders.  That would be an impossiblility, as you would agree.

[*crikey*mate*]

I do mean all predators of children. No matter how minor their offence. Not sure why that needed differentiating? I did nake it quite clear in my earlier post that those feelings were felt for all members of this group.

[polksaladallie]

Well, for every Ferguson, there are 19 other predators who are working and supporting their families (in the main).  You would either want them killed or jailed.  Either way the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous.  The only plus would be that some jobs would become available.  Internationally, our penal reputation would be worse than the arabs, much worse than dubbya's Texas.  Is that what you want?

[2106greencat]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Well, for every Ferguson, there are 19 other predators who are working and supporting their families (in the main).  You would either want them killed or jailed.  Either way the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous.  The only plus would be that some jobs would become available.  Internationally, our penal reputation would be worse than the arabs, much worse than dubbya's Texas.  Is that what you want?

---

The only plus ??

Are you kidding ? I consider getting a reptile off the streets and away from kid's a pretty BIG plus!

[polksaladallie]

---

@2106greencat wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Well, for every Ferguson, there are 19 other predators who are working and supporting their families (in the main).  You would either want them killed or jailed.  Either way the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous.  The only plus would be that some jobs would become available.  Internationally, our penal reputation would be worse than the arabs, much worse than dubbya's Texas.  Is that what you want?

---

The only plus ??

Are you kidding ? I consider getting a reptile off the streets and away from kid's a pretty BIG plus!

---

Your opinion is at odds with the experts.  Every effort is made to keep the families together.  I refer to the 19 others, not the one that makes it into the media.

By the way, they are not on the streets, they are in our homes, or visit every Sunday afternoon.