Since 2012 at least 170 rapists and 157 child abusers were told they no longer had to register with the police. They include people convicted of raping boys and girls, incest, and taking indecent images of children. …
Theresa May brought in these new rules through gritted teeth after the Supreme Court declared that, with no right of review, requiring sex offenders to register their address with police and inform them of travel plans was disproportionate and incompatible with the right to privacy. Full Article
Related
Half of Registered Sex Offenders Dropped From List to Protect Their Human Rights
never in America or maybe the beginning march 30:
” Theresa May brought in these new rules through gritted teeth after the Supreme Court declared that, with no right of review, requiring sex offenders to register their address with police and inform them of travel plans was disproportionate and incompatible with the right to privacy.
In 2012, when the rules came into force, the Home Office said police had to conduct a “robust review” and be “satisfied that it is not necessary, for the purpose of protecting the public from the risk of sexual harm”, for a sex offender to continue to register.”
Ya 347out of something like 47000. It a great strt and hopefully this rolls over to the us at some point soon.
Obviously, most individuals believe the registry is almost as good as a harsh prison sentence.
That’s what we need here.. an opportunity for review. The UK allows the police departments to handle it. Here I think we should at least be allowed a court hearing. Lifetime registration without review is a human rights violation. Applying the “not punishment” scheme retroactively is an even worse violation.
Seems like they have more due process and consideration for human rights violation in the UK then in the U.S.
One can only hope that this would roll over to the U.S. It will happen here. It has to at some point. Nothing is forever.
Let’s be clear: Although the registry in itself should be a violation, for all intents and purposes, the registry was PRIVATE. Only the police and, in some cases, pertinent personnel knew of the existence of these registrants. The public, by and large, were not notified nor had access to the registry information. This information was not available to citizens, even potential employers, unless the business was on the list was child-centric.
Having said that, a more valid comparison to the US can be made with regard to international travel. Individuals on the UK registry have to file itineraries (if they are allowed to travel), and in fact are banned from entering the US (just like Europe bans US registrants). So this ruling greatly affects those individuals, granted. But the difference between the day-to-day life of UK registrants vers US registrants are different as night and day.
David H wrote “I think if left to the police departments–they are in the best position to know who the bad g….”
Not if you’re in Dyfas-Powys in England where zero requests to get off the registry were granted or places like that. It looks like England is about 15 years behind the US following in our footsteps. If we box ourselves into using England as the standard to emulate than we’re just using our own shadow to justify the US’ registration ex-post facto add-on laws. And just asking for the US to use UK’s laws and principles as a standard doesn’t achieve that goal. The US has just gone nuts and is fighting, as Anonymous Nobody said, tooth and nail to defend any new laws. These offensive and disgusting unconstitutional laws are spilling over to proposed persecutions of ethnic groups now, as predicted looking at how Hitler started his carnage of killings with persecution of sexual deviants. I just read this week of 2 US states proposing registries for muslim immigrants. Ted Cruz, just today, said there should be police securing of muslim neighborhoods in the US, whatever that means. It does not sound very respectful of civil liberties. Let’s look to countries without registries as models of what we should aspire to.