Clare's law

Given that there is absolutely no evidence that Sarah's Law actually achieves anything, despite how noble the sentiment is, I can't see why replicating the idea into another area is a good idea.

If someone misses the danger signs from a convicted violent partner, but instead relies on the state to tell them, what chance do they have of missing the danger signs for an unconvicted partner or one with no former history of violence even if they show some of the behavioural traits...
 
the thing that really bothers me with this, is the fact that the media keep banding around the idea that this 'law' is to protect poor defenceless people on the internet, there is no mention of the fact that you take just as big a risk by meeting someone in a bar/club.

And as was said, where does it stop "hello mr policeman, I want a background check on that person who moved in down the road, cuz they have shifty eyes.."
 
May I add - they are not just talking about convictions here. They are talking about revealing "soft intelligence" which can be anything from definite facts where the evidence is not enough for a conviction right down to rumours and speculation which could be false.

We all know that some women can be right bunny boilers. What is to stop them from saying to police that her ex-partner Joe Bloggs beat her up a couple of times but she doesn't want to make an official complaint as they are have now split up. This "intel" goes into the police system forever and can be disclosed to any future partners? Really?
 
Ms Wood had made several complaints to police about her partner
Click to expand...
The problem with this law is that it doesn't fundamentally change the major issue with domestic violence in that the victim doesn't leave the assaulter. Clare already knew he was violent as she had already been on the end of it.

The other problem is, if she has to ask then surely she already suspects her partner is violent in which case she might as well just finish the relationship there and then.

I can only seeing this harming reformed men to be honest.
 
billysielu said:
I can see how it could be useful to know - but in the bigger picture it could end up causing more crime as residents target those with records in their area.
Click to expand...

Only for people with certain offences TBH. Paedophiles and rapists would be targeted as they are seen as "easy targets". When have you ever seen/heard of a group of residents marching on the house of a known drug dealer to force them out of the area? :rolleyes:
 
Jokester said:
The problem with this law is that it doesn't fundamentally change the major issue with domestic violence in that the victim doesn't leave the assaulter. Clare already knew he was violent as she had already been on the end of it.

The other problem is, if she has to ask then surely she already suspects her partner is violent in which case she might as well just finish the relationship there and then.

I can only seeing this harming reformed men to be honest.
Click to expand...

+1 on this!
If you have to ask, it means you don't trust your partner, and no relationship will work based on that.
 
AcidHell2 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14181959


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

+1

It's the abolition of responsibility. If the state takes over defining who is OK then this removes peoples personal responsibility.

Bad things happen to good people. Bad laws do not stop this happening.

However I am sure the idiotic "If you have nothing to hide" brigade or the "think of the children" lot will be along to say how this is a good law and how it "protects the people" or some such tripe.
 
What if a person asks the state to disclose information on their partner, is that not them exercising their personal responsibility to do 'due diligence' on a prospective partner?

As I added to one of my posts I actually don't think this is a good law for the exact reason you state, but the Sarah's law where the burden of responsibility is on the individual to ask is somewhat different.
 
If I entered into a relationship and found out that the girlfriend had checks done on me then I would end it. Regardless of how she then tried to explain it away, it would be over.
 
LordSplodge said:
However I am sure the idiotic "If you have nothing to hide" brigade or the "think of the children" lot will be along to say how this is a good law and how it "protects the people" or some such tripe.
Click to expand...

Which brigade are you in then? The "I used to batter me wife but ain't done it in a while guv brigade" ?

Jokes aside why take pre-emptive strikes against people by putting them into groups "brigades" simply because they don't conform to your own opinion?

Personally I haven't read enough about it to form an opinion either way but I like to be able to read arguments for and against rather than people trying to stifle conversation and stop those with different opinions from responding from the outset.
 
AcidHell2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

Having the authorities hand out such information is basically like saying, "We've failed in our duty to deter and rehabilitate these criminals. We've released them even though we think they may re-offend. That being said we probably won't be able to do anything about it if they do re-offend so here are their details. Sort yourself out."

Yup, that's what I want from my police force; inadequacy from start to finish.
 
uniQ said:
Which brigade are you in then? The "I used to batter me wife but ain't done it in a while guv brigade" ?

Jokes aside why take pre-emptive strikes against people by putting them into groups "brigades" simply because they don't conform to your own opinion?
Click to expand...

I've never raised a finger against any woman let alone my most beloved wife.

The two groups I've mentioned are those that blindly see no issues with these laws, people that seem to thin devolving responsibility to the state solves all problems. People too close to the raw emotion to make informed choices or people that assume that any law to "protect the children" are automatically good laws.

Law should be made by informed law makers not by the government on a knee-jerk to gain votes.

As for those who say "if you've done nothing wrong" I feel the most pity for. I can only assume they have never read 1984 and don't know how dangerous the saying could be.
 
Surely a much easier solution would be to force people to wear a badge instead? Maybe a purple circle for a child abuser, blue square for an abusive partner, that sort of thing? Can't really see any way that would go wrong.
 
RDM said:
Surely a much easier solution would be to force people to wear a badge instead? Maybe a purple circle for a child abuser, blue square for an abusive partner, that sort of thing? Can't really see any way that would go wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll expand on this: We could even make them live in special areas, perhaps with a wall round them?
 
What about women who beat men? Is there going to be a register for that too?

Knee jerk reaction imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom