Oops...I did it again - a post script

Below is my response to a friend's objection to various points made in my original blog....

ok, so I think we disagree on 2 key points - offenders' right to human rights (which was the key basis of the judgement) and successful demonstration of not reoffending.

I genuinely think that a sex offender does not have grounds to justify their own human rights. It's similar to a murderer (to take an extreme example) or a terrorist. Now, the classic problem here is of identifying guilt accurately - allegation vs. truth. Hence the moral argument for me remains on restricting an offenders right but given the practical and administrative limitations of being able to identify guilt accurately, passing life long sentences is difficult. However, it is a case of who needs protecting more - society or offender and in the event of doubt, we have to err on the side of protecting the community. Hence what I object to is the supreme court passing a judgement based on moral grounds. I think this is invalid. If instead they had addressed the issue of, as you identified, ranges of sexual offences, consent, causation, etc and acknowledged the challenge with discerning between these cases, then the ruling would have carried more weight and would also highlight the need to educate people broadly about these issues. I heard someone on Radio 2 once describing how their life was destroyed following false accusations as the local community ganged up on them and her husband (the accused) ended up committing suicide, following which the girls who accused him admitted he didn't commit any crime and wasn't even aware of who these girls were. That's the scenario we want to avoid through protecting the innocent alleged offenders, but offenders don't deserve protection...

Secondly, the problem of practical administration of justice applies to your comment " If someone has reformed their life and is able to demonstrate it to a high standard..." - issue is how do you know for sure they are reformed or rather is it a case that their offences are not known? I think the police needs to continue to monitor any suspicious individuals all their lives but then they'll be launching an appeal on how it violates their right to life or freedom. Again, if they are a suspect, we have to protect the community rather than their rights. And to say after 15 years it seems fair to give them a second chance is entirely unjustified - for instance, through all of this you haven't tried to even consider the plight of the victim. Are they back to normal after 15 years? "Fairness" does not come into. The only issue is, as you point out, that perhaps amongst 24,000 cases there are a couple who don't deserve to be included in that group so let's not ruin their life. To that I provide the above solution where the police still tracks and monitors all - innocent or guilty, we don't know - and so re offences are prevented and in time guilt will be identified but the monitoring happens in the background so it doesn't interfere with life.

The 11 yr old might be a new person by the age of 40 - or he might not. My point was that it's either nature or nurture and the authorities need to identify which. If its his psychology that is unbalanced he's not likely to be any difference and if it's nurture, then figure out what in his home environment drove him to it. It may not be driven by his own intent, but he is acting due to an external cause that then needs to be eradicated or he won't be any different when he's older.

Re. voting - this is just such a silly debate in my mind. A blanket rule here of not allowing prisoners to vote keeps the looney's out of it. Sure again there are a few unlucky guys who get caught up in it, but really, what difference does it really make if they can't vote? how many of them even bother to? Yes, technically, it takes away their right to vote, but it's such a non issue that doesn't really affect their lives, that the optimal decision without any doubt in my mind is to not allow them to vote. When we talk about sex offenders and impact restrictions or registration has on their lives, I can understand the need for debate given the consequences and impact on their quality of life. But seriously, not able to vote? It's insignificant.

The waterboarding issue and torture – live and let live.

George W. Bush provided yet another example to fortify his image as an under thinking cowboy with his response to the question verifying why his administration permitted the use of the waterboarding technique on held suspects. “Because the lawyers said it was legal.”

Let’s do what he didn’t and break down the moral argument.

Question: Should torture be an acceptable means to an end?

Broadly considering torture, we have to assess the concept and the administration of it separately. What makes this debate perplexing to me is that each perspective leads to a different conclusion.

I compare this issue to the one surrounding the use of the death sentence. Applying torture or sentencing someone to death is violating their right to live. One living being does not have to right to take away another living being’s right to life. And then there is a big but.

But when an individual has himself (or herself) violated someone else’s right and existence, they can no longer uphold their own. Hence on moral grounds, the concept of sentencing a murderer to death or torturing one of the 9/11 conspirators is morally justified.

For anyone who has watched The life of David Gale the unavoidable issue of administering this accurately relates to the correct identification of guilt. Sentencing the wrong man to death or torturing a suspect who in fact has no information (nor intent of harm) can’t be undone.

The label of torture includes a vast range of actions. Some of these actions are legally permissible on grounds of being less painful or arguably not causing permanent damage. For the greater good of saving a vast number of lives of good citizens, the mild torture approach is thus rendered valid with a legal stamp.

The question of how to guarantee that the innocent is not victimised is still unaddressed.

The logistics of executing these techniques further undermine why it is legal in any way despite the moral justification. Over the years numerous pictures, anecdotes, videos have been captured and publicised that illustrate how the use of torture is being abused or misused by military personnel, for example.

Which individuals are actually authorised to exercise torture?

Which organisation or individuals can guarantee that the guilty rather then innocent are at the receiving end of it?

And who is confirming that in fact only certain set of torture practices are being administered any way?

No one.

There is no guarantee. Just excuses.

Governments are afraid to make the moral argument for why torture should in concept be permissible under the correct circumstances. Surprisingly, this part of the discussion has never surfaced. The focus remains on simply what type of torture routines are practiced and whether any incidents are in breach of stated guidelines.

It is shocking to my mind that the entire subject of torture is thus entirely mistreated and inadequately addressed with the moral issue being sidelined. Hence even though I condone the moral argument in some situations the fact that it is entirely neglected in the reasoning presented by administering authorities undermines their entire practice even if it is targeting the individuals who are guilty.