Would Sarah's Law protect our children?

9:40am Tuesday 20th June 2006

The case of Craig Sweeney, who sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl, has led ministers to reconsider a so-called 'Sarah's Law', under which paedophiles would be identifed to their neighbours. Women's Editor Sarah Foster talks to an advocate and an opponent.

Martin Kane's daughter Laura was raped and murdered by paedophile Colin Bainbridge in 1999. Martin , of Sunderland, argues that parents have a right to know if their children are at risk.

"A NEW law would be a good thing. The only thing I disagree with is it shouldn't be called Sarah's Law, it should be called the children's law. I don't think it should be based on one girl.

"All you ever see is Sara Payne (the mother of Sarah, who was also killed by a paedophile) in and out of the news. The law shouldn't be about one child - we're all in the same boat.

"I don't think it would have helped Laura because Bainbridge wasn't known as a paedophile then. If he had been, it would have been a different story. The only thing he had was a tax disc conviction.

"I wrote to David Blunkett and got a letter back saying they were going to do different things but they're all talk, some of them. Parents should have a right to know if someone is a high profile case and a danger because otherwise if something happens and they didn't know anything, there's an outcry.

"I don't think paedophiles should be allowed to live anywhere near schools. They should be put somewhere where they can't do any harm.

"Megan's Law (a version of Sarah's Law which currently operates in the US) doesn't really work - there are a lot of paedophiles still committing crimes and some of them are getting away with them. We can do so much better. If they invented a chip that they could put under the skin they could keep tabs on them.

"Ideally, they should be kept in prison for the rest of their lives. Killers get released and they kill again. In my view, I don't think the politicians are taking murder seriously. It's like that bloke who got out of prison and assaulted that three-year-old. Why didn't they do something about it?

"They've said things in the past - once David Blunkett wanted child killers kept in prison for the rest of their lives but he had opposition, they wouldn't back him. Every time something happens they're all talk. It's just to reassure the public that they're going to do something but they never do.

"I know there's a risk that paedophiles might be targeted (under a new law) but there's not much you can really do about it. I do feel sorry for them because they need help and I don't think anybody should take the law into their own hands. I think a new law should make allowances for those who commit less serious crimes but I also think there should be stiffer sentences. I'd be happy to think that another child wasn't going to suffer."

Peter Mullen, left, is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill, in the City of London and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange, as well as being a columnist for The Northern Echo. He feels a law exposing paedophiles would be misguided.

{I THINK it's important to make plain that I'm not in any sense lenient on paedophiles. They are horrible creatures and they deserve to be banished and locked up. I also have the utmost sympathy for the victims of paedophiles and their friends and families. But I think there's a great danger to society when things that are really to do with the law and with policing and government become personalised.

"In other words, if you tell people that there's a paedophile in their area you are personalising a process which ought to be abstract and which ought to be looked after by the proper government agencies.

"Why are you telling people that there's a paedophile in their area? Are you saying 'restrict the life of your daughter, don't let her go out and play as there's a paedophile?' That's got to be wrong. That seems to me to be the only reason you would say 'look, there's a paedophile living in your area'.

"I think on the other hand, it's the responsibility of the police and the forces of law to protect people against criminal activity. It's the job of all the people we elect and put in power over us to guarantee our safety. It's their responsibility - they have no right to shift this responsibility onto people and say 'look out, there's a paedophile in your area so restrict the activities of your children'. It's a bit like saying 'don't go and live in that area because there's a lot of burglaries'. It's their job to stop the burglaries.

"It seems to me that we ought to keep personal emotions and feelings out of the matter, which is a matter for policing and a matter for the law of the land.

"I'm against the personalising of these criminal and social issues and obviously, I'm against vigilanteism. If the police and the Government are doing their job, there's no reason for people to go out and defend themselves."

Sarah's law: the story so far

THE proposed Sarah's Law is named after eight-year-old Sarah Payne, whose assault and murder by convicted paedophile Roy Whiting in 2000 prompted calls for such offenders to be exposed.

Sarah's parents, Sara and Michael, have led a campaign to make this part of the legal framework.

While this has yet to come to pass, on Sunday, Home Secretary John Reid reignited the debate by announcing that he was sending Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe to study Megan's Law in the US. This allows parents access to information about paedophiles who may be living in their neighbourhood, and was introduced following the murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka by a known paedophile. Nothing firm has been decided, but Mr Reid has already indicated that there will be a "controlled release of information" regarding paedophiles to the public.