This morning, the Children's Minister Parmjit Dhanda has published a new document for consultation on the regulations controlling the infamous List 99 upon which child sex offenders are placed and barred from working with kids. Up until now the list has comprised of those people convicted of sexual offences, but the draft regulations shift the contents of List 99 to also include anyone over 18 who has been cautioned for a sexual offence against a child.
Given that a caution implies one has accepted guilt of an offence you can see where they might be coming from on that. However, I've found myself asking why an adult who accepts they are guilty of a sexual offence would only receive a caution rather than be prosecuted? The Department of Education press release seems to be protraying this as a strengthening of List 99, but surely if we're cautioning child sex offenders that actually implies a weakening of the law. Doesn't it?
2 comments:
As far as I understand it, cautions are used when it would be pointless to prosecute, due to whatever reason - waste too much time, crown cannot be certain of a conviction, not in the public interest - whatever. So it is a way of garnering an admission of guilt without the chance of prosecution.
For instance, if I was accused of molesting a minor, but they had no evidence, e.g. my word against his, then a caution would intice me to admit guilt without the consequences. It is a sneaky piece of legality, like downgrading the sorts of bodily harm, e.g. from GBH to ABH, to ensure a guilty plea.
So it is a way of getting more people on the list, yes. Cautions are messy, but they are neccessary in our legal system.
If I have any of the points of law wrong, please correct me and/or disregard everything I say.
You can be cautioned for an indecent exposure, such as a drunk relieving himself down an alley, or a teenager putting his hand up girls' skirts. Both of these offences could involve children, but are they so serious as to warrant having your name on the child sex offenders register?
That said, there were 363 offenders cautioned for making and possessing indecent images of children in 2004.
And with regard to downloading child porn, is there a case where the person won't be found guilty? It seems to me that the authorities can't be bothered to take child sex offenders to court, and it has little to do with plea bargaining.
Post a Comment