Thread: MAPPA Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029000
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
Early next year a good friend, an experienced primary teacher, will automatically be suspended from the job she loves. This is because she is married to a sex offender who will be released from jail. Our dear government has decided to extend MAPPA (the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements), which previously laid down very sensible guidelines like forbidding day nurseries to exist in the homes of sex offenders, to ALL PRIMARY SCHOOL STAFF.
Headteachers are already informed of any members of staff who are living in the same house as a sex offender, and they already have the power to bar the offender from the school. Teachers don't take their pupils home with them along with the homework, so the chances of a teacher's sex offender spouse having access to the kids are zero. You would think that's all that's needed. But no: now just being married to the wrong person gets you barred regardless. And that's not even touching on the rights and wrongs of the initial case: how serious the offence, how likely it is to re-occur etc. (And you'll just have to take my work that in this case the likelihood of re-occurrence is so small you couldn't pick it up with the Hubble.) This isn't even playing safe. This is just stupid.
Headteachers are told they can exercise their judgement in individual cases, which is one gleam of light at the end of the tunnel. But it will be a brave head who goes against the wishes of a baying mob of parents. Meanwhile, Ofsted are inundated with appeals, tying up the time they could spend on actually useful work; hundreds of children will be have their education disrupted; and because the teachers are only suspended, not fired, they continue to get paid, so large chunks of the education budget payroll are just being poured down a black hole.
Morons.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Early next year a good friend, an experienced primary teacher, will automatically be suspended from the job she loves. This is because she is married to a sex offender who will be released from jail. Our dear government has decided to extend MAPPA (the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements), which previously laid down very sensible guidelines like forbidding day nurseries to exist in the homes of sex offenders, to ALL PRIMARY SCHOOL STAFF.
Yes.
I heard about this yesterday.
I wonder about those people living with sex offenders who don't know about it. A double shock.
I suppose she has a choice to make - marriage or job.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
I imagine that the thinking is not that a school teacher's spouse will have convenient access to children but rather that children might consider a school teacher's spouse a 'safe' person. They are not talking to a stranger when they meet in the street, they are talking to Mrs Smiths husband. Mrs Smith is lovely and why wouldn't her husband be?
There is at least one very well known example in the UK of a tragic and terrible crime perpetrated by the partner of someone well known to the victims through her work in their school. Your friends may be paying the price of this crime.
Are there implications of this change in policy for churches as well as schools?
anne
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
There are countries/cultures that punish the entire family of a criminal.
Knew North Korea was one. Didn't know the UK was.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
There is at least one very well known example in the UK of a tragic and terrible crime perpetrated by the partner of someone well known to the victims through her work in their school. Your friends may be paying the price of this crime.
That was Ian Huntley, wasn't it?
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That was Ian Huntley, wasn't it?
That's the one I was thinking of - but it may not be the only similar case of course.
This safeguarding issue, not of access but of who children might consider 'safe' was brought home to me a few years ago.
I walked past a group of about six primary aged children playing at the front door of a house. They had set up a 'nail bar' with varnishes and a price list and so on. I said 'Hi' and they all started to chat. Did I want a manicure? Did I want a head massage? Did I want to come in to the house and choose a different nail polish?
Because although they went to different schools, every one of them knew me because I took school assemblies. I was in school, with permission, talking to them all, they knew my name, their teachers and headteachers knew me - so therefore I was 'safe'.
I said no thank you to the head rub and visit into the house
I sat on the step while they painted my nails and I thought about their safety and mine.
anne
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
I hadn't thought of Ian Huntley and that's a good point. But before my own hell call collapses under the weight of a shipmate's reasonableness, I will still say this is still taking a very broad brush to tackle a specific problem that can be dealt with by other means, and innocents will be penalised for it.
Huntley should have been caught much earlier; so, spend energy on improving the system to catch the Huntleys sooner. Meanwhile, convicted paedophiles married to teachers can simply have it written into their parole (and possibly already do) that they stay away from their spouse's kids; therefore, the kids will never know they exist; therefore, the issue of falsely identifying them as "safe" won't arise because the contact will never happen in the first place.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I think it's generally sensible not to legislate based on one event. I'm not convinced that the Soham murders are an exception to this principle.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Meanwhile, convicted paedophiles married to teachers can simply have it written into their parole (and possibly already do) that they stay away from their spouse's kids; therefore, the kids will never know they exist; therefore, the issue of falsely identifying them as "safe" won't arise because the contact will never happen in the first place.
Never? Absolutes are rarely accurate.
It is nearly impossible to frame a law which can be justly applied in every circumstance, but this one appears* to try. It allows for a headmaster to make an exception.
Will heads fail to allow an exception in cases they should allow one? Likely yes. Will heads grant an exception where they shouldn't? A real possibility as well.
I would rather see a little excess caution in protecting those who are most vulnerable.
*From LJ's description, I've not read it.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Maybe it's different in Britain, but in all my years of school I can only think of one teacher whose spouse I ever met. Certainly if I met anyone else's spouse it would have been a rare accident, and remember that for grades 6-12, I would have had six or so teachers each grade. I just can't imagine the odds of seeing a teacher's spouse (as opposed to a grocer's spouse, a doctor's spouse or a public bus driver's spouse etc.) being high enough to justify such a law.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Gwai,
I think it depends on the location as much as country. You live in a large city, therefore chance encounters may be more rare.
In small villages, or tight communities, encounters will be greater in frequency.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I went to school from grades 6-12 though in a small town in Texas. It's not city versus country because that was country, seriously seriously country.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
I'm with Gwai here; at primary school, I did know one teacher's husband by sight but I knew him as a friend's daddy rather than the teacher's husband. The other husbands, I would not have recognised if I had seen them. Otherwise, I met the husband of my form teacher (in her first job out of training college) when she brought him to the school disco.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gwai,
I think it depends on the location as much as country. You live in a large city, therefore chance encounters may be more rare.
In small villages, or tight communities, encounters will be greater in frequency.
In many villages and small towns a lot of teachers take care to live elsewhere, mostly to ensure their children don't attend schools at which they teach. I've attended a couple of schools where that wasn't the case (run for children of HM forces overseas) and it could be very awkward for the teachers' children.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Maybe the logic is that someone who teaches children who *chooses* to remain in an intimate relationship with a convicted paedophile does not fully appreciate the harm done by such offences - and therefore may not be effective at safeguarding the children in their care.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I think so Doublethink., but also consider that the number of sexual offenders who stay married post-conviction is small. I suspect that the general reasonableness of the regulation, while debatable, will probably hold.
Post release conditions can require no computer in the home, restricted movement in the community, and other things. Perhaps these are also considerations. Sexual offending at all times is seen as heinous and I doubt there's much sympathy generally in the community about difficulties they may face.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Maybe the logic is that someone who teaches children who *chooses* to remain in an intimate relationship with a convicted paedophile does not fully appreciate the harm done by such offences - and therefore may not be effective at safeguarding the children in their care.
Because we must totally ostracise all sex offenders, thereby providing them with no incentive whatsoever to live as normal members of society.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's also worth pointing out that being on the sex offenders register doesn't mean one is guilty of paedophilia. There are any number of offences, some relatively minor, that can result in such lifelong consequences.
Should a teacher be suspended because her husband once pinched a random girl's bum in a club when he was 21 and she pressed sexual assault charges?
[ 21. January 2015, 20:07: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This one is more severe I think, given imprisonment.
The same question about serious consequences have been asked about the child pornography offences and some prostitution-related offences. It seems that there is no living down the consequences to some conduct. Which I do understand on a "who cares" level when there is some reasonableness to the assessment of risk, particularly re children.
Indeed, pinching a bum is far different than a penetrative sexual offence, but a same-age victim to offender scenario does not provide any comfort about level of risk to children. But I am not aware of any cases locally or more generally in Canada that have resulted in sexual assault charges for pinching a bum. Perhaps it happens some places. I am aware of people who were caught smoking marijuana as teens or young adults and are turned back at Canada-USA border control because a drug offence 35 years ago comes up on the entry scan. This has wrecked paid-for Disneyland holiday plans etc though I expect the other family members could have continued the trip.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
[crossposted with No Prophet]
Goes back to the headteacher's exemption.
I work with sex offenders, amongst others, and don't believe in demonisation etc. I also work with vulnerable people, and spend more time than I'd want in child protection conferences and adult safeguarding meetings.
There are, sadly, many people who can not put the needs of a child ahead of their need for a partner. Denial can be a way of resolving that dilemma.
It is difficult to get jailed for a sexual offence or on onto the sex offenders register - (contrary to press reports) - in the vast majority of cases someone jailed for a sexual offence will have done something seriously harmful.
[ 21. January 2015, 20:25: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There are, sadly, many people who can not put the needs of a child ahead of their need for a partner. Denial can be a way of resolving that dilemma.
And apparently so can divorce?
We're not talking here about a lonely single parent who takes on a bad choice of partner for a step-dad or step-mum. We're talking about someone who's married. Not someone who needs a partner, but someone who HAS a partner and who made promises to stay with them for life.
Having a law that makes a person choose between their spouse and their career is fundamentally bad policy.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
On what do you base that assertion ?
It could be worse, most often it is people being asked to chose between their partner and their child - effectively under civil law.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having a law that makes a person choose between their spouse and their career is fundamentally bad policy.
Associating with known criminals would cost Mrs Tor her job, even if (or especially if) that known criminal was me. Of course, we knew that was the case when she got the post, rather than the requirements retrospectively applied.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having a law that makes a person choose between their spouse and their career is fundamentally bad policy.
It does seem like social engineering of people's choices, which we'd presume should be free. This choice is commonly forced in the scenario where a married couple has minor children and they would be apprehended by Child Protection if the offender remains in the home. The logicalness of this situation seems obvious. Choose the children or the spouse.
It is the extension of this due to more general risk that is the issue. Presumably there's a background to the law and rules? Did they institute it because of particular experience? because an expert panel said so? why?
I do think though, that it is difficult for most people to imagine anyone wanting to live with a sex offender, with the assumption that if you do wish to, there must be something disordered. I wonder what the numbers are? I also wonder if a teacher might decide to teach adults versus children if they really want to maintain the relationship.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mind you, looks like it is partly a cock up. (That has fuck all to do with MAPPA.)
[ 21. January 2015, 20:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I do think though, that it is difficult for most people to imagine anyone wanting to live with a sex offender, with the assumption that if you do wish to, there must be something disordered.
That would be because most people have been trained to automatically treat sex offenders as demons, not as actual people.
It's hard to think of any other group of offenders that are treated with such hysteria. No-one equates the kid who stole some stuff from the corner shop with an armed bank robber. People at least allow for the possibility of other offenders mending their ways.
But sex offenses are permanent. There is no rehabilitation. And I can't help wonder if that isn't in some cases a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby society has completely removed any incentive for rehabilitation and staying out of trouble. If you're going to be punished for the rest of your life regardless of whether you offend again or not, why not try doing it again? If you did something a little bit bad the first time, why not do something worse the second time?
We've made sex offences worse than murder. And then we wonder why there are so many cases where the victim of a sexual assault has then been murdered in an effort to cover up the original crime. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Mind you, looks like it is partly a cock up. (That has fuck all to do with MAPPA.)
If it's because no-one can understand MAPPA, then it's to do with MAPPA.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It isn't, te law they are referencing is not a mappa process. MAPPA is a risk management process activated between agencies around specific individuals, not all of whom have necessarily been jailed, to plan how to manage them safely in the community.
[ 21. January 2015, 21:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I do think though, that it is difficult for most people to imagine anyone wanting to live with a sex offender, with the assumption that if you do wish to, there must be something disordered.
That would be because most people have been trained to automatically treat sex offenders as demons, not as actual people.
It's hard to think of any other group of offenders that are treated with such hysteria. No-one equates the kid who stole some stuff from the corner shop with an armed bank robber. People at least allow for the possibility of other offenders mending their ways.
But sex offenses are permanent. There is no rehabilitation. And I can't help wonder if that isn't in some cases a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby society has completely removed any incentive for rehabilitation and staying out of trouble. If you're going to be punished for the rest of your life regardless of whether you offend again or not, why not try doing it again? If you did something a little bit bad the first time, why not do something worse the second time?
We've made sex offences worse than murder. And then we wonder why there are so many cases where the victim of a sexual assault has then been murdered in an effort to cover up the original crime. In for a penny, in for a pound.
The problem with and for sex offenders is that it is entirely different from a kid stealing something from a store and an armed robbery. Sexual offences are about a personal, private aspect, central to identity, partly physical, intensely emotional. Utterly unlike any form of property crime. Physical assaults, where someone is hurt, bones broken etc comes closer, but still doesn't compare. Sexual assaults become something the person assaulted is reminded of when they consider love with another human being, the kind of love that would include physical intimacy. Thus love becomes tainted. Yes, there is healing, but never, quite, restoration.
Not all sexual offences are the same. I've reviewed the data many times. Child-oriented offenders who have used social skills and persuasive means to get the child to do something sexual are the most treatable and reformable, offenders against girls more so than those exclusively assaulting against boys. Rapists who violently attack strangers are the most dangerous and should probably be treated as unreformable; we just can't risk it. I'd go for lifetime sentences of monitoring when not in prison for this group.
The dynamics of sex offending usually contain plenty of self-centredness, lack of empathy, and "poor me" types of distorted thoughts that "gee I am being treated like crap because I'm a pariah due to my sex offending" is already well in place and doesn't require any additional reference to being labelled and continually punished.
Thankfully, there are not many cases of rape-murder. We have very few of these per year in Canada, and some years without, among the 600 or so murders in this nation of 34 million per year. Most sex offenders keep doing what they do, once they have acquired an adult pattern of behaviour started in their mid-teens to young adult years.
I think the focus on offenders is entirely too much in most cases. The focus needs to be on whom they've harmed. Empathy is misplaced too often.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
When you're talking about prospects for rehabilitation, though, the focus is inherently on the offender.
That doesn't preclude caring for the victims. It's not an either/or proposition.
I'm just not convincted that a lot of our responses are based on a rational assessment of the risk of recidivism (such as your own discussion).
Also if this is supposed to be based on the Ian Huntley case, as suggested, it would have been completely useless against Huntley because he was never previously convicted of anything.
Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Not all sexual offences are the same. I've reviewed the data many times. Child-oriented offenders who have used social skills and persuasive means to get the child to do something sexual are the most treatable and reformable, offenders against girls more so than those exclusively assaulting against boys. Rapists who violently attack strangers are the most dangerous and should probably be treated as unreformable; we just can't risk it. I'd go for lifetime sentences of monitoring when not in prison for this group.
Seems to me that that's just about the opposite of the way the media portrays things, too. I've somehow gained the idea that sexual abuse against children is just about impossible to reform, whereas 'random' rape is very rare and probably unlikely to be repeated.
But yeah, I'm another who only ever met teachers' spouses when they themselves were also on the staff at the school I went to. Other than that, nope. Not at all. Ever. And as far as I'm aware, neither of the Opuses have ever met (or even seen at a distance) their teachers' partners. With appropriate child protection policies, DBS checking in place for both paid and voluntary roles in schools (and indeed other organisations working with children or vulnerable adults), it seems to me that this is taking a horribly broad brush approach completely unnecessarily. I honestly can't see how it protects anyone who couldn't otherwise be protected by implementation of sensible policies which wouldn't also harm innocent bystanders.
[ 22. January 2015, 10:10: Message edited by: Beethoven ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I don't think the issue is about the teachers inviting kids over for tea and cake - nobody does that. If there is a safeguarding issue, I think it's more likely to be in the form of information about the kids, perhaps taken out of a briefcase or an unprotected PC, or just conversation over a breakfast table. A determined individual living in the same house as a teacher could probably get enough information about kids to start grooming them. Particularly if his partner trusts or fears him and feels pressure to answer questions. He might not be recognisable as "Mrs Smith's husband" but as a charismatic adult who knows the kids' names, where they live, the names of their siblings and pets etc. With kids, that's probably enough to get them offguard. They've been told not to go with strangers, but this guy who knows a bunch of stuff about them clearly isn't a stranger - he must have been one of the many trustworthy adults they've met and can't quite place.
I think that's the most plausible risk. Now, what the likelihood of this actually happening is, I don't know. I do know that it'd only take one high profile case of this happening and the press will crawl all over it and the people who came up with the system will have the mob at the door, their names in the mud and their careers ruined. Which is probably why they're trying to think of every hypothetical situation and prevent them all, even if it takes a blunt instrument to do so.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In the UK the issue of safeguarding, and of checking the records of people with access to children, only came about because of the murder of two young girls in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
They came into contact with their killer because they visited the house of a classroom assistant they knew at school.
The old CRB checking system wouldn't have unearthed the killer (Ian Huntley) because he was not married to the TA.
The new system MAPPA wouldn't have revealed him either because, despite several complaints about his behaviour, he hadn't been charged with any offence. All the checking in the world will only reveal people who are already known to the police.
Is the new system going to be 'fair'? Probably not but I think the attitude now is 'better safe than sorry' - and I doubt many parents would disagree with that.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
This is not accurate, police checks had existed for decades prior to the Soham murders. The problem was they were not co-ordinated nationally and they were destoryed once done. CRB checks came in after Soham, as basic and enhanced. Enhanced checks include police intelligence not just convictions - so allegationns would appear. Then CRB changed to DBS.
[ 22. January 2015, 18:22: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think that's the most plausible risk. Now, what the likelihood of this actually happening is, I don't know. I do know that it'd only take one high profile case of this happening and the press will crawl all over it and the people who came up with the system will have the mob at the door, their names in the mud and their careers ruined. Which is probably why they're trying to think of every hypothetical situation and prevent them all, even if it takes a blunt instrument to do so.
I think this hits the nail on the head.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is the new system going to be 'fair'? Probably not but I think the attitude now is 'better safe than sorry' - and I doubt many parents would disagree with that.
And this. It's just a shame it panders to the mob rule mentality.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This is not accurate, police checks had existed for decades prior to the Soham murders. The problem was they were not co-ordinated nationally and they were destoryed once done. CRB checks came in after Soham, as basic and enhanced. Enhanced checks include police intelligence not just convictions - so allegationns would appear. Then CRB changed to DBS.
IIRC, the papers were more concerned that the Huntley situation highlighted the limitations of the existing system of police checks. Huntley was working as a care-taker at a local school. Things had been reported, but as he’d never been charged, they didn’t come up when he was checked. The system was changed to try and ensure that this kind of situation would never happen again.
Given that Carr and Huntley lived in the same village as the school she worked at, some of the children would have known both of them. Given the size of the UK, good luck with legislating to prevent that!
And back to the matter in hand … Anyone convicted of a sexual offence that’s listed on Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will end up on the Register. All the obvious ones are included – rape, sexual assault etc. But other, less serious offences are included in some circumstances. Not all offenders will be a risk to children.
The new guidelines also appear to include violent crimes, as per the article DT linked too. The article highlights people being suspended from their jobs because their other half was convicted of GBH 20 years ago, served their sentence and never offended since. Many of these won’t be a risk to children either.
It does look like the Government wants a quick fix to a loop hole and, rather than drafting proper guidelines, is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
Tubbs
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
Guardian article
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Guardian article
Thank you. That's someone who gets it.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Guardian article
Thank you. That's someone who gets it.
The mums at my daughter's school used to go out every so often. One of the mum's remarked, in all seriousness, that wouldn’t allow her child to do sleepovers. Not even with members of her own family, because “you couldn’t trust anyone”.
Stuff like this just reinforces the assumption that anyone and everyone is a potential risk to children. It's entirely counter-productive.
Tubbs
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Stuff like this just reinforces the assumption that anyone and everyone is a potential risk to children. It's entirely counter-productive.
You say that, but (if the statistics are anywhere near accurate) in any given class of 30, two or three children will be being abused, physically, emotionally or sexually. And that is possibly a significant underestimate.
And as both a parent and a teaching assistant, I've had to navigate through that.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
For 'police intelligence' read what? For police to have something officially on-file because either a crime has been committed or someone has been arrested and charged with something is one thing.
But in many instances so-called 'intelligence' has turned out to nothing more than gossip.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Yes, it is not a good idea in my opinion - however - under CRB - previous allegations re Huntely would almost certainly have showed up, because they would have showed up on the PNC search.
I am still confused as to how the current proposals being implemented (suddenly after coming into law in 2009, wierdly) have anything to do with MAPPA.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Guardian article
Thank you. That's someone who gets it.
The mums at my daughter's school used to go out every so often. One of the mum's remarked, in all seriousness, that wouldn’t allow her child to do sleepovers. Not even with members of her own family, because “you couldn’t trust anyone”.
Stuff like this just reinforces the assumption that anyone and everyone is a potential risk to children. It's entirely counter-productive.
Tubbs
I won’t let my children go on sleepovers either.
We stop our children from playing out in the streets because of perceived risk from strangers but actually the greater risk is from people they know, Relatives, friends, siblings of friends, friends parents etc. People perceive keeping their child indoors as safer when actually that is where they are more at risk.
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Stuff like this just reinforces the assumption that anyone and everyone is a potential risk to children. It's entirely counter-productive.
You say that, but (if the statistics are anywhere near accurate) in any given class of 30, two or three children will be being abused, physically, emotionally or sexually. And that is possibly a significant underestimate.
And as both a parent and a teaching assistant, I've had to navigate through that.
I don't disagree, but I can't help wishing that there was some kind of middle ground between the complacency/ denial of previous decades and what we're seeing now. Neither strikes me as being helpful, but I don't have anything to suggest.
Tubbs
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Remember that most abused children are abused by their family members or close friends of the family. So practically it would keep my children a lot safer to make sure they have various trusted friends of the family they could tell if someone was abusing them and they didn't want to tell me. Constantly worrying about children being abused by strangers is more culture of fear than anything else.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Trust isn't one thing. Would I have trusted my ex with my PIN? Of course not. He was crap with money. Would I trust him with my kids? Absolutely!
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Thing is, we were talking about our most treasured childhood memories. Quite a few referenced sleep overs with grandparents or other relatives, then said that they'd never let their kids do that as it was too risky. That struck me as sad.
Tubbs
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
We've developed into a society that somehow believes it is possible to guard perfectly against EVERYTHING.
It isn't. Well, not without functioning in ways that would no longer be considered normal. Life is risk. And I say that as a rather risk averse person.
An oft cited example is that we could protect against absolutely all road deaths, by having cars move at a crawl not much faster than walking pace. We don't do this. Yes, we have a lot of safeguards in cars and road rules, but there comes a point where you just can't prevent everything unless you're basically prepared to prevent meaningful driving.
You have to wonder whether some parents are reaching the point with children that they're so intent on preventing disaster that they're actually going to prevent their children from growing up. No, you shouldn't just let them go any old place, but if there are no relatives or friends AT ALL that you trust with your children at all, that's a problem. That's preventing your kids from learning how to interact with other people or show any independence.
How far does it go? No after school activities? No music lessons, despite all the research showing the benefit of music in education, in case the teacher is a pervert?
[ 23. January 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I've given my PIN number to at least a dozen of people already. Friends, colleagues ... Someone goes to a shop: "Hey, since you're going, could you buy that-and-that for me? Here's my card and number."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It gets hard after an incident. But you have to draw the perspective that one dangerous person did the sex offence. A location didn't, being out side didn't, doing normal activities didn't, like taking a bus, walking in a park or anything else. The offender did it. And only special bad people do offences. It takes some many months to years before such a perspective is possible consistently. But that's the goal.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is difficult to get jailed for a sexual offence or on onto the sex offenders register - (contrary to press reports) - in the vast majority of cases someone jailed for a sexual offence will have done something seriously harmful.
Depends. Where I live it's relatively easy. 18 year old consensual sex with 16 year old girl friend is statutory rape.
surprising ways to become a registered sex offender
A friend was a battered wife, that's what landed her in prison and on the list. Husband abused the kid, beat her for protesting, beat her for trying to grab the kid and leave. She finally succeeded in escaping with the kid. When he was arrested they tracked her down and she got double the prison time he did, kid thrown into the often brutal foster care system.
I later protested to a friend who worked in prosecutor's office, she said a woman's job is to protect the kid, her failure was a worse crime than what he did to the kid, being intimidated and beaten was no excuse, finally escaping was no merit, she should have done it sooner.
So, being too battered to control your husband can land you in prison and on the registered sex offenders list when you never hurt or tried to hurt anything and even tried to stop someone else.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There's been a real reduction in child mortality in the last century. Part of this is not doing things that used to happen, child seats in cars, bicycle helmets, not letting them play in traffic.
There's no doubt things have been lost, but parental attitudes have changed to this protection. See the web site for Free Range Kids if you want to see a pushback.
There's currently a school of thought that traffic deaths are preventable. New York is following the lead of several other cities in trying to get the death rate to close to zero. That may be impossible, but a lot of deaths occur over and over in the same places. Part of the strategy is to investigate every death and figure out how it might be prevented. Part of it is slowing down cars in the city.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For 'police intelligence' read what? For police to have something officially on-file because either a crime has been committed or someone has been arrested and charged with something is one thing.
But in many instances so-called 'intelligence' has turned out to nothing more than gossip.
"Intelligent" and "Police" have been sadly proven - -in some high profile cases - to be words that rarely work together.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is difficult to get jailed for a sexual offence or on onto the sex offenders register - (contrary to press reports) - in the vast majority of cases someone jailed for a sexual offence will have done something seriously harmful.
Depends. Where I live it's relatively easy. 18 year old consensual sex with 16 year old girl friend is statutory rape.
surprising ways to become a registered sex offender
A friend was a battered wife, that's what landed her in prison and on the list. Husband abused the kid, beat her for protesting, beat her for trying to grab the kid and leave. She finally succeeded in escaping with the kid. When he was arrested they tracked her down and she got double the prison time he did, kid thrown into the often brutal foster care system.
I later protested to a friend who worked in prosecutor's office, she said a woman's job is to protect the kid, her failure was a worse crime than what he did to the kid, being intimidated and beaten was no excuse, finally escaping was no merit, she should have done it sooner.
So, being too battered to control your husband can land you in prison and on the registered sex offenders list when you never hurt or tried to hurt anything and even tried to stop someone else.
As regards the OP, being unable to effectively protect a child is a problem if you work with children. Though I don't think that would get you jailed and put on the sex offenders register in the UK - which is where this law re spouses applies - it would be more likely that the child would go on the child would be put on on the at risk register, and if the safety plan didn't work sovial services would take the matter to civil court to get the child removed.
I am unclear why you think statutary rape is not a problem.
I am unclear why the writers of that article don't think incest is a problem.
In the UK I don't think you can prosecute children who provide photographs as a result of being groomed by others. However, we do recognise that some young people engage in sexually harmful behaviour - and their are specialist services designed to intervene in those circumstances - some of which sit within youth offending teams.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why you think statutary rape is not a problem.
The purposes of a sex offender registry must be to mark out people who should be considered special risks. For this reason, it is absurd to place someone who urinates in an alley on the register.
In the case of two similar-age teens, I rather think the same argument applies. I don't think statutory rape is a non-problem, exactly (although the existence in many but not all localities of "romeo and Juliet" laws rather suggests that it is widely accepted that at some point it is a non-problem), but the question must be whether the older member of such a teen couple poses an increased risk, and in most cases the answer is "no".
But surely we have data here? We have a significant ensemble of cases of young teachers getting entangled in sexual relationships with their pupils. This is the thing that we are typing to prevent with the sex offender's registry.
So look at those teachers, and ask the question: was there any evidence that as older teenagers they were inappropriately involved with younger teens? Is there actually a correlation between 18-year-olds with 16-year-old girl and boyfriends, and those who at 20-something go on to take advantage of their pupils? My guess is that the answer is that there is no correlation at all, in which case putting such teenagers on the register is nonsense.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Intelligent" and "Police" have been sadly proven - -in some high profile cases - to be words that rarely work together.
My ex-wife, who worked clerical jobs for the county sheriff, said her fellow administrative types have a saying: "It's a good thing crooks are stupid."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My ex-wife, who worked clerical jobs for the county sheriff, said her fellow administrative types have a saying: "It's a good thing crooks are stupid."
Our household saying equates to "It's a good thing crooks are more stupid than the cops."
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I would agree about public urination.
In the UK an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is not committing statutary rape - because the age of consent is 16. There are specific laws governing sexual relationships that violate positions of trust, where you could be convicted of anoffence for having sex with a pupil or patient, for example, even if they are over 16.
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves. They often come from families where boundaries around sex are poorly maintained. The propensity or preparedness to violate social rules around sex, is a risk factor for doing so in the future - even if the rules themselves change in your life time.
So convictions for homosexuality remain relevant in assessing future risk - and there is an evidence to support that increased risk. However, most studies of risk are done with people who have offended - ie, it is an indicator of increased risk of recidivism. Rather than a statement that gay people are more likely to sexually offend (they are not - within the UK legal framework.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves.
So should we be putting victims of sexual abuse on the register? Is someone who was abused as a child more or less likely to go on to commit sexual offences as an adult than someone who had a boy / girlfriend just the wrong side of the age limit?
If I can paraphrase the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that people who commit crimes require both the desire to commit the act and the willingness to ignore the fact that it is illegal.
You claim an increased risk of committing sexual offences based on a history of violating sex laws, even when the "violations" are things like having consensual gay sex that wouldn't be illegal today. So I have another question: is this (why is this?) restricted to sexual behaviour? Wouldn't someone who happens to have a predeliction towards children, and has demonstrated his willingness to risk legal sanction by a prior conviction for burglary have the same risk as the same person with a prior conviction for sex in public, say?
I'm not really understanding the logic here. The logic seems to be that people who are willing to break one law in regard to sexual behaviour will be more willing to break a different law with regard to sexual behaviour, but no more or less willing to break laws surrounding non-sexual behaviour.
I would find it surprising indeed if that was true. Is there data?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Thing is, we were talking about our most treasured childhood memories. Quite a few referenced sleep overs with grandparents or other relatives, then said that they'd never let their kids do that as it was too risky. That struck me as sad.
Tubbs
Well around here stopping at grandmas is not what the kids mean by a sleepover. A sleepover is when you go and sleep at a friends house..
It is a different scenario – if somebody won’t let their kids stay at a relative’s house them maybe they know something about the relative that we don’t.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Trust isn't one thing. Would I have trusted my ex with my PIN? Of course not. He was crap with money. Would I trust him with my kids? Absolutely!
Of course trust is multi faceted and what you have just shown a perfect example of what I was trying to say about knowledge of a person.
I said
‘When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids? ‘
It was about knowledge of a person and why would I give access to my children to people I don’t know well enough to know how trustworthy they are>
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves.
So should we be putting victims of sexual abuse on the register? Is someone who was abused as a child more or less likely to go on to commit sexual offences as an adult than someone who had a boy / girlfriend just the wrong side of the age limit?
If I can paraphrase the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that people who commit crimes require both the desire to commit the act and the willingness to ignore the fact that it is illegal.
You claim an increased risk of committing sexual offences based on a history of violating sex laws, even when the "violations" are things like having consensual gay sex that wouldn't be illegal today. So I have another question: is this (why is this?) restricted to sexual behaviour? Wouldn't someone who happens to have a predeliction towards children, and has demonstrated his willingness to risk legal sanction by a prior conviction for burglary have the same risk as the same person with a prior conviction for sex in public, say?
I'm not really understanding the logic here. The logic seems to be that people who are willing to break one law in regard to sexual behaviour will be more willing to break a different law with regard to sexual behaviour, but no more or less willing to break laws surrounding non-sexual behaviour.
I would find it surprising indeed if that was true. Is there data?
So firstly, whilst most abusers have been abused - most people who are abused do not go on to be abusers. The discrepancy is because most abusers abuse more than one person - which is also why recidivism is such a concern.
There are two facets to assessing risk, what iare called actuarial / static risk factors, and dynamic risk factors. A static risk factor is something like - having comitted a sexual offence, or having witnessed domestic violence in childhood. They are things that having happened, don't change - they can't unhappen. They are factors that allow us to say, people with x, y, z static risk dactor present have twice the risk of doing activity h in the future. Depending on how much the static risk factors increase the risk, you may or may not think it is worth placing restrictions on a person or their associates as a result - and that is essentially what is happening in the OP situation.
To assess as specific individual's risk of reoffending at a specific time, you need to look at dynamic risk factors - some of which are general (is this person currently abusing drugs or alcohol and therefore disinhibited) and some of which may be unique to the individual (eg this person is at most risk of looking at child porn on the internet when a personal relationship has just ended).
Predicting reoffence is difficult, but structured assessment tools perform alot better than chance or clinical consensus alone. There is a lot of research on the subject, though quality various. However, the observation that prior willingness to break the law regarding sex is not based on a particular theory or logic as such, it is based on large scale observation.
The models and research are based almost exclusively on men - because they have higher rates of offending (as far as we know) and do not necessarily hold true for female offenders - whose patterns of behaviour are less well understood.
The sex offenders register has multiple functions, one is punishment, one is surveilance - if laws regarding risk management are going to derive fromit then they need to think carefully about what offences get you registered. UK rules about this are different than US rules. Also you don't remain on the register for life for all offences. It seems as if the government is intending to target people convicted of serious offences of violence and sexual violence - perhaps they are using the wrong tool for that.
However.
Going back to dynamic risk factors, and some of the examples given in linked articles. Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH) is a very serious offence, one that has often resulted in life changing injuries to the victim. Now someone may have done that 20 years ago, perhaps it was what they did to a girlfriend who cheated on them. They may have engaged in genuine personal growth and that is why they haven't reoffended, or you may find if you put them in exactly the same circumstances again they do exactly the same thing again.
Just because someone has been punished, by prison time or whatever, does not necessarily mean they have changed.
Sometimes people's violence is so predictable, those around them simply ensure it doesn't happen. Apparently, if you insult the pope's mother he will hit you - so you probably don't.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So firstly, whilst most abusers have been abused - most people who are abused do not go on to be abusers.
OK - so whilst being a victim of child abuse is a risk factor, it is not sufficient to warrant preventing victims of child abuse from being teachers and so on.
What about 18 year old boys with 15-year-old girlfriends (you said all the data is based on male offenders, so we'll go with that.)
Do most such boys go on to commit further sexual offenses? Do they do so more or less often than child abuse victims? Do they grow up to be teachers who sleep with half the fifth form, or do they mostly not?
Do they do so at a rate that differs from 15 year old boys with 15-year-old girlfriends?
quote:
Just because someone has been punished, by prison time or whatever, does not necessarily mean they have changed.
Yes, indeed. And just as you wouldn't want to employ someone with a pile of convictions for shoplifting as a security guard, so you wouldn't want to employ adults who have sex with children as teachers. I don't dispute that at all. This is true both from the point of view of safeguarding your stock, or children, and from the point of view of not placing temptation in the path of someone who might not be strong enough to be drawn back in to his old ways.
We have agreed that public urination is not a useful predictor of sexual offending. I am wondering whether teen sex might not fall into the same category.
quote:
However, the observation that prior willingness to break the law regarding sex is not based on a particular theory or logic as such, it is based on large scale observation.
Sure. Did these studies test for a correlation between sexual offending and a prior willingness to break the law in non-sexual matters?
Obviously rapists are more likely to commit further rapes than someone selected at random from the population. Your description of these studies is that people with unrelated sexual convictions (you gave the example of consensual gay sex when that was illegal) are more likely to commit rape / sexual assault than a randomly-selected person from the population. What about burglars? Are they more likely to commit rape than the random person? Did the studies look?
quote:
Apparently, if you insult the pope's mother he will hit you - so you probably don't.
It sounds like I should insult her twice, so he can hit me on both cheeks.
[ 24. January 2015, 20:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I am not going to do a full metaanalysis, it is a massive field of research and most of my references are in the manuals I use for various forms of structured risk assessment - which are at work.
But to take the example of an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old - and doesn't see this as a wrong thing to do (as opposed to an illegal thing to do).
This would suggest he doesn't recognise she could not give informed consent. Or care. Which raises the question as to whether he will realise or care, for example, that a very drunk woman can't give consent ? It also suggests he will make excuses to himself about this, she said she wanted to so it was OK etc. At what age will he decide he is too old to have sex with fifteen year olds, 19, 20, 21 ? 40 ?
What other behaviours that seem to him trivial will be OK, looking at porn featuring 15 year olds, telling himself that of course they wouldn't have done it if they didn't want to ?
You use the terminology or Romeo and Juliet, but the reality is that teen relationships in our culture are vanishingly unlikely to be true love long term relationships. And of course, it didn't end that well for Romeo and Juliet.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: This would suggest he doesn't recognise she could not give informed consent. Or care.
Or alternatively, they are just teenagers doing what teenagers do.
I'm personally more comfortable if the line were put at 16 instead of 15, but I don't believe that every 18 year old guy in that situation will turn out to become a serial rapist.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I am going to guess that at least partly depends how you define rape.
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
[ 24. January 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
No, I just have a different definition of what informed consent is. Dutch law agrees with me on this one, and permits sex for teenagers under 16 under certain circumstances (one of them being that the age difference should be small).
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
I don't feel that the Netherlands are characterised by 'long term poor outcomes'. Teenage pregnancies and STDs have been quite low, although I admit they are rising a bit in some neighbourhoods in the big cities.
If this continues to grow, than maybe the legal framework will need to be reviewed in the future, if that appears to be the solution (which I'm not convinced it is).
And anyway, this is a far cry from "a 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old will become a sex offender in the future", drivel for which you haven't given any basis yet.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Thing is, we were talking about our most treasured childhood memories. Quite a few referenced sleep overs with grandparents or other relatives, then said that they'd never let their kids do that as it was too risky. That struck me as sad.
Tubbs
Well around here stopping at grandmas is not what the kids mean by a sleepover. A sleepover is when you go and sleep at a friends house..
It is a different scenario – if somebody won’t let their kids stay at a relative’s house them maybe they know something about the relative that we don’t.
Maybe. And sometimes for good, perfectly non-sinister reasons. When people tell you that it's the stuff they're read in the papers that made them too scared to allow their kids to stay with other family members, even though they know it would be fine then ...
Maybe you can be too careful. Most kids have limited social interaction with people outside their school or family. Many don't know people from other generations. Many don't venture out on their own until they reach secondary school. We'll probably end up with a generation who don't spend a night away from home until they get to university.
Tubbs
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Doublethink.: OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
I don't feel that the Netherlands are characterised by 'long term poor outcomes'. Teenage pregnancies and STDs have been quite low, although I admit they are rising a bit in some neighbourhoods in the big cities.
If this continues to grow, than maybe the legal framework will need to be reviewed in the future, if that appears to be the solution (which I'm not convinced it is).
And anyway, this is a far cry from "a 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old will become a sex offender in the future", drivel for which you haven't given any basis yet.
.
In the UK they are already a sex offender - in this scenario. Question is rather, do you think they will do it again ?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
No, I think what I am saying is that maturity is a continuous process. A child of 16 years and one day is not any more or less capable of giving informed consent to anything than one of 15 years and 364 days.
Legal systems don't deal well with continua, though, and so we draw bright lines at a kinda-sorta reasonable place, and then deal with the consequences. So the law views the two-day older person above as entirely competent to give consent (as long as it's not with a teacher or similar), and the younger one as not. Which is an obvious nonsense that is the result of drawing these bright lines.
Most people seem to agree that there's not much gain to be had from prosecuting two 15-year-olds that have sex. I'm not saying that we should refrain from prosecuting 18-year-olds in the same situation, but that the consequences of such a prosecution shouldn't be as long-term as an entry in the register.
In other words, the legal consequences should recognize that there are shades of grey here.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am going to guess that at least partly depends how you define rape.
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
it is highly relevant. But a proper analysis of the law in NSW (I think it's the same in the other States and in England) has been gender neutral for some years now. See for example the NSW Crimes Act That means that if 2 15 year olds have sex together, each has committed an offence and as a consequence each should be placed on the offenders register. The girl has shown as much a disregard of the boy's legal incapacity as has the boy in relation to the girl.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: In the UK they are already a sex offender - in this scenario. Question is rather, do you think they will do it again ?
Do what again? It doesn't matter one bit what I think, the burden is on you now. If you say, an 18 year old had sex with a 15 year old and is therefore a sex offender, and will thus continue to commit to commit sex offences, then the burden of proof is on you. Where are your data? You are just being stupid.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The 18 year old with a 15 year old is an complicated one.
I have dealt with the fall out with girls lying about their age on nights out. Even knowing those girls and seeing them dressed up I couldn't tell for some of them if they were 13, 14, 15 or 16. There is another whole series of issues about hook up culture and not checking further before getting into a sexual relationship, but that's a different question.
I have dealt with under age teenage girls after they got into situations that got out of hand. The 14 year old who became repeatedly pregnant in a relationship with a 19 year old. That went to child protection. The girl who went after a boy she fancied and ended up in a group sex situation and had sex with a boy she hated. Both boys were about 18 at the time. She was horrifically traumatised, but the consent issues were very blurred so although the police did get involved it was with limited effect. I suspect from his anger one of the boys did end up on the sex offenders register.
Now those boys were reckless and I suspect that they are in a pattern that might repeat as one of the lads was a father at 16 and is now involved with another younger girl who he was grooming under-age.
I have also dealt with under age teenage boys in sexual relationships with under age girls and heard their concerns and worries. One lad was finding it difficult to deal with the girl's demands to keep on having sex after they had started - iirc he was 15 and she was 14. There was another lad who did not cope when the girl became pregnant and had an abortion. I'm currently having conversations with a 14 year old who assures me he is sexually active (I believe him) and a just 16 year old father.
Then there are the under age boys on the sex offenders register for acts of sexual assault. I know a few of them too. There are assessments that attempt to assess their risk in the future.
For 14 and 15 year olds there is a disregard for the law generally - because they are teenagers and they don't think that regret will mean anything later. Because as far as they are concerned they can handle whatever the law is trying to protect them from. Because they don't understand that what they are doing is unacceptable / illegal / not allowed, because their home situation is so skewed. Because everyone is having loads of sex (the media tells them so) so adults are keeping something great from them.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mistaking the age of a child over 13 is a defence in law. Current MOJ guidance around prosecution can be found here. You will notice the emphasis on child protection before prosecution for close in age cases under 16.
Leroc, I am not making some wierd claim in identifying that at 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex offender. That is the law in this country.
Here is some recidivism data, thought I note it is a rather old study.
There are many other studies but few will be looking at just 18 year olds. However, my experience is similar to CKs in so far as it is the case that people tend to show repeating patterns of behaviour. They don't fall for one 15 year old, and then when it ends they start dating people their own age.
However, my experience is skewed by working mostly with people who already have a history of repeated incidents. Which have usually then been no crimed, or words of advice given, and then we are expected to manage the risk to the community. It really isn't as easy to get to court, let alone onto the sex offenders register as you seem to think.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: Leroc, I am not making some wierd claim in identifying that at 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex offender. That is the law in this country.
I know. This isn't what I'm attacking.
quote:
Doublethink.: Here is some recidivism data, thought I note it is a rather old study.
Also, the categories are a bit too broad to prove either of our sides.
When I was in secondary school, there were many couples. Usually the age difference would be 1–2 years, sometimes 3. Some of these couples would have sex.
Of course, you can dismiss these all as "teenage relationships aren't really serious", and in fact I don't think that any of these relationships lead to marriage, but that's too easy. Some teenage relationships can last for years, and can be rather mature.
Now, if I had a 15 year old daughter who was in a relationship with an 18 year old, I would probably ask her to wait a bit. But if it would happen, that wouldn't automatically make him a pervert.
What you're saying is that he'd be an 18 year old guy, having a relationship with a 15 year old. YAnd he'll probably continue to be attracted to 15 year olds when he grows other.
What I'm saying is that he's an 18 year old guy, having a relationship with someone who's a bit younger than him. And he'll probably continue to be attracted to women a bit younger than him when he grows older.
When I was 18, I had a relationship with a 15 year old (we didn't have sex until later, but it could have happened then). I'm older now, and I'm not attracted to 15 year olds anymore. I don't think that's unusual.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I can think of hundreds of teenagers I've worked with, very few of whom I think are in a pattern of seeking out relationships with under age girls continuously. But there are a few we were noting when they came into the local youth provision because we weren't comfortable with the way they continued to groom young girls as they grew up - and we had a duty of protection for those young girls.
But I have heard an attitude from more than one teenage boy that says that it's too much effort to be signed up for a C card and that the way to protect against STIs is make sure that you only have sex with clean girls - ie virgins.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I can think of almost no circumstances in which labelling someone a pervert is helpful.
I note you comment on asking your daughter to refrain - who is the child in the scenario you give - rather than her boyfriend. It is the adult's duty to protect the child, as you apparently did.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: I note you comment on asking your daughter to refrain - who is the child in the scenario you give - rather than her boyfriend. It is the adult's duty to protect the child, as you apparently did.
Yes, but there is still a big difference between your position and mine.
Consider two male 18 year olds, let's call them Jack and John.
Jack is a predator. He grooms 15 year old girls, trying to have sex with as many of them as he can. He tries to trick them by promising to buy expensive gifts, or by having them drink alcohol. And when push comes to shove, he's not shy of using a little force in making them do what he wants.
John is in a relationship with Jane, who is 15 years old. They started calling eachother boyfriend and girlfriend when he was 15 and she was 12. They visit eachother's families regularly. They started out with hand-holding, then kissing. And when he was 18 and she was 15, they had sex.
Maybe they shouldn't have. But at least they are serious about their relationship (as serious as they can be as teenagers), and they used a condom.
I understand that you mostly meet Jacks at your work. But there are many, many Johns out there. I personally know a lot of them.
Now if I were Jane's father, I would probably have a long talk with my daughter. But chances are I wouldn't report John to the police. Which under Dutch law means that no crime has been committed.
Now, fast forward a couple of years. The relationship between John and Jane ended when he was 20 and she was 17. He was in university in another city, she still lived with her parents, their lifes just grew apart.
In his twenties, John dated a couple of other women, most of them slightly younger than him. And when he was 32, he married Anne, who was 28 and who happens to be a teacher. She loves her job and she's good at it. Once again, I think this is very common.
Now, what you're saying is that Anne should be punished. She should be let off from her work. I think that's completely unfair.
What is needed is a way to separate the Jacks from the Johns. I feel that the Dutch system is rather good at that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
1. Isn't this how most laws work?
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
1. Isn't this how most laws work?
It's how some laws work, but here it is the way the law is implemented that is causing the problem. Implementation has become a blunt instrument (because the government is scared stupid of a press backlash if any child is harmed) hence these 'zero-tolerance' labels, which invariably lead to 'unthinking assumption of worst-case scenario'.
quote:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
Isn't that what we're discussing. Doublethink has talked about risks of sex offenders reoffending (actual data, based on a significant ensemble of sex offenders, which has been demonstrated to be a more accurate predictor than the opinion of some specialist in an individual case).
I am suggesting that, while I believe those numbers as far as they go, that they might combine into one class people who are at increased risk of committing future sexual offenses (and so perhaps should be banned from being around children) with people who might not be (the "John" in LeRoc's tale).
So I am suggesting that further studies should be done to try to separate the "John" people from the dangerous people, so that we're not inflicting unnecessary punishment on John. As far as we know (and Doublethink is a professional, whereas I am a guy on the sidelines throwing peanuts), such studies have not been done, so we're speculating.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
That's not an answer. That's passing the buck. It just means that we rephrase lilBuddha's question as "How should the judge properly and accurately assess?"
And no, you can't say "he takes advice from experts" or we just go round again.
The data (see Doublethink's posts, and the papers that she refers to) indicate that asking whether, statistically, someone looks like a repeat sex offender is a more accurate predictor of repeat sexual offending than an expert's opinion of whether it's likely.
This tells you that overriding the statistical predictor should be both rare and use only information that isn't considered by the predictor.
I suggest that being LeRoc's "John" might be one such piece of information.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Ideally, risk assessment should include actuarial *and* dynamic risk assessment together with structured professional judgement - but we do not have, or have any realistic prospect of obtaining, the resources to provide that level of assessment in every case.
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders. There are already multiple formal and informal filters that act to screen out less risky people before they get to court. So the folk already convicted are highly selected subset of the population.
[ 25. January 2015, 18:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders. There are already multiple formal and informal filters that act to screen out less risky people before they get to court. So the folk already convicted are highly selected subset of the population.
It is a point worth emphasising. Those people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to prison time for sexual offences are (barring a very few exceptions) those who pose a great risk to the public.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The research Doublethink. cited doesn't give us much information here. Are they talking about Jacks or Johns, or are they lumping them together?
The way it works in the Netherlands, is that it first depends on Jane's parents. Since she is between 12 and 15, different from other crimes, they are the only ones who can report this. If they choose not to report (for example because they think Jane's boyfriend really is a John), then no crime has happened.
Next in line is the judge. She has a lot of leeway. Basically what she tries to do is decide whether she is dealing with a Jack or with a John here. I guess she'll use various information sources at her disposal: interviewing the people involved, asking for the opinion of professionals ...
I have the feeling that this works. And that the system isn't overburdened.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is a point worth emphasising. Those people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to prison time for sexual offences are (barring a very few exceptions) those who pose a great risk to the public.
Not quite so fast. Those with superior social skills, with the ability to exert influence, and have never been caught, may pose a great risk. Hence various professionals with very lengthy histories of sexual assault whose lengthy history only comes to light once one person has come forward, which then allows other penguins to jump off the ice berg into the sea, hoping to avoid the legal sharks who lie in wait in order to secondarily traumatize the victims. We only hear of a few of these unfortunately, with epidemiological information informing us that most victims never come forward.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
While all that is true (and it is), it doesn't negate my point.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Does this affect family members other than partners?
A couple of years after my son left cubs, his former cub scout leader was caught up in a swoop on people who had downloaded indecent images of children. It was quickly established, from the timing of the downloads, that it hadn't been him, but had been his father who had access to his computer. The police followed it up, as they were concerned that the father also had access to routine admin stored on the computer about the cubs - names / addresses / d.o.b.s etc, but the police reassured parents that there was no issue re the cubs.
Hypothetically, had the son been a teacher (he wasn't) would he have to leave home to keep his job? Would a 16 year old doing a college course in childcare be able to live at home if his / her father had been convicted of downloading indecent images? Would a nineteen year old doing a degree in education be able to go home over the summer holidays and continue to use his / her parental address as their postal address?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders.
This is circular. The question (in the case of LeRoc's John, for example) is whether someone who has committed a sexual offence (in this case, being 18 with a 15-year-old girlfriend) presents an elevated risk of future offending compared to non-offenders.
You can't answer that by saying "he's just been prosecuted for underage sex - he's already done it."
The question is answered in the affirmative, in the general case, by comparing the recidivism rates for sexual offenders with the incidence of sexual offending in the wider population.
The open question is whether this is still true in the specific case of a "John".
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
On actuarial measures of risk the answer would be yes he does. The biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
Both Jack and John have already done something harmful - in which they have placed their own needs and desires above the welfare of the person they profess afection for, and above the law.
Early first age of intercourse is associated with various life disadvantages and that is before you start to talk about the attachment issues. In addition, the girls most likely to have early sex tend to have other vulnerabilites around them.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Data suggests child protection in the Netherlands is not impressive given the relative wealth of the country - this being based on percentage of child deaths owing to child maltreatment - though not as bad as the USA.
(I was astonished the first dutch national prevalence study wasn't conducted untill 2005. They are currently conducting awareness campaigns etc so figures will rise for non-fatal abuse.)
[ 25. January 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On actuarial measures of risk the answer would be yes he does. The biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
This whole discussion centres on whether this actuarial average, which we all agree holds on average in the general case, is also true in the "John" case. And, so far as you have said, and so far as I have been able to find, nobody knows. All the studies everyone has done have lumped John in with a larger class of sex offenders and found an increased propensity to future offending (which would be true whether or not Johns were at elevated future risk, because we all agree that the rest of the sex offenders are.)
The studies have placed John in the class "sex offenders" because he has been convicted of a sexual offence. The question, which so far as I know has not been answered, is whether John's future behaviour will match that of class "Sex Offender" or that of class "Randy Teenager".
Or whether an 18-year-old shagging a 15-year-old is at greater risk of future sexual offending than a 15-year-old shagging a 15-year-old.
None of this has anything to do with whether 15-year-old sex is a good idea, or should be condoned, or anything like that, and none of this has anything to do with whether John should face punishment for having illegal sex.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The way it works in the Netherlands, is that it first depends on Jane's parents. Since she is between 12 and 15, different from other crimes, they are the only ones who can report this. If they choose not to report (for example because they think Jane's boyfriend really is a John), then no crime has happened.
Next in line is the judge. She has a lot of leeway. Basically what she tries to do is decide whether she is dealing with a Jack or with a John here. I guess she'll use various information sources at her disposal: interviewing the people involved, asking for the opinion of professionals ...
I have trouble with your repeated comment that without reporting, no crime has been committed. On the facts you base the comments, a crime has been committed, simply not reported.
Your suggestion that a judge may go around informing herself for her own information sources, and also interview people, does not fit at all into the legal system in England, and those countries whose legal systems derive from the English. A judge acts on the evidence presented in a court. A children's court can operate more informally than one for adults, but most here would see a judge's collecting and acting upon material independently as dangerous and a denial of procedural fairness.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
There's a thing called the "nomothetic fallacy" (ecological inference fallacy) which should caution making inferences about individuals because of the group to which they belong. Notwithstanding that the first author of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (link is to a book review of it and a couple others, a good summary of the issues) has suggested that 'individual differences are the least interesting thing about people' (I have the book). This PDF contains the actuarial rating scheme used in Canada for federal risk assessment on page 26, though it may be revised, the link is dated 2002.
Although an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old may be a sex crime, to make inferences that the 18 year is at risk for other sexual misconduct may be simply false. In Canada, I have observed that the parents generally drive the report and police investigation, and once investigated, if the 15 year old appears to have given consent, it isn't prosecuted. If it was, judges take discretion sometimes to not register the person as a sex offender nor to order the sample of DNA to be collected and put in the database.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
ISTM, it can be much more complicated in these kinds of cases than other types of crimes, such as simple assault. The victim understanding that they are a victim is often a huge complication.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In addition, the girls most likely to have early sex tend to have other vulnerabilites around them.
And this is one reason why the Jack and John scenario mentioned by LeRoc is incomplete. We tend to think in and either/or framework when the reality is much more varied.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink.: Data suggests child protection in the Netherlands is not impressive given the relative wealth of the country - this being based on percentage of child deaths owing to child maltreatment - though not as bad as the USA.
This has exactly zero to do with my argument.
quote:
Gee D: I have trouble with your repeated comment that without reporting, no crime has been committed. On the facts you base the comments, a crime has been committed, simply not reported.
No. The way I understand it, it is exactly as I said it. If a teenager aged between 12 and 15 has sex with someone close to her age and her parents choose not to report it, no crime has been committed under Dutch law.
quote:
lilBuddha: And this is one reason why the Jack and John scenario mentioned by LeRoc is incomplete. We tend to think in and either/or framework when the reality is much more varied.
Duh. I'm writing a post on a bulletin board. Of course it's simplified and incomplete.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: And this is one reason why the Jack and John scenario mentioned by LeRoc is incomplete. We tend to think in and either/or framework when the reality is much more varied.
Duh. I'm writing a post on a bulletin board. Of course it's simplified and incomplete.
Touchy, touchy. The point I was making is that many people seem to feel that those two cases are all that exist. If you are more evolved than this, wonderful.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
LeRoc
Taking it as said, let me start a list of things that can be seen as wrong:
- Parents do not report because parents cannot care less about the girls welfare.
- Parents do not report because they distrust authorities. In such cases expect revenge attacks between families.
- Parents report because they do not approve of the young man.
- Parents report to cover-up incest.
- Parents do not report because girl is a runaway, a particularly vulnerable group of young adolescents. The way you report it, the law effectively legalises young men raping girls who run away from home.
- Parents do not report because of the loss of social community status either for them or their daughter
The assumption, that the parents always have the best interests of the young couple at the centre of their decision-making process, is not one I would like to defend.
I suspect there are other cases where the parents might either report or not report for a different reason than the actual circumstances under which the act happened.
Jengie
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jengie jon: The assumption, that the parents always have the best interests of the young couple at the centre of their decision-making process, is not one I would like to defend.
Of course, neither do I. I don't know the system in sufficient detail to be able to defend it in detail. I'm guessing that the girl can report too, and that Social Services can be involved as well. What I know is that the parents and the girl need to be heard, and if they agree that it is a John we're dealing with and the judge is convinced of that, then no crime has been committed.
I agree with this. John has done nothing wrong. Maybe it would have been wise to have waited a little longer, but no crime has been committed here.
And to punish Anne, the wife of older John for this, is outrageous.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
ISTM there's a Schroedinger's rapist element to this in that you can't necessarily say whether you're dealing with a "John" straight away. All you know is John-Jack has crossed a boundary that society has deemed criminal. That he may subsequently reform and not gain a habit of crossing such boundaries is not yet known. It can't be definitively known until he becomes a "Jack" later in life, if he ever does.
Which is not to say he should be branded for life - and that Anne should suffer - but then as has been already stated his position on the register doesn't have to be permanent.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Apparently our teenage lovers need to gain informed consent in order to hold one another's hands (Consent checklist). But if you're under 16 you can't give informed consent. I know we're not actually prosecuting under-sixteen hand-holders (or, in fact, considerably more than that). Is that actually the law? Or is it just ham-fisted guidance? And, if the latter, is it actually making things worse by making it seem ridiculous?
[Dude. Learn to embed those links. DT HH]
[ 26. January 2015, 22:37: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
All you know is John-Jack has crossed a boundary that society has deemed criminal. That he may subsequently reform and not gain a habit of crossing such boundaries is not yet known.
Yes, of course. But the question is what is the probability that he will commit a sexual offence in the future. If the probability is significantly higher than that of an average person, he should be on the register. If that probability is not significantly different from that of an average person, he shouldn't.
That is what the register should be - a list of people who, given the best information we have, are at significant risk for committing a future sexual offence.
At the moment, per Doublethink and her sources, John-Jack will be assigned the actuarial risk of an average young male sex offender. I, and I think LeRoc, am suggesting that a more fine-grained look at the statistics might reveal him to have a rather smaller risk, and perhaps one not so terribly different from the average young man. As far as we know, nobody has determined the answer to this question.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
But if you're under 16 you can't give informed consent. I know we're not actually prosecuting under-sixteen hand-holders (or, in fact, considerably more than that). Is that actually the law?
In the US small children are often required to holds hands (when in day care or school and crossing the street, for example).
This has all gotten so ridiculous I kind-of hope there's a law that would turn almost all American children into sex offenders.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Paul.: All you know is John-Jack has crossed a boundary that society has deemed criminal.
Not John. His behaviour isn't deemed criminal, neither by me nor by the society I'm from.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And to punish Anne, the wife of older John for this, is outrageous.
A lot of child protection law is written not in terms of punishment but in terms of protection. Parents don't need to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of an offence and therefore liable to sentence for a judge to determine that it is on balance in the child's best interests to be taken from their parents, for instance.
We could discuss whether it is right or not, but it isn't being done as punishment.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And if Jack/John were under 16, the Jane should be on the register as well, she having indecently assaulted him.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Paul.: All you know is John-Jack has crossed a boundary that society has deemed criminal.
Not John. His behaviour isn't deemed criminal, neither by me nor by the society I'm from.
Yes John. In the country the law this thread is talking about.
And in your country we only have to tweak your definitions a bit to say the same about John. In fact he doesn't have to have to done anything different, someone else needs to react to it in a different way.
I take LC's point that we don't have the fine detail stats to predict where any individual will fall on the John-Jack spectrum.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mdijon: A lot of child protection law is written not in terms of punishment but in terms of protection.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Anne losing her job because of something John did long before she even met him is punishment. It will definitely feel like this to her. The fact that I don't even consider John's acts wrong makes it worse for me.
To me, it is a rather basic principle of law, human rights and common decency that you don't punish someone for something else did.
quote:
Paul.: Yes John. In the country the law this thread is talking about.
I know. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.
Suppose that in some far-away country a woman would be fired because her husband had gay sex when he was young (I don't want to go deeply into DH territory here, just an example). I would condemn this because of two reasons:- I don't think that having gay sex is intrinsically wrong.
- You don't punish someone for something someone else did.
Even if the majority of the people of that country agreed with this decision, I would still have a negative opinion of it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I take LC's point that we don't have the fine detail stats to predict where any individual will fall on the John-Jack spectrum.
It's not that, exactly - it's that we don't know whether a John actually has a higher risk of (further) sexual offending. Doublethink has made the plausible claim that the fact that he has had illegal sex already indicates a willingness to cross boundaries. I am suggesting that John, the 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend, might actually have future behaviour typical of a randy teen rather than a sex offender.
I think both possibilities are plausible, and I think that the interests of justice indicate that "we" should do the work to figure out the answer. This is, in principle, a knowable and measurable thing.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Anne losing her job because of something John did long before she even met him is punishment. It will definitely feel like this to her.
I'm sure she will feel like that but that doesn't mean that was the motivation. If I refuse to stop for a hitchhiker because I'm worried about the incidents of a hitchhiker robbing motorists the hitchhiker might perceive me as punishing them for the crimes of other hitchhikers. I'm not, I'm just trying to not get robbed. Their perception doesn't necessarily reflect my motivations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sure she will feel like that but that doesn't mean that was the motivation. [..] Their perception doesn't necessarily reflect my motivations.
"I meant well" is only a reasonable excuse if you shouldn't have, or couldn't have, known better.
Anne is undoubtedly getting punished because she's married to John, because of John's past history. The motivation for punishing Anne is the best - a desire to protect the children at her school, and nothing at all to do with punishing Anne for marrying someone with a conviction for a sexual offence, but the effect is still that Anne has no job.
So given that we are depriving Anne of her career, it is rather incumbent on us to check that it's necessary, which brings us back to the question of whether John does, actually, pose a significantly enhanced risk to children.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mdijon: I'm sure she will feel like that but that doesn't mean that was the motivation. If I refuse to stop for a hitchhiker because I'm worried about the incidents of a hitchhiker robbing motorists the hitchhiker might perceive me as punishing them for the crimes of other hitchhikers.
I don't see that motivation is relevant to whether it is a punishment or not. And not giving a ride to someone is quite a different moral beast than firing someone for something her husband did before she even met him.
quote:
Leorning Cniht: So given that we are depriving Anne of her career, it is rather incumbent on us to check that it's necessary, which brings us back to the question of whether John does, actually, pose a significantly enhanced risk to children.
Even if it does, firing Anne to protect children from something Jack might do is morally very dodgy. I'm becoming more and more disgusted by this law.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Even if it does, firing Anne to protect children from something Jack might do is morally very dodgy. I'm becoming more and more disgusted by this law.
You can lose (or not get in the first place) a security clearance because of who you share a home with. I don't see why this is terribly different.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Even if it does, firing Anne to protect children from something Jack might do is morally very dodgy. I'm becoming more and more disgusted by this law.
You can lose (or not get in the first place) a security clearance because of who you share a home with. I don't see why this is terribly different.
This applies to Mrs Tor. The only difference is that the rules weren't introduced during her employment, but have always been the case.
I have every sympathy with Anne. But having gone through the LEA safeguarding training (which, innocent soul that I am, scared the crap out of me), I can understand why MAPPA might be applied to Jack too.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Even if it does, firing Anne to protect children from something Jack might do is morally very dodgy. I'm becoming more and more disgusted by this law.
You can lose (or not get in the first place) a security clearance because of who you share a home with. I don't see why this is terribly different.
I don't think the issue is as simple as that. I think the issue is the reason why the clearance is required in the first place.
A security clearance has to do with information. You carry information home with you. Even if you never take a document home, there is information in your head.
A school teacher needs to be checked for their suitability to work with children, yes, but they don't take the children home with them.
That's pretty much where this conversation started. The odds of a child ever meeting the family members of their teacher are pretty small. We appear to have here a system that is aimed at addressing a 'threat' that is largely theoretical, possibly because of some evidence that it happened once.
The list of things that happened once includes some pretty odd and bizarre events.
I still don't think anything matches the Onion's commentary on our tendency to
legislate for events that have happened with no consideration of the likelihood of them happening.
The basic question is: how much are we prepared to disrupt the teaching profession for the sake of "ensuring" something won't happen again that wasn't that likely in the first place?
[ 27. January 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I take LC's point that we don't have the fine detail stats to predict where any individual will fall on the John-Jack spectrum.
It's not that, exactly - it's that we don't know whether a John actually has a higher risk of (further) sexual offending. Doublethink has made the plausible claim that the fact that he has had illegal sex already indicates a willingness to cross boundaries. I am suggesting that John, the 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend, might actually have future behaviour typical of a randy teen rather than a sex offender.
I think both possibilities are plausible, and I think that the interests of justice indicate that "we" should do the work to figure out the answer. This is, in principle, a knowable and measurable thing.
1) How many teen-agers actually know the age of consent in order to know they're violating the law? Back when I was a teen people were concerned (or, sadly, sometimes not concerned) with whether or not they had consent from the person. But I don't think anyone could have told you that the age of sexual consent was 16.
2) Assessing this person's risk of re-offending likely involves looking at all sorts of factors that don't make for simple studies. Given that the creepiness equation is n/2 + 7, are we talking about an 18 year old who just turned 18 and a 15 year old who is about to turn 16, or someone who is barely 15 with someone almost 19? Is it the type of relationship where they got to know each other in their classes and extracurriculars and really liked each other, or is he the creepy guy who already graduated who still hangs out in the parking lot because he can't cope with girls his own age? Etc.
In theory it's knowable and measurable, but...
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
How many teen-agers actually know the age of consent in order to know they're violating the law? Back when I was a teen people were concerned (or, sadly, sometimes not concerned) with whether or not they had consent from the person. But I don't think anyone could have told you that the age of sexual consent was 16.
Obviously experiences differ. The age of consent here is 16 and when I was a teenager most of the other teenagers I mixed with were well aware of that. There was an offence called "carnal knowledge" which was lesser than rape and would be the charge used if the girl gave consent as she was deemed not legally able to do. Some boys even referred to girls under 16 as "carnies".
Huia
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Fifty years ago here, everyone knew that the age of consent was 16. "Carnies" was not used here, but an under 16 girl who would hang around behaving suggestively and so forth, was called gaol bait and to be kept away from at all costs.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Perhaps my experience is unique to the US, as different states have different ages of consent, and on the East Coast they're squished together so closely that sometimes it's hard to know what state you're in.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I can't say I knew what the age of consent was. Maybe because it didn't come up as a practical issue at the time, but I also have doubts that even with my overly-analytical and cautious brain I would have thought "hang on, before we go any further, are we old enough?"
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
We all knew what the age on consent was, and it stopped us from having sex about as well as the legal drinking age stopped us from drinking.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Everyone "knew" it was 18, which was neither true,* nor much of a concern. Getting caught, no matter what the age, that was the concern.
*14
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"I meant well" is only a reasonable excuse if you shouldn't have, or couldn't have, known better.
That's not the point.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it could be demonstrated clearly from empiric data that Anne's employment as a teacher was a significant danger to children because of her partner.
Someone who takes the view that she needs to be prevented from teaching is placing protection of children above Anne's career prospects. That isn't a desire to punish Anne and doesn't need to be excused by "meaning well" Someone who thinks Anne ought to be found guilty first has a different philosophy on it.
Now we could argue about what the actual increase in risk is and whether the blunt instrument of assessing risk is accurate enough but it seems to me there's a fundamental philosophical difference behind those operational arguments which is nothing to do with punishment.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Does punishment only occur when there's a desire to punish?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Many definitions include "retribution" or "response to wrong-doing" which this isn't. Informal definitions include punishing football games. But I think these definitions are besides the point here since I don't think anyone is arguing Anne deserves punishment.
Those wanting Anne to lose her job have to recognize the unfair consequences on her, but they may be motivated by a desire to protect children that they consider more important.
They might be wrong about that, but the argument doesn't rest on whether it is fair or not to punish Anne - it's a given that it isn't. The question is whether that unfairness to Anne is more important than the risk to the child. The definition of punishment isn't going to help us there.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I was raising it because of your statement that no-one was desiring to punish Anne. As if that was relevant.
It's not a simple question, because some areas of law that have to look at competing rights consider just the practical effect, rather than the motivation - not intending the negative effect isn't an answer to whether the negative effect is too much to justify whatever it is you ARE intending. But then I think in some other areas motivation does become relevant.
We're really talking about policy decisions here rather than law, but I'm not really on board with any philosophy that says that means don't have to be examined very much so long as the ends being aimed for are good. I don't think the desire to protect children is any kind of answer, on its own, to the fact that Anne is being affected negatively - whether that's called "punishment" or not.
To me it really has to be a question of proportion. The benefit gained versus the side-effects. The answer has to be based on whether we are protecting children, not whether we want to.
And in the scenario we're discussing, the benefit really has to be questioned because there's not immediately obvious evidence of a problem that's actually being solved.
Many people in the early stages of this thread expressed support for the previous application of these rules to child care. I don't know all the ins and outs, and people haven't expanded on their reasons for that support, but I've assumed that at least one reason is because a fair bit of child care is home based (certainly, that was something I've been familiar with in Australia). There's an obvious reason why the history of another member of the household is relevant if children are located in the household. It remains puzzling that the policy makers seem to believe that the households of school teachers are in proximity to children. That's the only basis on which this new extension of the policy is rational, and that's the underlying assumption that needs to be tested.
A belief that one is doing good is nice, but it's perfectly possible to cause complete policy disasters while believing that one is doing good.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I would hope both sides of the argument believe they are doing good and that neither side regard that belief as a clinching argument.
I agree with you the argument is completely about proportionality. Some people have alluded to data but I haven't seen it.
My own test would be whether the risk appeared to be high or not. If there are significant reports of partners of teachers (or anything similar) using their contact with children to abuse them then I'm in support of the law. If there aren't such instances and no good reason to suppose there's a significant risk then I'm not.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"I meant well" is only a reasonable excuse if you shouldn't have, or couldn't have, known better.
That's not the point.
That's exactly the point. Well, my point, anyway.
quote:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it could be demonstrated clearly from empiric data that Anne's employment as a teacher was a significant danger to children because of her partner.
Then it would be right to prevent Anne from working with children, just like it would be right to not grant someone a security clearance because they were married to a citizen of a potentially unfriendly foreign power.
quote:
That isn't a desire to punish Anne and doesn't need to be excused by "meaning well"
The thing for which "I meant well" is completely inadequate as an excuse is causing harm to Anne (by firing her / preventing her from working as a teacher) in the name of child safety (which we agree is a well-meaning goal) without bothering to do the necessary work to determine whether Anne's employment does actually pose an increased risk.
If the analysis has been done, and there is a real increased risk to children in cases such as Anne's, then I would call preventing Anne from teaching reasonable. (From what he has said, LeRoc wouldn't agree.)
If the analysis has not been done, and your response is to prevent Anne from teaching as a temporary measure while you go away and do the analysis, then I might be able to suck it up.
If the analysis has not been done, and your response is to prevent Anne from teaching because "it's for the children" and "we've got to play it safe", perhaps with a side order of "well, she shouldn't stay married to a nonce - it's all her own fault" without having any intent of actually determining whether there's an increased risk, then that's completely unacceptable, and deserving of all the contempt I can muster.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
When I said it wasn't the point I of course I can't deny that it might in fact be your point but that's your point not responding to any point I made. Telling me that meaning well isn't an excuse isn't relevant because I'm not using that as an excuse.
Just like the rest of your post is in fact arguing against a thing that I'm not arguing as I think I made clear in the post I made ~6hrs before yours.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mdijon: Someone who takes the view that she needs to be prevented from teaching is placing protection of children above Anne's career prospects. That isn't a desire to punish Anne and doesn't need to be excused by "meaning well" Someone who thinks Anne ought to be found guilty first has a different philosophy on it.
Alright, let's analyse this a bit. Just to recap, Anne has done nothing wrong in this story. The only thing she did is marry John, who did something long before she even knew him.
Research shows that statistically we'll be able to prevent more child abuse if we bar people like Anne from teaching. So we fire her. This isn't a punishment, the law is written in terms of protection. We do this with the best intentions.
New research comes out, which shows that statistically we'll be able to prevent more child abuse if we don't allow Anne to come near a park where children play. So we restrain her movements, prohibiting her to move around in certain parts of the city. This isn't a punishment, the law is written in terms of protection. We do this with the best intentions.
More research comes out, which shows that statistically we'll be able to prevent more child abuse if Anne wears an electronic monitoring device, watching her moves. So we oblige her to wear one. This isn't a punishment, the law is written in terms of protection. We do this with the best intentions.
Still more research, and this shows that statistically we'll be able to prevent more child abuse if we put Anne in preventive custody during the school's holidays. This isn't a punishment, the law is written in terms of protection. We do this with the best intentions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Logical fallacy.
[ 29. January 2015, 00:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If the analysis has not been done, and your response is to prevent Anne from teaching because "it's for the children" and "we've got to play it safe", perhaps with a side order of "well, she shouldn't stay married to a nonce - it's all her own fault" without having any intent of actually determining whether there's an increased risk, then that's completely unacceptable, and deserving of all the contempt I can muster.
Are you willing to accept an increase in tax so that additional people may be hired and trained to accommodate this? And so that existing workers may be properly trained? And additional be hired that they may oversee these evaluators.
And then higher even more people to individually assess everyone for every other law. Because they all have an element of unfair.
Every law ever put into action will screw somebody who does not deserve it. I posit that it is impossible to write one that does not.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, there goes a large chunk of MY job...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
lilBuddha: Logical fallacy.
I'm thrilled to hear your explanation of the fallacy I've committed.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
If ludicrously improbable research findings emerge and are believed then ludicrously improbable actions will follow.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't think there's a logical fallacy involved, and I don't think it's correct to say that IF such research exists then its conclusions will follow.
The reason is that such an approach is only a benefit analysis, not a cost-benefit analysis. That's basically what LeRoc is pointing out, that if you only focus on the benefit, logically there is no limit to what you might do in pursuit of that benefit. It's the weighing up of costs that makes us decide that some benefits aren't worth pursuing.
[ 29. January 2015, 04:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes it would depend on the level of the benefit vs the level of the cost. I have to admit I still haven't seen any data on the quantified risk that Anne poses so the whole thing remains very speculative for me. All I would say is that *if* substantial risk is documented then substantial cost is justified. It has to be proportionate at every level.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: Logical fallacy.
I'm thrilled to hear your explanation of the fallacy I've committed.
What mdijon said. But I suppose you could also call it a variation of slippery-slope fallacy.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, there goes a large chunk of MY job...
If you've an example of a bullet-proof law, I'd be glad to read of it. As I see it, laws (at their best) are written for the greatest good or least harm.
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
Beyond the OP, ISTM it's worth also bearing in mind the views of John's past victim(s), with their family(ies) and friends, when they come to hear of his release.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you've an example of a bullet-proof law, I'd be glad to read of it. As I see it, laws (at their best) are written for the greatest good or least harm.
Shall we try section 15AD of the Acts Interpretation Act?
-----------------
15AD Examples
If an Act includes an example of the operation of a provision:
(a) the example is not exhaustive; and
(b) the example may extend the operation of the provision.
-----------------
The problem as I see it is that you're thinking of laws as big, important, sexy things that are always involved in deciding moral questions or picking between competing interests. They're not. A lot of laws are fairly boring machinery and process things that are just about keeping everything in order because that makes life simpler for everyone. In many cases, certainty is its own reward.
The decision whether a country drives on the left hand or right hand side of the road isn't any kind of moral judgement, it's just better to have a totally arbitrary rule that decides the question once, for everybody, rather than having each individual person ask themselves 'which bit of the road will I drive on this morning'?
[ 29. January 2015, 06:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mdijon: Yes it would depend on the level of the benefit vs the level of the cost. I have to admit I still haven't seen any data on the quantified risk that Anne poses so the whole thing remains very speculative for me. All I would say is that *if* substantial risk is documented then substantial cost is justified. It has to be proportionate at every level.
But this is a different argument than the one you've made before. Earlier you said something like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if we do it for good motives".
What I did in my post was to gradually increase the restrictions we put on poor, innocent Anne, while at the same time keeping our motivation constant. I suspect that if you're honest, you'll agree with me that putting her in jail during the Summer Holidays would be a punishment, even if our motivations are the same.
So, whether the restrictions we put on Anne constitute a punishment or not doesn't depend on our motivation. It depends on the degree. That's already a lot more shady.
Of course, you and lilBuddha have added another variable to the equation: the risk. You're saying you're making some kind of cost-risk analysis (in reality you're concentrating just on the risk side, but I'll let that go for the moment). You're talking about "substantial" vs "ludicrously improbable" risks.
Basically, what you're saying is: "If a certain behaviour from Anne (for example teaching) poses a susbstantal risk that a child will be abused then we are justified in restricting her from this behaviour. If her behaviour poses a ludicrously improbable risk, then we're not justified in restricting her." (You could add a 'cost' factor to this, but it wouldn't change the basis argument.)
Or, even shorter: "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if by doing so, we prevent a substantial risk of a child being abused (and if the restriction is proportional to that risk".
First of all, this is highly subjective, isn't it? Orfeo and others on this thread have already said that they consider the risk that a child will be abused if we allow Anne to teach to be ludicrously improbable. I agree with them. From your posts, I understand that you consider this risk to be substantial. So what is it? How are we going to decide?
We can turn to Science of course. This is what Leorning Cnight has suggested. We can do research and try to measure how big the risk is that a child will be abused if we allow people like Anne to teach. I don't believe that Science can give us a cast-in-stone answer to that, but suppose that it can. Suppose that Science tells us that if we allow people like Anne to teach, there is a probability p=2% that a child will be abused. Is this value ludicrously improbable? Or is it substantial? Science can't give us that answer.
There will always be a debate about this. Some people will find certain values of p ludicrously improbable, other people will find the same values of p substantial. How do we resolve this?
There is an obvious answer to this: Democracy. If there is going to be a debate about this, then let's have this debate. Through a long, democratic process in your country, you decide on which value of p is the dividing line between ludicrously imrpobable vs substantial in this case.
For argument's sake, let's assume that this process results in a value of p=1%. I'm simplifying things a bit here, but basically you've come up with the following rule: "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if by doing so we prevent a risk of p=1% of a child being abused."
There. No more subjective notions of 'ludicrously improbable' or 'substantial' anymore in this rule. Instead we have a nice, objective percentage. However, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, human beings are notoriously bad at assessing risks and making rational decisions based on them. The National Lottery wouldn't exist otherwise. We suck at this. If we're going to make our rule depend on democracy, then this is going to be a problem. (Delegating the task to a number of statistical specialists isn't a solution, because people will still react to them.)
When forming an opinion about this, the public at large won't make a rational risk assessment. Instead, they'll base their opinion on their pre-established positions. People who are in favour of protecting the children no matter what will find a certain value of p substantial, while people who are worried about not punishing the innocent will find the same value of p ludicrously low. This is already happening on this thread.
So, what we're doing here is that ultimately we base the punishment of an innocent person like Anne on people's political opinions. What we're saying is: "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if we've decided democratically, based on our political opinions, that it isn't." Can you already see the danger in that?
But there's another problem. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but there is a game we sometimes play at parties (admittedly, I go to weird parties).
You ask the participants to stand closely together in a circle. Everyone sticks out their hand with their index finger pointing towards the middle of the circle, more or less at the same height. You put a cardboard plate on top of the collected index fingers and you say "Your task is to balance the plate on your fingers. But whatever you do, you're not allowed to allow the plate to descend. If it goes down, you've all lost."
What happens after you say "Go?" The cardboard plate goes up. Rather quickly in fact. This is a weird experience for the participants who play it for the first time. No-one made a conscious decision to make the plate go up. In fact, they're actively trying to prevent it. Yet it does.
This is of course because there is a mechanism to prevent the plate from going down, while there is no mechanism to prevent it from going up. Thus, it will go up.
The same (or rather the opposite) will happen here. Whatever value we establish for p as the dividing line between 'ludicrously improbable' and 'substantial', this value will go down over time.
Once again, suppose that we've established the rule "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if by doing so we prevent a risk of p=1% of a child being abused." We've already assumed that her teaching poses a risk of p=2%. This is higher than 1%, so we restrict her from teaching. This is not a punishment.
Compare Anne and Beth. Anne is engaged in an innocent behaviour A (teaching) that poses a risk of 2%. This is higher than 1%, so we restrict her. Beth is engaged in innocent behaviour B (whatever) that poses a risk of 0.8%. This is lower than 1%, so we don't restrict her. Easy, isn't it?
Now, in this country there is a third person, Charlotte. She engages in the same behaviour as Beth. Yet, the improbable happens: a child is abused. This cases receives a lot of attention from the media, the public is outraged.
So, what do they do? They lower the value of p. The rule becomes "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if by doing so we prevent a risk of p=0.7% of a child being abused." There, behaviour B is covered. Until behaviour C comes up ...
It's just like the cardboard plate that only moves in one direction: the value of p goes down and down, even if we don't consciously want it to. What people found 'ludicrously improbable' before, now they find 'substantial'. In fact, when faced with this discrepancy, they'll say that they've always found that behaviour B posed a substantial risk. This is how the human mind works.
Do you see the danger of this? There are certain rules in Law-based society that are rather basic. One of them is "you don't deliberately punish the innocent". This rule is quite important, I don't have to point out the dangers of abandoning this rule. There are examples abound of what happens if we do that.
Of course, no law is bullet-proof. No matter how hard we try, police, lawyers, jury (we don't have thos in my country, thank God) ... they're human and fallible, and sometimes an innocent person will be punished. We'll never be able to make the system 100% foolproof. I accept that.
But that's different from what we're doing here. In Anne's case, we are deliberately punishing an innocent person (once again, punishment is just a matter of degree). We know that she's innocent. She didn't have sex with a minor, her husband John did, long before she even met him. Yet, we punish her.
The door towards punishing the innocent has been opened a little bit. It depends on our motivation, no it depends on the risk, no it depends on our political opinions ... Maybe it is a small gap at which we've opened this door, but this gap won't stay small. Like the cardboard plate, the door will continue to move in one direction: it will open wider.
And that is extremely dangerous.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But this is a different argument than the one you've made before. Earlier you said something like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Putting restrictions on Anne isn't a punishment if we do it for good motives".
I think the issue isn't "good" motives or not, the point is that punishment is usually retribution for something. This isn't retribution.
But to avoid getting bogged down in semantics, I'm sure we can agree that it's a bad outcome for Anne and that I would accept it is, from her point of view, unjust.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The door towards punishing the innocent has been opened a little bit.... it will open wider.
First I think this is definitely a slippery slope argument. I think the chain of events you describe is not inexorable.
Second the door is already open a little. Consider the situation where a child is admitted to hospital with injuries suggesting child abuse and parents who give no reasonable account of how the child way injured. Child protection law says that the child can be taken away from the parents despite not meeting the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The parents, in criminal law, may well be "not guilty" but they lose their child.
This must risk punishing the innocent in a way that we do not usually allow. The reason being that the child's well-being is more important than that legal standard.
This situation does not seem to have led inexorably to further erosion of the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" in other parts of the law.
Hence I don't accept the slippery slope argument in this instance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem as I see it is that you're thinking of laws as big, important, sexy things that are always involved in deciding moral questions or picking between competing interests. They're not.
You are correct. I saw a massive disregard of how the system works and promptly went into hyperbolic overdrive.
But, regarding laws such as child protection, I think the point stands. I do not think it is possible to completely protect* children and completely avoid all innocent adults from harm as well. Even the most perfect expression of such a law would have result so.
And there is the practical aspects of enforcement.
Even were 100% effectiveness possible, we have proven that we are not willing to pay for this and we are not willing to surrender the freedom necessary for this.
*For certain values of protect.
[ 29. January 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mdijon: I think the issue isn't "good" motives or not, the point is that punishment is usually retribution for something. This isn't retribution.
I can make the same argument. In the hypothetical case, we wouldn't put Anne in jail during the Summer Holidays out of retribution. Yet, you'll agree with me that it is a punishment.
quote:
mdijon: But to avoid getting bogged down in semantics, I'm sure we can agree that it's a bad outcome for Anne and that I would accept it is, from her point of view, unjust.
Exactly. It's a punishment.
quote:
mdijon: First I think this is definitely a slippery slope argument.
Of course it is. Before I expand more about this, let me just recall that this isn't the only argument I made in my long post. I talked about how subjective the difference between 'ridiculously implausible' and 'substantial' is, about how Science can't give the answer to this, how our personal answer to this depends on our pre-established positions ...
All of these arguments are sufficient to show that we shouldn't punish Anne. But you chose to ignore them.
In fact, I don't even need the slippery slope argument. But let's address that. I'll direct you to the Wikipedia article about this argument. Interestingly, there is a big discussion going on abouth whether this argument is a logical fallacy at all. Just look at the talk page connected to that article. And the argument of the people in favour comes down to "it is a logical fallacy because it is". Hmm ...
You can see this ambiguity in how they formulated the introduction to the article: "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect."
In my previous, long post I have demonstrated such a process. In fact, I spent several paragraphs doing so: the distinction between 'ridiculously implausible' and 'substantial' is only meaningful if society determines a dividing line between the two. I have demonstrated a mechanism by which this dividing line will move, whereby more and more risks will be considered 'substantial'.
You said in your post you said you don't think the chain of events I described is inexorable. I'm sorry, but that's too weak.
There are certain rules in our society that are rather basic. "We shall not discriminate" is one. "We shall not punish innocent people" is another one. There's a reason why these rules are usually enshrined in the Constitution. We shouldn't let go of these rules because we don't think a certain chain of events is inexorable.
The argument is like this:
A: We need to weaken Basic Rule X a bit, not as retribution but as prevention.
B: If we weaken Basic Rule X a bit, Chain Of Events Y will occur, which will weaken Basic Rule X even more.
A: I don't believe that Chain Of Events Y is inexorable.
That doesn't cut it. There will always be difference of opinion on whether a certain chain of events is inexorable or not. We can't let our Basic Rules depend on discussions like that. I can easy set up discussions like this to erode all of the Basic rules. But the Basic Rules are there for a reason. They need to be protected, because it is dangerous not to.
quote:
mdijon: Second the door is already open a little. Consider the situation where a child is admitted to hospital with injuries suggesting child abuse and parents who give no reasonable account of how the child way injured. Child protection law says that the child can be taken away from the parents despite not meeting the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The parents, in criminal law, may well be "not guilty" but they lose their child.
It's a different door. In this case, the parents are suspects. Anne isn't even a suspect, she is innocent.
Yes, in our society sometimes we punish suspects, even if they may turn out to be innocent. We hold a suspect of shoplifting in a police cell, before his case is judged. But in this case we are obliged to hold him as short as possible (so we have to judge him quickly). And if he turns out to be innocent, in some cases we have to compensate him.
Again, Anne isn't a suspect at all. Yet her punishment is the opposite of being as short as possible. It lasts her whole career. And she isn't compensated at all.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'm focusing on one argument at a time. It seemed to me life was going to get a bit turgid if we go at all of them simultaneously.
You say the door will inexorably get opened further, I say it won't. I don't think you can say that you demonstrated the door will open further, you simply painted a picture of scenario that might have occurred. It would be interesting to see if there are any similar examples which match that sequence of events.
I thought that the child protection burden-of-proof law was a reasonable parallel. I agree its a different door and one could make an argument that child protection burden-of-proof is more acceptable than the Anne scenario, but it does seem to me that the slippery slope argument you make for Anne ought to apply to the burden-of-proof scenario as well.
And actually to some extent my reading makes me think it might have - in that there have been different views about the threshold of evidence required and a lot of ink spilled on the issue, and in some periods the threshold of proof does seem to have drifted down. However it seems to me that the drift has been corrected at times and even gone back up again. So although parallel forces to those you describe in the Anne scenario seem to have acted it isn't true that the opening has been inexorable or all one-way.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Restricting someone's choice of employment isn't a punishment. There are lots of reasons why we don't let certain people do certain jobs. And some of them relate to their spouse's life, not their own. It is, as mdijon says, all a question of whether the risk justifies the restriction. If it does, then, tough.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There are lots of reasons why we don't let certain people do certain jobs.
Are there?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There are lots of reasons why we don't let certain people do certain jobs.
Are there?
Yes. I'm an auditor. If my husband wants to invest (or keep investments, including pension, if he already has them when we take on new work) in one of my audit clients, I'll either have to change jobs or change husbands. There are restriction on where he can work. These are punishments for me, they're just the way it is.
People with certain medical conditions aren't going to be driving or flying for a living.
Criminal records can affect ability to work in government, health care, the police etc.
Having a politician for a spouse affects who you can work for.
Not punishment - just risk management.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes - earlier I was going to bring up people with diabetes who aren't allowed to be heavy goods vehicle drivers, or people with epilepsy who aren't allowed to drive.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes - earlier I was going to bring up people with diabetes who aren't allowed to be heavy goods vehicle drivers, or people with epilepsy who aren't allowed to drive.
In which case I will happily bring up the example of a diabetic who fought, and won, the right to be an ambulance driver because he demonstrated that people's blanket assumptions about his inability as a diabetic to perform the functions of the job were wrong.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes - earlier I was going to bring up people with diabetes who aren't allowed to be heavy goods vehicle drivers, or people with epilepsy who aren't allowed to drive.
With improved anti-convulsants more people with epilepsy can now drive (in the UK at any rate) and specifically the disqualification period after tonic-clonic episodes (Grand mal, as was) is down to one year from three. Precious little chance of getting an HGV, still less a commercial pilots licence, and it's a bugger getting motor insurance: that hasn't moved along.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes - earlier I was going to bring up people with diabetes who aren't allowed to be heavy goods vehicle drivers, or people with epilepsy who aren't allowed to drive.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case I will happily bring up the example of a diabetic who fought, and won, the right to be an ambulance driver because he demonstrated that people's blanket assumptions about his inability as a diabetic to perform the functions of the job were wrong.
So what? The rules are almost certainly wrong in some instances, but I think the rule about no driving for a certain period of time after a seizure and no driving for a certain period of time after a heart attack is sensible.
Some diabetics can perfectly safely drive and have almost no risk of going hypo, but anyone at high risk of a hypo really shouldn't be doing something high risk. The question is how carefully one defines the risk - all diabetics, diabetics on insulin, diabetics on insulin with a history of hypos or something even more sophisticated.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0