Track sex offenders 'from space'

Children's charity Barnardo's is calling on the government to use lie detector tests and satellite tracking to monitor sex offenders.

It claims pilot studies in the UK have shown promising results.

One such trial found up to 80% of cases showed lie detector tests revealed new information about the offenders' intentions or behaviour.

Barnardo's says this helps probation staff assess the risks they pose when they are released from jail better.


All the indications are that polygraphs can be effective in helping control behaviour.
Martin Narey, Barnardo's chief executive

Barnardo's make the claims in its new report, entitled A Risk Too High? which is published on Tuesday.

It also says such measures will be more effective than the introduction of the proposed Sarah's Law, which would allow parents to learn of registered sex offenders living in their area.

This is because it believes such a law would drive sex offenders away from supervision and into hiding.

'False comfort'

This proposed legislation is named after eight-year-old Sarah Payne, who was murdered by paedophile Roy Whiting in 2000.

Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey said: "Barnardo's is committed to protecting children from harm, but we feel that a Sarah's Law would offer a false comfort to parents and could put children in more, not less, danger.

"That said, the current arrangements for the safe supervision of dangerous offenders need to be strengthened and public confidence restored.

"Our report outlines how the use of polygraphs and satellite tracking could radically improve the effectiveness of supervision.

"All the indications are that polygraphs can be effective in helping control behaviour.


In our view, this kind of measure has more of a headline effect than actually being demonstrated to be genuinely effective
Justice

"I have personally seen their use on sex offenders, spoken to the probation staff who have used this technology in a pilot [study] in the North East, and been impressed by the officers' conviction that it significantly improves the rigour of supervision."

But human rights group Justice questioned the effectiveness of lie detector tests.

"We're very doubtful as to any evidence that's been produced to show that it's a reliable method," the group's policy director Eric Metcalfe told BBC News.

"In our view, this kind of measure has more of a headline effect than actually being demonstrated to be genuinely effective."

Resources call

Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said it welcomed the Barnardo's report.

Paul Cavadino, chief executive of Nacro, said: "Introducing a Sarah's Law would increase the risk to children, not reduce it.

"Sex offenders would be more likely to move around, change their names and go underground to avoid being identified.

"This would make it harder to supervise them in treatment programmes.

"Increasing resources for the supervision of sex offenders would protect the public far better than a new law which would undoubtedly damage child protection."

A recent Panorama programme found that paedophiles staying at bail hostels were able to gain access to children, prompting the Home Secretary, John Reid, to order a review into the allegations.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6145678.stm)

The more restrictions put on sex offenders the better. I don't mind one bit if their right to privacy is violated. After all - they have already been convicted of violating the most private parts of a kids life, literally.

I speak from experience as the former live-in manager of a group home for mentally disabled men. One of them was a convited sex offender and I had to keep both eyes fixed on that little bastard for four years without a rest. I have never been prouder of any accomplishment in life than having protected the kids in that suburban neighborhood in Iowa - the parents of whom had no idea what monstrosity was laying in wait to pounce on their small children next door to them (if my back was turned - which it never was).

I stomped all over that guy's rights to keep the neighborhood children out of harms way and I don't feel the least bit bad about it.

Eventually this prior offender got so fed up with my vigilance that he moved to an apartment with so-called "24 hour supervision" and offended again (under someone else's watch) four weeks later. So I watched that little SOB for four years and they failed within four weeks - incompetant as that staff set was.

The offender is now in jail - for life. But it didn't happen on my watch, dammit. I'm fiercely proud of that - although I'm sure that would be no comfort to the parents of the young girl who was later victimized (and her parents as well).

So I say put the clamps on those molesting bastards. They are predators in the truest sense of the word and target the most helpless members of our human community.

/applaud

Not much more anyone can say to that think it covers about everything, only thing I would add is where the local parents ddint know, I have to say I'm a firm believer in "Name and Shame" for these sort of offenses, no three strikes and yer out, one and yer done in my book.

But it didn't happen on my watch, dammit. I'm fiercely proud of that -
So I say put the clamps on those molesting bastards. They are predators in the truest sense of the word and target the most helpless members of our human community.

RESPECT..................
:hail:

The more restrictions put on sex offenders the better. I don't mind one bit if their right to privacy is violated. After all - they have already been convicted of violating the most private parts of a kids life, literally.

You said it. The motherfuckers' lives should be hell. I was almost raped once.