Do you think local residents should be informed when child sex offenders, released from prison, move into their neighborhood?

Since Japanese people in large cities have no idea who is living next door to them, I don't think it would make a lot of difference. In any case, since only a very small percentage get reported, the danger is more from those who haven't been caught than from those who have served a term in jug.

I've heard plenty of horror stories from Japanese women who, just on puberty had been left alone with "Uncle Taro" when everyone else was at the family grave.

This is how it's been where I live for some time and imo, when you commit a crime, your rights take a back seat to public safety.

No. There is far too much obsession with purely sex offenses. If I want to know anything, its if a released violent offender has moved into the neighborhood.

Just make sure they don't work at a school or babysitting service.

Where I come from, neighbours aren't the only ones warned - the daily newspaper carries their story and photo. Wouldn't have it any other way, and yes, as Bertie says, people in Japan's larger cities may have no idea who lives next to them, but that's not the safest way to leave things.

The problem is we all know Japan's track record when it comes to convictions -- that being that the 99% rate is 100% BS, as can be proven by the recent case of the man released from death row after 48 years. I think if it is to be broadcast it needs to be proven beyond a doubt, and should depend on the relativity and severity of the crime. It should not be automatic.

smithinjapanApr. 08, 2014 - 01:50AM JST The problem is we all know Japan's track record when it comes to convictions -- that being that the 99% rate is 100% BS, as can be proven by the recent case of the man released from death row after 48 years.

What’s interesting is Japan’s high conviction rate is due to a completely different reason. Japan has been wracked by an underfunded judicial system for years. It causes the stretched-too-thin prosecutors to drop the vast majority of their cases. The ones they do decided to keep, of course, are the ones where there is almost no question of guilt or innocence. So, the only people who end up before a judge are people likely wouldn’t have any trouble in accurately assessing whether or not they should be convicted. Japan’s high conviction rate results in a lot of guilty people going free, and not many innocent people going to jail.

This is how it's been where I live for some time and imo, when you commit a crime, your rights take a back seat to public safety.

So you continue to pay for that crime for the rest of your life, even after you have finished a prison sentence and paid your debt to society? We must view pedophilia as a mental illness, because that is what it is.

Torn on this one. On one hand, you want to empower parents to help keep kids safe. On the other hand, hysteria over sexual offenses is absolutely corrosive; we're making it virtually impossible for these people to integrate back into society... how then can there be any possibility of rehabilitation?

There could be the problem of vigilantism?

Even pedophiles say there is no 'cure' for pedophilia; after a stint in prison, many are still attracted to children and, sometimes, have no control over their urges. Society should treat them as having a mental problem and provide treatment. Meanwhile, neighbors should be aware of the danger pedophiles present to them.

I worry, however, how pedophiles will be bullied and shunned even if they control their urges.

Check out The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sst041HiCUA

I voted yes with the caveat that the "child" actually be a child and not someone dating a 17 year old, or, worse, a high school senior dating a high school junior or sophomore,

the parents decide to complain, and the poor guy not only faces prison time, but has to spend the rest of his life being introduced as a sex criminal.

sfjp330Apr. 08, 2014 - 05:57AM JST What’s interesting is Japan’s high conviction rate is due to a completely different reason. Japan has been wracked by an underfunded judicial system for years. It causes the stretched-too-thin prosecutors to drop the vast majority of their cases. The ones they do decided to keep, of course, are the ones where there is almost no question of guilt or innocence. So, the only people who end up before a judge are people likely wouldn’t have any trouble in accurately assessing whether or not they should be convicted. Japan’s high conviction rate results in a lot of guilty people going free, and not many innocent people going to jail.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The Japanese solution to an underfunded judicial system is sleep-deprive, harass and bully the accused into signing a confession, then hold a hasty no-frills trial where the underfunding is used as an excuse to deny the accused a chance to defend themselves, and then use the underfunding again as an excuse to give appeals.

borschtApr. 08, 2014 - 12:47PM JST Even pedophiles say there is no 'cure' for pedophilia; after a stint in prison, many are still attracted to children and, sometimes, have no control over their urges. Society should treat them as having a mental problem and provide treatment. Meanwhile, neighbors should be aware of the danger pedophiles present to them.

You're also mistaken. Prison isn't a cure for pedophilia, but then it isn't a cure for kleptomania or any other number of conditions. The Canadian justice system has, however been including cognitive behavioural therapy as part of the mandatory rehabilitation program for pedophiles in prison there, and has seen MUCH lower recidivism rates, about 70% lower than in the U.S., proving that it helps a substantial number of people resist the urge to re-offend.

yes, but so too for "ex-"murders, "ex-"junkies and other violent criminals

yes, but so too for "ex-"murders, "ex-"junkies and other violent criminals

You say 'other violent criminals', but doing drugs is not a violent crime, except to one's self.

but doing drugs is not a violent crime, except to one's self.>

How about drug addicts who steal for drug money?

In ancient times criminals were branded, tattooed or otherwise disfigured to make them recognizable. The question I'm not sure about is, is pedophilia a permanent, incurable condition, as they say? And therefore even those who truly want to turn over a new leaf and go straight are psychologically unable to do so? There don't seem to be any easy answers.

There don't seem to be any easy answers.>

Disagree. Castrate the bastards.

No because of these type of offenders must never leave the confides of a high security psychiatric hospital, not just for the safety of Children, but their own.

Yes, and I would like to be notified of depressives, agoraphobics, alcoholics, insomniacs, pornography addicts, people afraid of flying, people who have done violent things, people who have cheated on their significant others, etc.

Only perfect humans should live in my neighborhood.

:-)

That being said, the sexual abuse of children skews toward the extreme end of the spectrum of human psychological disorders. Perhaps it would be appropriate to notify neighbors. I have no answers.

The Derwent Initiative (UK) comes some way to understanding and dealing with child sex offenders. The scheme does not have all the answers, however the initiatives around electronic surveillance monitoring and subsequent research into supervision of offenders in the community has reduced the risk , but as soon as the community at large is informed through the child sex offender disclosure scheme, the unintended consequence is that the offender just goes 'underground’, through fear of retribution from vigilante groups.

They should have 'child sex offender' tattooed on their foreheads and be castrated!

I think no, because he already paid his sin inside the prison for how many year. Give a man a chance to go back to a normal life. But of course he need to or someone check his doings.

sfjp330

What’s interesting is Japan’s high conviction rate is due to a completely different reason. Japan has been wracked by an underfunded judicial system for years. It causes the stretched-too-thin prosecutors to drop the vast majority of their cases. The ones they do decided to keep, of course, are the ones where there is almost no question of guilt or innocence. So, the only people who end up before a judge are people likely wouldn’t have any trouble in accurately assessing whether or not they should be convicted. Japan’s high conviction rate results in a lot of guilty people going free, and not many innocent people going to jail.

Where's the source for this, because this is most likely false.

The 99.9% conviction rate is because the judges and the prosecutors have cosy relations with each other. The prosecutor will keep asking for a re-trial until they can "win". The judge will almost automatically give the "guilty" stamp, because if they don't, then they have fewer chance of getting ahead in their careers.

Japanese police love "confessions". If they confess and show "remorse", then they will usually let them go easily. But if they don't, especially say, when they're innocent, then they will keep going after them.

Before the man who was on the death row for 48 years, there was also Menda Sakae, who was on the death row for 31 years, who was found innocent. There are many other cases like these.

Before I begin, let me state that I have a great disdain with this type of crime and the people who commit them. That being said, I would like to say that I for one fear the road many nations have decided to travel.

I am opposed to Authoritarian/Totalitarian beliefs and dogmas, but I am also aware that the people have a right to know what dangers lie around them.

But, tearing down the rights of those that have paid the dues for the crimes they have committed and the rights of the people to know is a very slippery one.

How can we as a society tell someone, "you have paid your debt" and at the same time tell that same person ,"but that debt shall never be paid"?

This road is a very slippery road, if we allow the government to have a free ride then they can and will expand their list. Let us remember how far the Patriot Act has travelled in the states.

It went from a bill that was in place to stop terrorist from attacking the US of A again and has morphed into a hydra of many heads.

Everyone needs someone to hate and what better place to put that hate than at those that have a problem, or a perceived problem?

This whip is a simple one, politicians use it when they want to show that they are tough on crime and law enforcement use it when they need more money.

I for one, don't know what to do, I have heard from some hardliners who say "just kill the people who are convicted of these crimes", but how can we kill an 18 year old boy for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and sleep well at night?

I for one think we need to watch these people, but not all those people. To toss them all into a big basket would be a miscarriage of justice.

But again, this is just my opinion and you might think differently.

unfair . shouldn't be just sex offenders if it's going to be them , then it should be all. rapists. burglars & so on .

Of course the neighbourhood should be told. How else will we know who to lynch?

@ JoeBigs- I am only aware of the patriot act from the news coverage reported in UK media. I understand that George W. Bush signed and brought the act into law follow 9/11.

A number of the provisions within the act are due to expire in 2015. I would like to let debate about the patriot act and how to preserve the rule of law and accountability to your good self and fellow Americans. Your premise has strong logical reasoning, backed up with relevant evaluation and conclusion, supporting the decision that the patriot act needs urgent review, however respectfully you have cleverly sidestepped the question.

How should society deal with child sex offenders once they have been released from prison?

Clearly informing the local community, that living within their neighbourhood resides a convicted child sex offender, who has served there sentence, paid their dues to society and is free to go about is business, is not the whole answer, in fact shouting the fact from the roof tops increases the likelihood the offender will take flight.

So the obvious next question is how does society balance child protection, with the risk management of the offender against the broader implication for the protection of human rights and civil liberties ?

After browsing all the posts I frankly haven't a clue, so I am interested to hear your opinion.

So the obvious next question is how does society balance child protection, with the risk management of the offender against the broader implication for the protection of human rights and civil liberties ?

Child abusers have given up their right to freedom. They should never be released into society, as they have shown that they don't have the ability to live in it. This whole issue is a result of society being too light on people who don't deserve it. Once a child molester is convicted, they should receive life imprisonment. It's like curbing a disease - you get rid of the disease by stamping it out absolutely.

@Strangerland, My first instinct is to reach for Dad's power tools and blow torch, however, the 'Steven Seagal', the man, the myth, the legend, and his unique, 'theirs chock full of bad guys who seriously need their as**s kicked', approach to offender rehabilitation is not a option I can fall back on.

JoeBigs, more pragmatic approach, stating not knowing what to do, linking a more compassionate approach instead of my straight forward 'lock um up and throw away the key' solution has it merits in a more forward thinking liberal society.

So a scenario, we are the proud parents of two wonderful children, the main headline on the evening news is a catalogue of offences committed against children along with all ghastly details, the hook is the offender is known to the 'authorities' and is on a rehabilitation programme. Under intense media pressure the 'authorities' admit to there being an undisclosed number of offenders on similar rehabilitation programmes resident at undisclosed locations., what would posters next course of action be ?.

his unique, 'theirs chock full of bad guys who seriously need their as**s kicked', approach to offender rehabilitation is not a option I can fall back on.

But these people have already proven themselves to not have value to society. They are not worth the effort it would take to rehabilitate them. By releasing them back into society, we place other children at risk - we proioritize the rights of someone who has shown they don't deserve them, over children who deserve our protection.

If we are going to release pedophiles back into society, they should be forcibly castrated first.

The UK, through the intense lobbying of the NSPCC (charity) has been fuelling the principle concern that men considering teaching feel worried that they will fall foul of laws surrounding child protection, which has made normal contact between adults and children a legal minefield. one in four primary schools in England still has no male registered teacher, which beggars the question about positive male role models in society in general. Part of me wants to lock child abusers up forever, but at the same time where does society draw the line?

The NSPCC wants to be the sole investigating and prosecuting body for child abuse, Yet on that basis the NSPCC has in essence appointed itself both judge and jury, even voicing dissatisfaction with the work of the police.

Would posters want to see a charity afforded this much authority and power in Japan or the US.

This thread has given me cause to question my thoughts on the subject, as the NSPCC is one of the main groups lobbying for offender disclosure.

(National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children)