|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+xInteresting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396 This is interesting, but in some ways it just mirrors the UK's disagreement with the ECtHR about mandatory lifelong registration. The difference is that their Supreme Court has directed the government to end mandatory registration, and the lifetime aspect has been ended immediately. They may well end up with the 15-year minimum, just as we did. The only difference is in the range of offences that will result in registration, as over here there is a long list in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Despite the obvious links and similarities between our two countries' judicial systems, and the commonsense approach to registration that is about to happen there (hopefully), I would be amazed if this ruling in Canada gained any traction and caused any change over here. Canada already has a 20 year minimum period for those with lifetime registration, before they can apply to be removed. The Supreme Court wants to go back to the position before 2011, when the sentencing judge had a choice whether to put someone on the register at all. That was taken away, because it was felt by the politicians, that not enough SO were being put on the register. So the numbers were low and the politicians probably thought they could get away with increasing the numbers, without it impacting on police resources. In the UK, the numbers are already high, at around 70k and growing every year, while police are struggling to cope with monitoring them all. Hence the introduction of reactive policing, when numbers passed 50k for the first time. With police budgets now facing massive cuts, in the next financial statement, there will be pressure to get the numbers down to a manageable level and making the SOR discretionary, for those SO with the highest risk only, would be one way to do that. Of course there will be objections from the tabloids etc, but Canada has set a precedent that UK politicians can now refer to and say; Canada did this and they are doing just fine. In the end, the cost of continuing with the status quo, will determine what actually happens, not public opinion. Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that. Hi I hope you are correct however "Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that." is not a statement to pin our hopes on due to the affect / persuasiveness our "media"; especially when supported by " politicians" who want to be seen as "hard on criminals" as a support their own ambitions. Not just hard on criminals, but hard on a particular category of criminals. I would also expect the "look at Canada" argument not to be made for at least seven to ten years, as they will definitely need hard evidence to get it approved by the tabloid editors. After all, Canada legalised cannabis a few years ago, but I don't hear any politicians talking about how much money could be saved if they stopped policing the possession and supply of cannabis, or even the revenue they could get from taxing it. Of course, by the time they have evidence from Canada, the economic situation ought to be much better here, so the cost aspect wouldn't be as important. fully agree
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+xInteresting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396 This is interesting, but in some ways it just mirrors the UK's disagreement with the ECtHR about mandatory lifelong registration. The difference is that their Supreme Court has directed the government to end mandatory registration, and the lifetime aspect has been ended immediately. They may well end up with the 15-year minimum, just as we did. The only difference is in the range of offences that will result in registration, as over here there is a long list in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Despite the obvious links and similarities between our two countries' judicial systems, and the commonsense approach to registration that is about to happen there (hopefully), I would be amazed if this ruling in Canada gained any traction and caused any change over here. Canada already has a 20 year minimum period for those with lifetime registration, before they can apply to be removed. The Supreme Court wants to go back to the position before 2011, when the sentencing judge had a choice whether to put someone on the register at all. That was taken away, because it was felt by the politicians, that not enough SO were being put on the register. So the numbers were low and the politicians probably thought they could get away with increasing the numbers, without it impacting on police resources. In the UK, the numbers are already high, at around 70k and growing every year, while police are struggling to cope with monitoring them all. Hence the introduction of reactive policing, when numbers passed 50k for the first time. With police budgets now facing massive cuts, in the next financial statement, there will be pressure to get the numbers down to a manageable level and making the SOR discretionary, for those SO with the highest risk only, would be one way to do that. Of course there will be objections from the tabloids etc, but Canada has set a precedent that UK politicians can now refer to and say; Canada did this and they are doing just fine. In the end, the cost of continuing with the status quo, will determine what actually happens, not public opinion. Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that. Hi I hope you are correct however "Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that." is not a statement to pin our hopes on due to the affect / persuasiveness our "media"; especially when supported by " politicians" who want to be seen as "hard on criminals" as a support their own ambitions. Not just hard on criminals, but hard on a particular category of criminals. I would also expect the "look at Canada" argument not to be made for at least seven to ten years, as they will definitely need hard evidence to get it approved by the tabloid editors. After all, Canada legalised cannabis a few years ago, but I don't hear any politicians talking about how much money could be saved if they stopped policing the possession and supply of cannabis, or even the revenue they could get from taxing it. Of course, by the time they have evidence from Canada, the economic situation ought to be much better here, so the cost aspect wouldn't be as important.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+xInteresting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396 This is interesting, but in some ways it just mirrors the UK's disagreement with the ECtHR about mandatory lifelong registration. The difference is that their Supreme Court has directed the government to end mandatory registration, and the lifetime aspect has been ended immediately. They may well end up with the 15-year minimum, just as we did. The only difference is in the range of offences that will result in registration, as over here there is a long list in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Despite the obvious links and similarities between our two countries' judicial systems, and the commonsense approach to registration that is about to happen there (hopefully), I would be amazed if this ruling in Canada gained any traction and caused any change over here. Canada already has a 20 year minimum period for those with lifetime registration, before they can apply to be removed. The Supreme Court wants to go back to the position before 2011, when the sentencing judge had a choice whether to put someone on the register at all. That was taken away, because it was felt by the politicians, that not enough SO were being put on the register. So the numbers were low and the politicians probably thought they could get away with increasing the numbers, without it impacting on police resources. In the UK, the numbers are already high, at around 70k and growing every year, while police are struggling to cope with monitoring them all. Hence the introduction of reactive policing, when numbers passed 50k for the first time. With police budgets now facing massive cuts, in the next financial statement, there will be pressure to get the numbers down to a manageable level and making the SOR discretionary, for those SO with the highest risk only, would be one way to do that. Of course there will be objections from the tabloids etc, but Canada has set a precedent that UK politicians can now refer to and say; Canada did this and they are doing just fine. In the end, the cost of continuing with the status quo, will determine what actually happens, not public opinion. Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that. Hi I hope you are correct however "Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that." is not a statement to pin our hopes on due to the affect / persuasiveness our "media"; especially when supported by " politicians" who want to be seen as "hard on criminals" as a support their own ambitions.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xInteresting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396 This is interesting, but in some ways it just mirrors the UK's disagreement with the ECtHR about mandatory lifelong registration. The difference is that their Supreme Court has directed the government to end mandatory registration, and the lifetime aspect has been ended immediately. They may well end up with the 15-year minimum, just as we did. The only difference is in the range of offences that will result in registration, as over here there is a long list in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Despite the obvious links and similarities between our two countries' judicial systems, and the commonsense approach to registration that is about to happen there (hopefully), I would be amazed if this ruling in Canada gained any traction and caused any change over here. Canada already has a 20 year minimum period for those with lifetime registration, before they can apply to be removed. The Supreme Court wants to go back to the position before 2011, when the sentencing judge had a choice whether to put someone on the register at all. That was taken away, because it was felt by the politicians, that not enough SO were being put on the register. So the numbers were low and the politicians probably thought they could get away with increasing the numbers, without it impacting on police resources. In the UK, the numbers are already high, at around 70k and growing every year, while police are struggling to cope with monitoring them all. Hence the introduction of reactive policing, when numbers passed 50k for the first time. With police budgets now facing massive cuts, in the next financial statement, there will be pressure to get the numbers down to a manageable level and making the SOR discretionary, for those SO with the highest risk only, would be one way to do that. Of course there will be objections from the tabloids etc, but Canada has set a precedent that UK politicians can now refer to and say; Canada did this and they are doing just fine. In the end, the cost of continuing with the status quo, will determine what actually happens, not public opinion. Right now the politicians are keen to save money and this would be one way to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+xInteresting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396 This is interesting, but in some ways it just mirrors the UK's disagreement with the ECtHR about mandatory lifelong registration. The difference is that their Supreme Court has directed the government to end mandatory registration, and the lifetime aspect has been ended immediately. They may well end up with the 15-year minimum, just as we did. The only difference is in the range of offences that will result in registration, as over here there is a long list in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Despite the obvious links and similarities between our two countries' judicial systems, and the commonsense approach to registration that is about to happen there (hopefully), I would be amazed if this ruling in Canada gained any traction and caused any change over here.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
Interesting decision in the Canadian system, which is the same as ours, because judges here have no discretion, about whether to put someone on the SOR or not. "(The registry)is nearly 20 years old," the court wrote. "Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences." Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe. Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver's licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time. There's the stigma it brings, as well as some evidence that simply being listed increases the chance of reoffending. "The impact of a (registry) order on an offender's liberty can only fairly be described as serious," the court wrote. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-court-has-struck-down-parts-of-sex-offender-registry-1.6129396
|
|
|
|