Clare's law

Natwee · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:11

I don't think this law would really make any difference. It's not like domestic violence starts on the second date. By the time physical violence starts it's usually after a period of manipulation and mental abuse by which time the victim believes it's their fault.

Would they then phone to see if he had done it before? Probably wouldn't even occur to them.

Castiel · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:11

Jokester said:
Surely it would be easier just to have a register with the non-mental ones on it?

It would be significantly smaller.....

starfighter · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:11

Sorry to soundheatless but if your partner hits you then get out of the relationship. it is hardly the same as someone mollesting a kid.

Can we have a register for known cheaters and people who leave the toilet seat up. :rolleyes:

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:19

Rich_L said:
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.

Does it not become a bit of a "if you have to ask" scenario?

Tikkabhuna · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:20

deuse said:
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/

Is that real? o.0

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:37

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.

I'd disagree, I don't see why data for some offences shouldn't be available. Obviously there are practicalities that would need to be addressed but its fairly reasonable for a woman to be allowed to be informed if her new partner has a history of domestic violence or indeed violence in general.

If an employer in say the financial sector can conduct a background check to ensure you're not a fraudster then why can't an individual perform such a check to ensure you've not got a shady past.

Yeah it doesn't work out well for people with a shady past but, whatever, they chose to commit offences and its up to them whether they're going to be up front and honest about them with their partners or not.

jp_bl_68 · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:41

dowie said:
Yeah it doesn't work out well for people with a shady past but, whatever, they chose to commit offences and its up to them whether they're going to be up front and honest about them with their partners or not.

It wouldn't be if "Clare's Law" came into effect.

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:47

dowie said:
Yeah it doesn't work out well for people with a shady past but, whatever, they chose to commit offences and its up to them whether they're going to be up front and honest about them with their partners or not.

Thats great in the black and white cases that will be used to illustrate the virtues of this idea but the reality is there will be many people who may have made a stupid mistake in their youth that they should be able to leave behind.

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:51

deuse said:
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/

hmmm - interesting how the summary statistics on the second link list gender, age, height, weight and even eye colour but completely miss off 'ethnicity/race/skincolour'

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 13:56

jp_bl_68 said:
It wouldn't be if "Clare's Law" came into effect.

That's the point - its up to them to be open about it - if they're partners find out and they've hidden it from them then...

If they've genuinely changed they should be able to be open about it anyway, if they're generally still shady then I think someone who is going to share a home with them ought to be able to find out. Perhpas more so than a random bank concerned about fraud.

You need a CRB check to work in anything remotely connected with kids yet a single mum could potentially end up living with a very dodgy individual.

Sin_Chase · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:01

Because Kids == Single Mother, right?

No.

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:01

placeholder said:
Thats great in the black and white cases that will be used to illustrate the virtues of this idea but the reality is there will be many people who may have made a stupid mistake in their youth that they should be able to leave behind.

And on the other hand there will be many people who haven't changed and do have the potential to re offend.

Practicalities would need to be addressed - severity of the crime and how long ago it took place taken into account.

Someone who got into a fight as a kid 10 years ago and no offences since - not really relevant. Someone who beat up his last partner just a year ago - I don't see a problem in principle with that information being disclosed to a new partner.

How it could actually work in reality and the extent to which something like that could be implemented is another matter but in principle I don't see an issue with certain information about individuals criminal past being revealed to other individuals connected with those people.

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:03

Sin_Chase said:
Because Kids == Single Mother, right?

No.

erm yes

The clue would be the word 'mother'

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:08

dowie said:
And on the other hand there will be many people who haven't changed and do have the potential to re offend.

Practicalities would need to be addressed - severity of the crime and how long ago it took place taken into account.

Someone who got into a fight as a kid 10 years ago and no offences since - not really relevant. Someone who beat up his last partner just a year ago - I don't see a problem in principle with that information being disclosed to a new partner.

How it could actually work in reality and the extent to which something like that could be implemented is another matter but in principle I don't see an issue with certain information about individuals criminal past being revealed to other individuals connected with those people.

The obvious example is obvious. The problem is, as i said, those people who have just got silly convictions.

Do i need the girl im getting to know this week that ive had a brush with the law 10 years ago? Should she feel obligated to check? If she trusts me and doesnt check and i rape her is it her fault?

None of the above is entirely serious but rather than look at the obvious cases is more important to see how it affects the general population.

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:10

placeholder said:
Do i need the girl im getting to know this week that ive had a brush with the law 10 years ago? Should she feel obligated to check? If she trusts me and doesnt check and i rape her is it her fault?

No but I'd already addressed that in my post - a fight 10 years ago would be silly.

Domestic violence more recently isn't silly.

Sin_Chase · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:12

dowie said:
erm yes

The clue would be the word 'mother'

So you are saying a single mother is as vulnerable as kids. That single mother's are in-fact Kids. That 'Mother' somehow implies 'Childlike'

Are you high?

Edit - Actually do not answer that, you are just not getting it.

dowie · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:16

Sin_Chase said:
So you are saying a single mother is as vulnerable as kids. That single mother's are in-fact Kids. That 'Mother' somehow implies 'Childlike'

Are you high?

Edit - Actually do not answer that, you are just not getting it.

erm no, you've just completely missed the point

a single mother, by defenition, has kids

If you want to spend 1 hour a week coaching kids football, or working in a school you need a CRB check.

If you want to move in full time with say a single mum...

edit - my original post was:

You need a CRB check to work in anything remotely connected with kids yet a single mum could potentially end up living with a very dodgy individual.

placeholder · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:37

dowie said:
No but I'd already addressed that in my post - a fight 10 years ago would be silly.

Domestic violence more recently isn't silly.

Where is the line drawn?

jp_bl_68 · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:38

dowie said:
That's the point - its up to them to be open about it - if they're partners find out and they've hidden it from them then...

No, if you introduce Clare's Law then it is no longer up to them to decide whether or not they tell their wife/gf. It is up to the wife/gf to decide whether or not they want to pry into their partner's past.

Glaucus · 24 Jul 2011 at 14:47

dowie said:
If an employer in say the financial sector can conduct a background check to ensure you're not a fraudster then why can't an individual perform such a check to ensure you've not got a shady past.
.

Because you give consent, that by itself makes it massively different.

Why should women get the information? What makes this so different from any other crime and risk?

The parents are emotional wrecks and this law wouldn't of helped their daughter. She knew he was violent and stayed.