Should there be a 'Sarah's Law'?

even if this enumeration is true, these aren't "equivalent" proportions: you shd be comparing [parental molesters: parents over- all] with [stranger molesters: strangers over-all].

surely one of the reasons some many shy away from lookng hard at the problem of in-family abuse is that WHATEVER the course of action, it tends to be nightmarishly complex and produce victims of a variety of kinds (on one hand, continued abuse of members of a family; on the other, broken-up families, single parents on the poverty line, rifts within family where one child is abused, another sides with so-called abuser etc etc), whereas locking up Sarah Payne's killer — and similar friendless loners — seems straight-forwardly win-win. They have no family, friends, dependents: there are no innocent bystanders.

If it's true that abuse produces abusers, the currently somewhat overlooked majority of abuse — eg within families — is the point at which the social problems (which *include* stranger abuse but are not generated by it) eventually needs addressing. It has to be said that attempts to do this in the past — the notorious cases in Cleveland? — have been a catastrophe.

Sarah's Law will not help for all the reasons placed above, but also it may well increase levels of vigilantism not to mention create exactly the kinds of stigma and stress which may trigger someone to re-offend.

This is why it is far better that they are removed from the criminal system altogether, which have scant regard for such lofty and high- minded ideals as rehabilitation. They'll release someone when they reach the end of their sentence, it's as simple as that. Likelihood of reoffending only ever gets addressed at parole board meetings.

Pederasts are therefore far better dealt with by the medical profession. Someone sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 will be detained indefinitely, until in the opinion of at least two doctors they are fit for release.

Which brings me back to my original point - what we need to deal effectively with these people is a medically AND legally accepted definition of pederasty.

And Judges need to stop speaking with so-called authority on medical issues. In sentencing Sarah's killer, the Judge unhelpfully commented that he did not consider the accused to be mentally ill, as he had exhibited clear-headedness throughout. Such remarks prevent sex offenders from being treated for mental health issues, as legally they are regarded as completely sane. In my view this cannot be right.

On the mental illness point - paedophiles have abnormal innate desires but is there any evidence that this leads to them being fundamentally less capable of choosing whether or not to act on their desires? It's not as if they hear voices ordering them to molest children.