Map of masses of on the run convicted paedo's

[kenny g]

I don't think they need to be monitored so closely that they can't enter a tunnel! Just a tag that makes it hard for them to disappear and easy to locate is fine.

The fact that it would also make it harder for them to reoffend is a bonus, but Circles type stuff is a much more sensible approach to rehabilitation.

Interesting. Found this as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm

Combined with tagging looks like a good approach.

 

[8115]

Is this the thread where people too scared to take on sihhi on the serious thread can spout off?

What? There's some kind of thread hierarchy now?

I'm not getting involved here either though as I've mentioned before, the whole thing upsets me.

 

[8115]

Jesus. Those are pretty restrictive conditions for someone who has not been convicted, nor charged, with a crime. Is he that dangerous?

Probably is by now.

 

[ymu]

Jesus. Those are pretty restrictive conditions for someone who has not been convicted, nor charged, with a crime. Is he that dangerous?

He's an anti-Zionist, a Palestinian, and a Muslim! It doesn't get more dangerous that that.

 

[mrs quoad]

It is interesting that so few people have come out with actual solutions.

The use of GPS tracking is very tempting. If they don't work in tunnels then it should be a condition of release that the paedo does not enter a tunnel, or for that matter a Faraday cage.

It would be interesting if playgrounds, schools and places young people gather had devices that caused paedo's tags to emit alert messages to control if they were in the vicinity. Paedo's would then be in the position of having to pro-actively second guess unsuitable places (as they probably do currently but for negative reasons) and avoid them . It would be an added nudge in behaviour modification.

And every time they unintentionally failed to second guess, what happens? A full police response unit? Revocation of license? What if their ankle is in the footwell of a car? Or in the middle of a house? Full police response unit?

How'd you work the batteries? Charge them with recharging their own as a license condition? Send someone round every 2-3 days?

The difficulties I see are that you say that you recognise that risk elimination is impossible, yet that's what you seem to want. There are, IMO, additional risks in aiming for risk elimination. Not least that its likely to involve exponential increases in resources for increasingly incremental gains. And in a context of finite resources, that means fewer resources dedicated to "low" and "medium" risk offenders. I've got the stats upstairs somewhere, but off the top of my head I think it's 80% of serious violent & sexual reoffending that is committed by people who aren't considered "high risk." Every bit of resourcing that's channeled into addressing the "highest risk" group who're responsible for the other 20% of serious recidivism is resourcing that is no longer being allocated to monitoring or managing other people, and other risk groups.

Risk elimination makes most sense in a context that presumes no context, few resource limitations, and no adverse consequences. There are probably ways of improving things, including monitoring - which would be awesome. But those kinda need to be real-world solutions that are likely to offer more positives / advantages / reductions in reoffending than the current situation. And which can take account of real-world behaviour, and what might be needed to respond to all the hundreds or thousands of potentially insignificant / harmless infractions that increasingly sensitive systems might create.

 

[seventh bullet]

THAY MUST CUT THER COKS OFF MADDY IN AR HARTZ 4 EVA!

That was really funny.

 

[8115]

And every time they unintentionally failed to second guess, what happens?

White Bear Justice park.

 

[8115]

I'm being ironical.

 

[kenny g]

And every time they unintentionally failed to second guess, what happens? A full police response unit? Revocation of license? What if their ankle is in the footwell of a car? Or in the middle of a house? Full police response unit?

How'd you work the batteries? Charge them with recharging their own as a license condition? Send someone round every 2-3 days?

The difficulties I see are that you say that you recognise that risk elimination is impossible, yet that's what you seem to want. There are, IMO, additional risks in aiming for risk elimination. Not least that its likely to involve exponential increases in resources for increasingly incremental gains. And in a context of finite resources, that means fewer resources dedicated to "low" and "medium" risk offenders. I've got the stats upstairs somewhere, but off the top of my head I think it's 80% of serious violent & sexual reoffending that is committed by people who aren't considered "high risk." Every bit of resourcing that's channeled into addressing the "highest risk" group who're responsible for the other 20% of serious recidivism is resourcing that is no longer being allocated to monitoring or managing other people, and other risk groups.

Risk elimination makes most sense in a context that presumes no context, few resource limitations, and no adverse consequences. There are probably ways of improving things, including monitoring - which would be awesome. But those kinda need to be real-world solutions that are likely to offer more positives / advantages / reductions in reoffending than the current situation. And which can take account of real-world behaviour, and what might be needed to respond to all the hundreds or thousands of potentially insignificant / harmless infractions that increasingly sensitive systems might create.

As already agreed there is always risk. However risk can be managed and use of GPS tags with localised electronically zoned non-paedo areas of specific greater risk (i.e. playgrounds) would assist with managing that risk. Reactions to paedo's hanging out in children's playgrounds would have to be proportionate and yes, could include removal of license (as occurs now), or perhaps greater use of local "circles" with members of the community as referred to in the BBC article.

 

[kenny g]

That was really funny.

I hope you are being ironical.

 

[ymu]

I'm being ironical.

I'm liking ironically.

 

[seventh bullet]

I hope you are being ironical.

Of course.

 

[mrs quoad]

As already agreed there is always risk. However risk can be managed and use of GPS tags with localised electronically zoned non-paedo areas of specific greater risk (i.e. playgrounds) would assist with managing that risk. Reactions to paedo's hanging out in children's playgrounds would have to be proportionate and yes, could include removal of license (as occurs now), or perhaps greater use of local "circles" with members of the community as referred to in the BBC article.

Any idea what impact that would have on current offending / real world risks? Are playgrounds an active risk area for the 137 missing paedophiles? Any idea what % of those missing sex offenders are believed to present a risk?

I guess I'm wondering to what extent these are realistic risk management measures that might make a real world impact on offending (and preventing victims), and to what extent they're instinctive responses that might have little or no impact on real-world risk management.

If a proportion of those 137, for example, were considered very low risk, had a record that involved close relation / family offending only (and were believed to present 0 risk of stranger danger), were on (say) monthly check-in or monitoring, and lost their housing; and knew that might mean recall to prison, so went AWOL instead... Then that might be a very different situation to the one I guess you're responding to.

I genuinely don't know what the characteristics, profiles And assessed risks of these missing offenders are. But sensible and effective risk management responses would depend on exactly that - understanding the nature and contexts of the risks involved.

 

[mrs quoad]

And, yeah, the mentoring / monitoring looks very sensible. Real human relationships tend to be some of the most effective and underrated risk management measures in existence!

 

[ymu]

As already agreed there is always risk. However risk can be managed and use of GPS tags with localised electronically zoned non-paedo areas of specific greater risk (i.e. playgrounds) would assist with managing that risk. Reactions to paedo's hanging out in children's playgrounds would have to be proportionate and yes, could include removal of license (as occurs now), or perhaps greater use of local "circles" with members of the community as referred to in the BBC article.

It would be a pretty useful tool for probation officers and those responsible for risk management (checking out any common haunts etc). And relatively passive monitoring on a large scale would be massively cheaper than a hugely paranoid intensive surveillance of one man. It's not like we don't already invest a lot of time in monitoring released peadophiles already. Might as well use the most secure and least labour intensive method of monitoring and invest as much time into actively supporting them as possible.

 

[mrs quoad]

It would be a pretty useful tool for probation officers and those responsible for risk management (checking out any common haunts etc). And relatively passive monitoring on a large scale would be massively cheaper than a hugely paranoid intensive surveillance of one man. It's not like we don't already invest a lot of time in monitoring released peadophiles already. Might as well use the most secure and least labour intensive method of monitoring and invest as much time into actively supporting them as possible.

The intensity of monitoring would vary very greatly, depending on assessed risk.

People on the lowest level of MAPPA risk management ATM might be seen less than monthly, by a copper / probation officer knocking on to see if they're around. If a MAPPP is resource strapped and stressed, the gap between face to face checks on low risk offenders may be eked out even longer.

Is everyone on the sex offenders register even on MAPPA? I'm not sure, tbh. Does everyone on the sex offenders register have a probation officer? An indefinite registration requirement = a probation officer forever? I'd be amazed if that involved weekly contact for many people - not without a pdq revocation of license

E2a: at the other end of the spectrum, I've known people on 2-hourly MAPPA check-ins!

 

[ymu]

No, not forever. There are periods of probation and a further period on the sex offenders register, with both periods defined by the length of the prison sentence served.

Any idea what impact that would have on current offending / real world risks? Are playgrounds an active risk area for the 137 missing paedophiles? Any idea what % of those missing sex offenders are believed to present a risk?

I guess I'm wondering to what extent these are realistic risk management measures that might make a real world impact on offending (and preventing victims), and to what extent they're instinctive responses that might have little or no impact on real-world risk management.

If a proportion of those 137, for example, were considered very low risk, had a record that involved close relation / family offending only (and were believed to present 0 risk of stranger danger), were on (say) monthly check-in or monitoring, and lost their housing; and knew that might mean recall to prison, so went AWOL instead... Then that might be a very different situation to the one I guess you're responding to.

I genuinely don't know what the characteristics, profiles And assessed risks of these missing offenders are. But sensible and effective risk management responses would depend on exactly that - understanding the nature and contexts of the risks involved.

They can develop new relationships, have new children, adopt their partners children, get close to their partner's grandchildren.

It is never going to be a negligible risk for those who are no longer in contact with probation, especially when disappearing will make it easy to form those new family relationships with no opportunity for social services to warn the families they are joining.

Those that disappear are likely to be the most dangerous because there is no reason to disappear (and be penalised for it if re-found) unless they intend to reoffend. There's no need for some huge panic but neither is there reason to trivialise the risk that they might pose.

 

[mrs quoad]

^^^ yes, but that highlights my point - playgrounds are a context-specific risk.


E2a: And there are many potential reasons to disappear other than wanting to reoffend. Not least, for example, fear of being reimprosoned bc someone loses their housing (and if homeless would be unable to comply with registration requirements).