Venusberg | That's not your heart, it's a piece of helicopter casing

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Sara condemns the vigilante action but stands by the News of the World. She believes their support for Sarah's Law gave her the credibility to walk into meetings with heads of departments, government agencies and powerful politicians such as David Blunkett and Jack Straw.

One always feels sort of terrible disagreeing with people who have clearly endured horrors that you have no handle on. However, at the same time it is not, I suspect, only my revulsion at the idea of the News of the World providing moral authority that gave me the shivers at this part of Barbara Ellen's interview here. I think in part it is the idea that one can condemn vigilantism while supporting a policy of illegally revealing a list of names the only possible purpose of which must be to incite illegal actions - what does the knowledge of the presence of a convicted paedophile allow a parent legally to do, after all? Further, Ellen missed the opportunity actually to talk about the potential effectiveness of a "Sarah's Law", and thus its utility as a memorial. The key plank of the demands - that "it is every parent's right to have controlled access to information about individuals in their neighbourhood, including convicted child sex offenders who may pose a risk to their child" - is startlingly vague, and I just don't see how that information could be the basis of very much except vigilantism.

If an offender seems in the opinion of a panel of experts likely to reoffend, it strikes me that there is a case for ensuring that they do not leave a controlled environment, given what is at stake. But to risk that offenders, once released, will become more likely to remove themselves from their agreed locations, support services and identities to avoid a shivving strikes me as unwise. But how do you sit in front of somebody whose own child has suffered so badly and represent that view? I can't blame Barbara Ellen for ducking it. I know I would.

0 Comments: