Saturday, July 7, 2012

ZenTiger More secular hypocrisy on sex crimes

[The Department of] Corrections has repeatedly refused to identify where freed sex offenders are living, citing privacy concerns.

So let me get this straight. It is a crime if the Church fails to tell people in their diocese that a person accused of sex crimes is working there, but we let the Government place known sex offenders into our community without telling us?

And even when the government tells us, it's a Claytons tell. They'll say that a sex offender is in the area, but not show any photos or divulge any useful information other than "be scared, be very scared". And guess whose rights trump the children:
Police powers to warn the public of a paedophile in the area are carefully controlled. In 2006, repeat child sex offender Barry Grant Brown won a $25,000 payout after a court ruled that police breached his privacy by delivering a leaflet warning residents that he had been freed
Isn't it about time that the same standards start applying to all?

(And before you get excited, I'd suggest the standards be in favour of full disclosure.)


Opposition parties against sex offender register - It is very important to hide this information from the public who have no right to know. But that wouldn't be blatant hypocrisy, would it?

Perfect Neighbour a Pedophile, placed there by the government, neighbours not told and surprise, he molests their daughters after brefriending the family and fooling them into thinking he was a nice person. Because Pedophiles are very good at fooling people, from priests to parents. But what penalty for the people that made this decision? Who are they, and why aren't they sitting in jail already?

CYF hand over baby to sex offender
Unrelated, aside from the point that people that have a duty of care to check these things out, haven't, and we can rest assured they will never be held accountable for their actions, even while the media foam over more circumstantial stories involving priests.

Parents warned sex offender is in the area, but not given any other details, such as a photo. If they read the papers, they might have worked out he liked luring children away using props like kittens.

2 comment(s):

KG said...

"But what penalty for the people that made this decision? Who are they, and why aren't they sitting in jail already?"
No penalty, of course. These people are unnacountable to mere taxpayers.
Just as those who release repeat offenders on bail are unnacountable, even when those offenders commit more crimes while free.

ZenTiger said...

Good point about the issues around bail. It underscores a general theme that individuals are not accountable for their actions if they work for government.

The other thing the government is fairly good at protecting itself from is lawsuits in general against itself and its minions.

There are exceptions to the norm - where ACC think a $200 bribery fee (gagging order) to not go public with proof you've been screwed by the government. There are more chilling stories hidden from the mainstream though - I've heard social welfare workers seizing children and explaining they will never be given back if the parents go public with any complaint of injustice.

The hypocrisy must end.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.