Despite sharing common community outrage and loathing toward child sex offenders I also feel that a public register has inherent problems.

The main one is that despite the best of intentions and all the failsafe mechanisms that may be put in place, in this technological age there is always the remote possibility of error - human or otherwise.

The effect on the life of somebody incorrectly being registered on such a database would be devastating - probably worse than an innocent person being sent to prison or having a false problem with their personal credit rating.

Would you be willing to risk your personal life and those of your family on such a system?

I pity all the innocent "John Smith"s out there that could be tarnished by a sex offender with the same name.

The other problem I have is that this could be the start of something much bigger.

Why stop with pedophiles?

Wouldn't you like to know if the person who drives your children to sport on Saturday mornings has ever been convicted of drunk driving? What about your neighbour - has he/she ever been convicted of theft or shoplifting. Could you trust that person to mind your house while you are away on holidays?

The scope for expansion is enormous and once the system exists it only takes the stroke of a political pen after an election to modify it.

There may be a better solution to this problem but this seems to be the only one being canvassed.

Hamlet makes a good point - recidivism in theft related crimes is about 7 times that of sex crimes which is half that again of violent(non sex related crimes).

Colonel Rouge suggests trials should be conducted in an open court - I am no jurist - but I thought ost were - with some protection of identity offered to the victims - put the perpertrators name was not with held - and their offence and sentences a matter of record already.

Maybe it is time to draw a breath and take a dispassionate look at an emotionally charged subject:

www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/nl2005/summeraf.pdf

Respondents can draw their own conclusions as to why sexual abuse of children is given so much media attention in the west and major risks such as child neglect are forgotten. It inevitably results in a splintering of political effort, producing skews in funding and frustrating efforts to come to grips with the fundamentals. It is like sending all fire engines to spot fires while forgetting the bushfire beyond.

To quote from the report given above (hyperlink):
"Arguably, focusing on perceived “perpetrators” of neglect or
abuse of children provides a scapegoat and allows community members to avoid taking responsibility in
the every day situations where we can all make a difference........ Why is our public discourse so different
from the reality of most children experiencing maltreatment? Unless we find ways to reframe our
public discourse we cannot expect investment into addressing the root
causes (for example, poverty, social isolation, poor parenting skills).
In the most complicated situations, the poorest communities, the most
socially marginalised, and the most violent places, substantial effort is
required to turn things around – people, time, money, and knowledge."

Sneekeepete “Colonel Rouge suggests trials should be conducted in an open court - I am no jurist - but I thought ost were”

No I wrote
“trials ARE conducted in open court
Sex Offenders ARE sentenced in open court.”

The point being, criminal convictions are a matter of public record and as such, a register merely confirms that record in a single source, instead of a number of diverse and fragmented sources.

If you are going to comment on my posts, at least have the courtesy of quoting me correctly. Similarly, the “Col” is neither indicative nor alluding to any military rank.

If you had started doing what I suggest, attending to reading my post before replying to it, you would have found your post was entirely superficial and pointless, descriptions I am sure you have become accustomed to and can empathise with.

Cornflower I would be careful about implying a general responsibility on private individuals for the neglect and abuse perpetrated by others. Such notions stink of “collective responsibility”.

Accepting a greater duty of care exists toward children than toward other adults, we should only extend that in areas we have a responsibility for.

I recall some years ago a doctor in UK who had a fixation about child abuse and reported parents of every child brought to her surgery because of her own disproportionate obsession.
Those parents were then the victims of inappropriate intrusions and their children subjected to privations of fostercare, to say nothing of the emotional trauma which the entire family suffered because of a public functionaries distorted take on things.

As to Hamlets post,

“it maybe safer if we consider that anyone who comes in contact with our children is a potential sexual predator.”

Such an attitude, being a presumption of guilt, until proven innocent is, itself, a perversion of the fundamental laws upon which our community is built.

It is an entirely inappropriate and repulsive over-reaction.
It is a reaction which is equivalent to turning back the clock and making individuals the victims of a witch hunt where merely being accused deems someone guilty.

Col Rouge, we have locks on our doors and windows, and on our cars. We do not trust our possessions to everyone.

Does this presume the 'guilt' of everyone who may come onto our property or see our car on the street?

No, it safeguards against those who would want to take our property.

An employer, when wanting to hire someone, often checks references to make sure that the applicants are not lying.

Does this presume the 'guilt' of all the applicants?

No, it is an attempt to stop the liar and the cheat from wrongly getting the job.

Our computers, even access to this grate sight, are protected by passwords.

Does this presume that all will use our computers and our access to our disadvantage, that is that all are guilty?

No.

Locks, passwords, checks and the like are all essential parts of our society.

What I am simply proposing is that we treat children as the precious people that they are, and not consider that only convicted, or even suspected, sexual predators are the only threats.

Most instances of child abuse and child sexual abuse happen either in the home, or involve relatives of the victims, or friends of the family, or so called trusted people.

It is simply a matter of vigilance against all possible threats, because it is often the threat that appears to be innocent that is the greatest threat.

By the way Col Rouge, yes, convictions etc are a matter of public record, however, when the perpetrator is under 18 their identity is protected. I think that you would be surprised how much sexual abuse happens between siblings who are under the age of 18. Yes - that may disgust many, but unfortunately it happens.

Where the identity of a victim, under the age of 18, could be assumed from the name of the perpetrator, ie - when it is a relative who commits the crime and identifying that relative will identify the victim, the perpetrators name is usually suppressed. This happens in more cases than I would presume that you would consider.

When, for instance, in the Family Court, a 'certificate' is granted so that information about sexual and other abuse is used in evidence without it being used in a court of law against the person giving that evidence, then the names of the victim and the perpetrator are not available for publication, and I fail to see how these people would ever make it onto a register, as that would in essence defeating the granting of the certificate.

Not every perpetrator is named in court, or if they are named it is an offense to make public those names if they are suppressed by the court.

Whilst nearly anyone can go and sit in an open court, some courts being closed to protect victims or others giving evidence from being further victimised, not everything that is said in court can be publicised. The media walks a fine line here and many trials have been aborted due to the crossing of that line.

The interests of justice - in the wider sphere instead of the idea of penalising a single person - have to be protected.