Sarah’s Law - what you think
PUBLISHED: 12:17 03 August 2010 | UPDATED: 14:38 03 August 2010
Mixed reaction from readers, but praise for tireless work of campaigner Sara Payne.
THERE has been a mixed reaction from Midweek Herald readers to news that Sarah’s Law is to be extended to police forces across the country.
The law will allow parents to check if someone with access to their children is a sex offender.
It has already proved a success in areas where it was trialled, purportedly protecting 60 children from possible abuse.
However, there have been some mixed reviews to the planned extension of the law to other parts of the country.
Mary Dixon, from Honiton, said: “I think it’s a very good thing.
“I think it’s wonderful and I think you need it.
“There is a real risk you have probably got people coming into the community and you don’t know where they’re going to be put.
“There are such a lot of children around, I think it is common sense to have it.
“I think Sara Payne has been wonderful.”
Petra Bright said: “I’ve got kids, but it is not anything I’ve thought about it. I don’t know really. Well, I think, possibly it would drive people underground, if you did know where they are.”
Mike Brazier said: “I totally agree. If I found one with one of my kids I would cut his head off – no hesitation.
“I think a community should do it. If there was a paedophile living next door to me, I think I would kill him.
“It is a way to look after children. It is the old school way of thinking; if someone hurts one of my children – it’s an eye for an eye.”
Cindy Grimes said: “My children are grown up but, if my grandchildren were around, I want to be aware of it.
“My thinking is once a paedophile always a paedophile. I think we have a right to know. The victims are not always protected.”
Rick Starling said: “It’s quite good. You know not to let your kids go around if a paedophile is around.”
Norman Childs said: “I think it is something that has to be thought about with care. I’m not convinced that when people ask for information they have to remain strictly silent about the results. I’m not convinced that one would, or could, remain strictly silent.
“The greatest concern is that people, human beings, being what they are, are going to tell it to their nearest and dearest, possibly within the family, and the more people you tell it will slip out and that’s the risk.
“It’s a horrible business. In a sense, it is unfortunate that we have people like that in our midst. I think, to a certain extent, they need to be separated from society and some need corrective instruction.”
And Jeff Mitchell said: “It’s a question of how convicted they are and what they have been doing. I suppose if it was someone who had a bad conviction it would be a tricky one - and how much privacy one person gets.”
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Midweek Herald. Click the link in the orange box above for details.