sofia's law?

it's funny how people are the same everywhere. it doesn't take much to whip into a frenzy the people who rely on 'today tonight', howard sattler and 'the sunday times' for their news and opinion. there wouldn't be a single person in perth that isn't horrified by what dante arthurs did to sofia rodriguez-urrutia shu (yep, one can be compassionate and yet say her name without having to add an adjective such as precious, darling or little). it's the way that people react to that horror that i find bemusing. there is now a push to enact an australian version of megan's law and sarah's law (to be known as sofia's law) and have a publically available database of anyone convicted of child sex crimes. this is despite the fact that even if there was such a law in place, arthurs wouldn't have been on the list anyway. well, at the risk of being stoned, flogged in a public place or, even worse, being accused of being 'soft on crime', i completely oppose such a law. the reason i oppose such lists is that they are largely useless. the majority of people who commit sex crimes will not be on the list as they will not have been caught yet. dante arthurs is a perfect example of this. the only purpose these lists serve is to make the public who fight for them feel good about themselves and for politicians to get cheap votes.

but worse than these laws being useless publicity stunts, i believe they have the potential to do far more harm than good. i say this for the following reasons:

• the debate of them takes time in parliament at the expense of laws that will actually make a difference
• they increase the risk of innocent people being attacked by vigilantes due to mistaken identity - this has already happened overseas
• they increase the risk of convicted child molesters 'going underground' to avoid the chance of being attacked by vigilantes which makes it almost impossible for police to continue monitoring them - this then increases the chance of a repeat offence
• they increase apathy amongst lazy parents who rely on the list as if it were exhaustive
• they undermine the basic principles of our justice system
• they waste valuable resources that could be put to better use

to clarify, i oppose these laws for the above reasons and because they are useless. if they were proved to work i would obviously support them fully. we currently have the list that the unthinking masses are demanding but it is only accessible by police... and that's the way it should stay!!

i reckon there are much more important and useful things we can do to protect our kids. the first thing that i believe should be done is for it to be made illegal (with harsh penalties) to smoke in a car or building where kids are present. there should also be an exclusion zone (is 50 metres far enough?) around kids where it's illegal to smoke. this would actually make a practical, everyday contribution to protecting kids. and how about bringing in some sort of law ensuring kids receive adequate nutrition? this is an area where kids are routinely abused. and if people really want a public register, then how about making one for people who are a real threat to kids (as opposed to a 'today tonight' threat) - convicted speeders and drink drivers! i'd be on the speeders list unfortunately.

it would be interesting to see whether people are serious about protecting kids or just jumping on a populist bandwagon. i have a funny feeling that many of the people who are so quick to demand enactment of 'sofia's law' wouldn't be so quick to support the measures i suggest. i can hear cries of 'nanny state' and 'big brother' already. there's a word to describe these people - hypocrites!!

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22484549-5008620,00.html