The demand to know who lives nearby beat the fear of what disclosure might unleash: Yes won by seven votes, a near-even split that concealed a lopsided argument. No supplied more voices and the chamber’s most developed objections, while Yes prevailed on a simpler, more visceral claim about family safety.
The winning side argued that secrecy leaves households exposed. Its strongest serious case was that “the remainder of society needs to be able to know about the threat they pose”; alongside it ran a much darker current, captured in the line, “I need to know when to buy my woodchipper”. The result carried both protection and punishment in its wake.
No’s case was less about sympathy for offenders than about what disclosure would do next. The floor’s most-respected warning was of “chaotic vigilante mobs attacking the wrong houses”, with the further fear that “actual predators stop notifying the authorities and vanish entirely”; public knowledge, on this account, could make police oversight weaker rather than stronger.
The two sides largely talked past each other: Yes treated visibility as a safeguard, while No treated an open register as a threat to the system’s ability to track people accurately. The compromise-minded objection that the idea was “practically a minefield” sat beside distrust of the state itself — “I would not trust our bureaucracy to manage an open Register fairly” — placing the vote in the wider argument over public protection versus vigilante justice.
The verdict was for visibility, but the debate’s strongest warning was that visibility might drive the people it is meant to track out of sight.
32 Opinions
How would this help? It might tell you that you live near one and you might be more protective of your kids? But shouldn’t you be more protective of your kids anyway to prevent them being harmed by the predator who has yet to be caught? Basically, behave like you have a sex offender near you anyway and you will never have to check a list…
No. It will only inspire vigilantes and lynch mob justice
On balance
NO Simply because there's to many wantabe vigilante type thugs who'd use them to locate and harass people with the aim of making a name for themselves. If it wasn't for those sort I'd say definatly yes parents should know when those sort of criminals are living around them
Two massive problems with this idea: 1) Miscarriages of justice happen - the Andrew Malkinson is a clear example. This is bad enough with a private register, with a public register it would be way way worse. 2. This is how you get vigilantes. These crimes are very bad, but an effective death sentence would be disproportionate regardless.
Yes I think it should be available to the public, presently if I have kids I can go to the police station to ask for info. I don't have kids but would like to know if where I was moving too had nonces living there , because I personally do not want to live nr a pedfile .
I think victims should have unfettered access and in some cases the Register can be more readily available, but my concerns would be vigilantism, which might result in past offenders having to be separated from wider society. Problem is someone could be on the Reguster for a technical ‘offence’ and pose no threat to anybody. I would not trust our bureaucracy to manage an open Register fairly or accurately.
I think we'd discover there are tens of thousands of them. Then we would have to relocate them all to barred housing schemes because nobody would want to take the (now explicit) risk of living next to them and their lives would be at risk.
I'd rather know if I'm living next door to a convicted sex offender for the safety of my family, and to help safeguard the neighbourhood.
This would only result in vigilantism and people being hunted down.