Clare's law

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:16

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14181959

The father of murder victim Clare Wood, who was killed by her former partner, is backing a proposal for police to disclose offenders' details.

The Victims' Commissioner Louise Casey is mounting a campaign called Clare's law to allow people to find out whether new partners have a violent past.

More knee jerk reaction rubbish and is why victims should not get involved in the law.

Hopefully the coalition will do the right thing and laugh at this proposal.

So what do you all think?

Also he kidnapped at knifepoint, why aren't these stupid people campaigning for proper sentences, rather than a silly law.

Rich_L · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:19

Why is it a bad thing for someone to be able to check their partner isn't a violent offender? I can foresee difficulty though with how the person checking proves that they are a 'partner' rather than a random member of public.

This is a world away from the lolPaedogeddon nonsense to allow things like checking up on anyone in a 10 mile radius or any member of the public.

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:21

Because they have paid there due, data should not be available to the public. Do you want it so anyone can get access to all crimes?
Why is this any different to bur glares, assault or any other crime.

I strongly believe that the public has no right to such information.

Rich_L · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:26

Apart from the massive straw man there, allowing an individual to check whether their prospective partner has a past of beating the crap out of their partners, seems eminently sensible. As far

It's basically Sarah's law, which is currently in place, but for violent offenders. Although weirdly, reading a bit more about that, it seems that if a parent enquires then other 'worrying' behaviour such as convictions of domestic violence is disclosed already. :confused:

Yes, as with any argument you can extrapolate it to the nonsensical but that doesn't automatically preclude making information available under strict circumstances and strict controls.

*edit*

In fact in hindsight having read a bit more I think this Clare's Law is a step too far, specifically it seems to be seeking to put a positive duty on the police to inform people they deem 'at risk' of the offender's past. I think the current 'Sarah's law' which was rolled out nationwide last year strikes a reasonable balance and should at least be maintained for a while to gather evidence on how it is working before any further changes are made.

deuse · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:27

I think it's a brilliant idea in fact I would go one step further and do what they do in the US

http://florida.arrests.org/

http://www.tampabay.com/mugshots/

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:28

And sahras law is also a knee jerk reaction and a very bad law.

It's not a straw man.

Why is this crime, any different to others that put people at risk? What's so special about it.

If you have paid your due to society, people have no right to the information and it should stay that way. The only people who need the information is police and some employers, depending on crime.

Ahleckz · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:28

I watched the mother on This Morning earlier in the week and she didn't really have a very good argument. She was just there to play the poor mother who had lost a daughter. She totally believed that this law would have saved her daughter but I'm not so sure. Love is such a strong emotion and can easily overrule our rational sides. Even with knowing someone's past, it would be easy (and reasonable) to believe that they have changed and are no longer that person and thus render the ability to know useless.

Yes, it may stop domestic assault in a limited number of cases but you have to balance that with the fact that the person has served their time and completed their punishment and are now allowed to lead a 'normal' life. I believe this law would be another infringement into this and would be an overall bad thing.

As stated, they should campaign for greater sentences, more resources for victims of domestic abuse (both male and female) and greater awareness.

Devrij · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:29

Agreed, I have a violent crime conviction from years ago, but am a completely different person now. It would just be abused or end up causing more harm than good.

Ahleckz · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:30

Devrij said:
Agreed, I have a violent crime conviction from years ago, but am a completely different person now. It would just be abused or end up causing more harm than good.

That's a good point. You may get involved in a brawl in town one night and end up getting lifted for punching someone. That does not mean that you are a violent person or liable to assault your partner. What should be disclosed and what should not be? And who decides?

Gackt · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:31

It's a load of rubbish, frankly. Are we that pathetic and frightened that we have to check up our partner's criminal record? So what if they have a violent past? It doesn't mean they're going to go kill you, but how many relationships will be ruined/never start because you made mistakes in the past.

Besides, it's quite easy to see what kind of person you're with (up until the mentally psycopathic ones who turn into killers without warning or any signs) when you're with them. And you can generally tell about their background by their current life, their friends and their family.

So pathetic.

What next? Having to put your criminal record on Facebook so people can add you as a friend SAFE IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG? :/

Edrof · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:31

Devrij said:
Agreed, I have a violent crime conviction from years ago, but am a completely different person now. It would just be abused or end up causing more harm than good.

*Cancels the "Will you marry me, Devrij" sky-writing I had planned and takes engagement ring back to Argos.*

Danthus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:31

Devrij said:
Agreed, I have a violent crime conviction from years ago, but am a completely different person now. It would just be abused or end up causing more harm than good.

BURN HIM

Rich_L · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:38

AcidHell2 said:
And sahras law is also a knee jerk reaction and a very bad law.

It's not a straw man.

Why is this crime, any different to others that put people at risk? What's so special about it.

If you have paid your due to society, people have no right to the information and it should stay that way. The only people who need the information is police and some employers, depending on crime.

Are you really saying why is domestic violence any different to other crime, to partners of the offender?

The fact you just added a caveat for employers clearly means your 'no right to information' isn't quite as inflexible as you make it appear.

What crimes should employers be able to check for, and why? If employers can check for say, theft convictions to protect themselves from theft or schools can check for kiddy-fiddling convictions to protect the children from kiddy-fiddlers, then how can you deny a person the right to check their prospective partner for domestic violence convictions to protect themselves? We aren't talking disclosing smoking a few joints or speeding tickets here after all.

Castiel · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:40

While on the surface it seems perfectly reasonable to allow people to check the backgrounds of their prospective partners in truth it would be abused by just about everyone.

How do you protect against false claims based on vengeance of one individual against another?

How do you balance the rights of rehabilitation against the rights of people to know someone's background.

Who decides what is relevant?

What is to stop employers, media, insurance, finance..etc from accessing such a database when considering applicants?

and so on.......

Most importantly, how will this actually protect anyone, as the vast majority of people in abusive relationships are, for whatever reason, there by choice fully aware of the nature of their partner.

The kind of domestic abuse cases that this law may actually help would likely get out of that relationship or report such abuse to the authorities. What we should be concentrating is investigating and enforcing the complaints that routinely get ignored by the Police and CPS and not allowing full disclosure of every man's background mindless of the unforeseen consequences of such a law.

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:41

Victims of crime should not be in a position to influence punishment. This is a case in point.

If you are in a relationship i can see nothing that would make it go south quicker than saying "yes of course i love you dear, and of course id trust you with my life, but im just nipping down to the police station to run your details through their computer just in case......"

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:41

Rich_L said:
Are you really saying why is domestic violence any different to other crime, to partners of the offender?

The fact you just added a caveat for employers clearly means your 'no right to information' isn't quite as inflexible as you make it appear.

Employers aren't the public, it's not general acess and they have a duty of care or interest and employers need your consent.
So are perspective SO going to need your consent to look it up?
And if son sent isn't need how do you prove your dating/in a relationship.

Yes why is domestic violence any different from a known armed burglar, or someone who has many random assaults?

These laws are based on emotion as seen by parading the mother and father around.
As said people know they are domestic violence after the first attack. Yet stay around for years being abused daily. Do you think knowledge would change that.

Why do you think that the public has a right to such private information, which will be abused.

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:42

AcidHell2 said:
Employers aren't the public, it's not general acess and they have a duty of care or interest.

Yes why is domestic violence any different from a known armed burglar, or someone who has many random assaults?

These laws are based on emotion as seen by parading the mother and father around.
As said people know they are domestic violence after the first attack. Yet stay around for years being abused daily. Do you think knowledge would change that.

Why do you think that the public has a right to such private information, which will be abused.

I have to say i agree completely.

Rich_L · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:44

The 'public' implies the information will be available to the general public, which is plain wrong for a start.

I believe this proposed law as well as Sarah's law treat the requests on a strict case by case basis where good reason has to be shown for disclosing the information and the person who the information is disclosed to is placed under a duty of confidentiality.

That is a world apart from logging on to a website to see if Joe Bloggs in No. 2 smacks his wife around.

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:46

While it might be case by case. It is still the public gaining access. Which is what I mean.

Richie · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:47

OldCoals said:
BURN HIM

Although I know you are kidding, there are unfortunately a lot of people out there that are of the view "well they have broken the law therefore their right to a future life should be justifiably ruined"

Sure, there are people out there that are just scum with numerous convictions but there are a lot of people out there that, due to circumstances, have a criminal record simply because of a set of circumstances e.g. conviction for assault where they have possibly punched someone for threatening them or their family and would not take a telling.

Too many people jump to conclusions when they hear someone has a criminal record, the same people that see the World as "black and white".

Why should someone's life be ruined for 1 simple error of judgement dependant on the circumstances (repeat offenders not included)