Whenever someone proposes introducing Megan's Law to Britain, the case of the mob that attacked a paediatrician is sure to be mentioned by those who oppose the move.
An article by Brendan O'Neill on the BBC website suggests that this story has grown a great deal in the telling.
I am opposed to Megan's Law because it will not make children any safer but will certainly make parents even more nervous and restrictive. But this whole debate does raise difficult questions for Liberals. Aren't we supposed to be on the side of transparency and the freedom of information?
2 comments:
But we also believe in privacy of the individual and the rehabilitation of offenders, surely? I don't think it poses as much of a problem as you seem to.
The consequence of Megan's Law would be to drive the pervs into hiding. At this point revealing where they ought to be would be transparency without any substance.
While I would be very tempted by a law that offered transparency in my neighbourhood, but not in the rest of the country, because that would make my children safer, I don't think parents in the rest of the country are charitable enough to oblige me.
When Megan's law is talked up it is as if it were this.
If anybody is such a danger that they should be offered up to vigilantes, I don't see why they should be released in the first place.
Post a Comment