Ok, so I've had time to read the article now...

Barbara Biggs is just plain wrong. A recidivism rate of 5pc? I'd be interested to see how long they tracked them for and how much just staying well clear of potential victims led to that result.

She seems to be implying that sexual attraction to prepubescent children is something many of us could fall into if we suffered a sufficiently awful life trauma. Huh!? That thought may make dealing with what happened to her easier but it's just bizarre.

These feelings that these men and women have are the result of mental derangement! They are not merely the extreme end of normal human sexuality. For heaven's sake, we don't look at serial killers and say, oh yeah well, there but for the grace of God go I.

Anyone who is NOT a pedophile looks at a child and instinctively recoils in disgust and disbelief at the thought that anyone could see him or her as an object of sexual desire. If you feel otherwise, even slightly, then I suggest you seek professional help, NOW.

cpg wrote:

"The purpose of publicly available sex-offender registers is not about revenge, but about alerting parents to the presence in their community of a person previously convicted of a sex offence."

The problem with this assumption is that a very large proportion of sex offenders against children are either the children's own parents, or step parents of the mother's or father's new partner.

The other problem is that many sex offenders don't get caught until years after their offending has been discovered. Many have been in positions of trust, in that they work with children over many years before being caught.

Of course these people should be kept away from children after release from prison, but this can be best done by post sentence monitoring and supervision by probation and parole services and by the police. By all means warn certain persons in positions of authority in situations involving children, for instance school principals, clergy and the like.

As it is, most states have measures in place where anyone who is seeking employment, or who wants to do volunteer work, with people under 18 have to go through a range of checks, and in today's climate supervisors are essentially compelled to keep a very close watch on all staff and their relationships with children.

Generally advertising that someone is a sex offender will not aid in this control.

Public registers are about revenge, not prevention. Furthermore,I think too often we attach sexual meanings to expressions of affection, mainly because our social sphere is becoming more suspicious and mistrusting, as pressure to compete with each other for social resources is increasing. This area is also fraught with potential cultural misunderstandings. Do we really need another method to translate our racist, ethnic prejudices into public persecution? Education is the answer. Educating the child, the parent and the sex offender. Ensuring everyone has a full appreciation of the messages we transmit,the messages received and the choices available in these transactions

This article is technically behind the times. If someone wants to set up a register of persons convicted in Australia for any nominated category of crime, all they have to do is set it up as an internet site in the United States. There truth is an absolute defence against any legal action. If they publish something that is untrue, they can rightfully be sued to high heaven. But if they confine themselves to the truth, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that they would enjoy the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and be immune from action anywhere. There is no way that any authority in Australia can prevent anyone from accessing such a website.

On the other subject raised, revenge is the essence of justice. The whole basis of law as it was set up in the 12th century was that the state would have a monopoly on revenge, and would exercise it on behalf of the community, thus eliminating all the feuds, private armies, etc. that characterised the middle ages.

Persons who rape and kill young children should hang.

I would suggest, trials are conducted in open court.

Sex Offenders are sentenced in open court.

A register merely makes the record for offending easier for the public to access.

My view, someone who commits a crime, sex offender, stealing or anything else should expect their name to appear on a public register.

Why should we extend any protection or cloak of anominity to those who abuse others (sexually or otherwise)?

That is not to say I do not believe sex offenders should not be "treated" as well. Anything which helps protects the public when these creatures finish their sentences is a good thing and the terminally deranged offenders, who refuse treatment of any kind, because of the destruction they inflict and certainty of reoffending, should never ever be released.

There is another path that we should perhaps be following.

As most predators only get caught after there have been a series of offenses, it maybe safer if we consider that anyone who comes in contact with our children is a potential sexual predator.

Everyone from a child's parent, their uncle or aunt, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews. Teachers, youth leaders, the clergy, politicians, police, members of the judiciary, music teachers, sporting coaches, doctors and nurses, neighbours and a whole range of other people have been found to be sexual predators against children.

We don't need a register of predators, because if we have one we will be in a position to trust those who are not on the register, but its the ones not on the register who pose the greater danger and risk, because they haven't been caught yet.

So, we must be vigilant, we must teach children from an early age about the danger from others - not 'stranger danger' because so often it is not strangers who commit sexual offences involving children.

The classic example recently was the mother who has been charged with using her children for child pornography.

I bet that she wasn't on the register.

Everyone is a danger - most offences are committed by someone who already knows the child.

what is interesting is that research for the Office of the Status of Women, available here

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/reports/2003-06-recidivism.pdf

indicates that sexual offenders have a generally low rate of recidevism in comparison to other offences.