1. Inhalt
  2. Navigation
  3. Weitere Inhalte
  4. Metanavigation
  5. Suche
  6. Choose from 30 Languages

Forum

People and Politics Forum 13. 08. 2010

"What should happen to sexual offenders when they are out of prison?"

default

More information:

The dispute over preventative detention

In Germany, people jailed for grievous bodily harm and sex offenders can be held in preventative detention although they have already completed their time behind bars. This currently applies to some 500 detainees. But the European Court for Human Rights has ruled that this partly contravenes European law. Now people who are seen to be potentially dangerous or who could possibly re-offend are to be set free. The police and local residents are concerned. Policymakers are debating on new legislation.

Our Question is:

"What should happen to sexual offenders when they are out of prison?"

Gisela Lutig, Australia:

"Retrospective preventative detention should continue to be an option. This is the only way to protect the public from dangerous criminals. Surveillance and electronic bracelets are not a solution."

Paul Schaller, Argentina:

"I think the judges have to be replaced. They're always talking about perpetrator rights, but I've never heard them talk about the rights of the victims. Is there any judge who considers the victims?"

And Erwin Scholz in Costa Rica prescribes drastic medicine in verse. He wrote:

"If crime is blamed on being ill,

then freedom's no effective pill.

Some years' hard labor would ensure

The better treatment, and a cure."

In Finland, Herbert Fuchs writes:

"In the case of incurable sex offenders, castration makes sense, followed by maximum-security custody."

Gerhard Seeger, in the Philippines, has this to say:

"The law should be changed for such crimes! If someone is guilty of torture and murder, it must still be possible to lock them away for life."

...and Renè Junghans in Brazil adds:

"Releasing these criminals to commit new crimes - and spread fear amongst people - seems to me to be utterly absurd!"

The editors of “People and Politics” reserve the right to abridge viewers’ letters.