Consitutional Court to Review MK Public Paedophile Register

[Vangelovski]

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/arti...phile-register

The Macedonian Government wants to publish online a register with the names, addresses and photo's of convicted paedophiles so that neighbours and children can be aware of their presence. The Constitutional Court believes it may be a violation of their right to privacy and wants to review the decision.

What do people think? Should Paedo's have a right to privacy respected or are these extreme circumstances that require that right to be violated?

This is one of the rare instances in which I agree with both the MK Government and the need to violate a fundamental right... shock, horror.

Here is a link to the Registry (if you can get the bloody thing to work):

http://www.registarnapedofili.mk/

[Phoenix]

What do people think? Should Paedo's have a right to privacy respected or are these extreme circumstances that require that right to be violated?

This is one of the rare instances in which I agree with both the MK Government and the need to violate a fundamental right... shock, horror.

Vangelovski, if we violate this right to privacy don't you fear like many other civil libertarians that it could be the "thin edge of the wedge" to the further erosion of our basic rights?

For example, what if a "tyrannical leader" were to sweep to power and made other exemptions to ones so called "fundamental rights" , there by relegating those rights to a watered down version of "fundamental".

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, if we violate this right to privacy don't you fear like many other civil libertarians that it could be the "thin edge of the wedge" to the further erosion of our basic rights?

For example, what if a "tyrannical leader" were to sweep to power and made other exemptions to ones so called "fundamental rights" , there by relegating those rights to a watered down version of "fundamental".

Our rights are violated in many instances. I don't fear it would happen, I know it already does. However, this is one rare instance in which I actually agree with a limited violation of a fundamental right - that is, a limited violation of the right to privacy in which an offenders name, address and photo are made publicly known.

I've found you willing to accept a violation of rights for much less and I'm perplexed by your comment in relation to this particular instance.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I can't remember if it was Victor or Gocka who touched on it, but Benjamin Franklin's statement below is quite relevant:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I think ultimately, the question is how much liberty are you willing to give up for safety that nobody, including no government or state institution, can guarantee?

I think the Americans, as a nation, have tried to answer that question through their constitution and laws. Whether or not they have found the right balance is an issue for debate. But as things stand, they have a clear set of rules for what can and cannot be done.

There seem to be two simultaneous questions in this thread:

1) Was this action a violation of constitutional and natural rights; and

2) Did this action actually prevent further violence.

In this particular instance, I think that the US Government has violated the constitution and the natural rights of individuals. Whether this course of action prevented more violence is debatable.

Tom, here's an extract from a post you made in the Boston bombings thread. I'm struggling to see how and why you are prepared to accept violations of fundamental human rights in this instance, yet not when the lives of hundreds of people are under immediate threat.

You acknowledged that Benjamin Franklin's quote was relevant, yet in this context you are now one of those people who is prepared to give up an essential liberty for the sake of public safety. I guess none of us deserve liberty nor safety.

Let's address the questions you highlighted in the other thread.

1) Yes, this is a blatant violation of an individual's rights. Perhaps more obvious than that in the Boston bombings case.

2) It could prevent further violence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate an immediate threat, unlike the Boston bombings.

So how can you defend constitutional and fundamental human rights at all costs on one hand, despite the presence of an immediate threat apparent, then support the violation of them in an understandably less serious context (compared to large-scale terrorist attacks)? If you truly value natural/fundamental rights, how do you explain this inconsistency in your approach? It makes no sense.

You may see it as a limited infringement, but who's to say that it won't open the floodgates for all other convicted criminals to have their details, photo and crime published on an easily accessible domain for the sake of 'public awareness.'

[Phoenix]

...You may see it as a limited infringement, but who's to say that it won't open the floodgates for all other convicted criminals to have their details, photo and crime published on an easily accessible domain for the sake of 'public awareness.'

That's a good point EM.
Another issue is whether putting such personal information in the public domain has a negative effect on criminal rehabilitation.

[Risto the Great]

Vangeovski, I am surprised with your compromised stance on this issue. I wouldn't call it a perfect outcome but I would want consistency with issues like this. Why wouldn't your regular beer swilling rapist not be disclosed in a similar fashion?

[Vangelovski]

Tom, here's an extract from a post you made in the Boston bombings thread. I'm struggling to see how and why you are prepared to accept violations of fundamental human rights in this instance, yet not when the lives of hundreds of people are under immediate threat.

You acknowledged that Benjamin Franklin's quote was relevant, yet in this context you are now one of those people who is prepared to give up an essential liberty for the sake of public safety. I guess none of us deserve liberty nor safety.

Let's address the questions you highlighted in the other thread.

1) Yes, this is a blatant violation of an individual's rights. Perhaps more obvious than that in the Boston bombings case.

2) It could prevent further violence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate an immediate threat, unlike the Boston bombings.

So how can you defend constitutional and fundamental human rights at all costs on one hand, despite the presence of an immediate threat apparent, then support the violation of them in an understandably less serious context (compared to large-scale terrorist attacks)? If you truly value natural/fundamental rights, how do you explain this inconsistency in your approach? It makes no sense.

You may see it as a limited infringement, but who's to say that it won't open the floodgates for all other convicted criminals to have their details, photo and crime published on an easily accessible domain for the sake of 'public awareness.'

EM, you're confused. In that thread, I merely stated a fact - that it was a violation of a right. I never provided any view on it other than to say its debatable as to whether it could have saved any more lives. I never argued for or against such a violation. I simply stated that it was a violation because some couldn't even understand that. Further, while it is a fundamental right, the right to privacy, by nature, is very difficult to protect - even under the best conditions. I'm not sure if you're ready to move off the base level discussion on natural rights, however. I see you still have issues with the concept. Its a pity, as this is a perfect example for a discussion on competing rights.

In this instance, I'm also stating a fact - I'm acknowledging that it is a violation of a right. However, in this case, I'm providing the view that I would accept this limited violation on the grounds that there is a competing right, and in my view, a much more pressing one that supersedes the right of a criminal aggressor to privacy - self-defence for potential victims.

[Vangelovski]

That's a good point EM.
Another issue is whether putting such personal information in the public domain has a negative effect on criminal rehabilitation.

Phoenix, what's criminal rehabilitation and how does that work in practice?

[Vangelovski]

Vangeovski, I am surprised with your compromised stance on this issue. I wouldn't call it a perfect outcome but I would want consistency with issues like this. Why wouldn't your regular beer swilling rapist not be disclosed in a similar fashion?

Is it compromised or have you not thought it through yet? Refer to my response to EM, particularly in relation to competing rights.

Maybe they should? What do you think? Have you considered that fact that your regular beer swilling rapist, as horrendous as his crime is, doesn't target children who require additional protection to an adult?

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, what's criminal rehabilitation and how does that work in practice?

A very large number of criminals, after their release from prison re-offend and end up serving more time.
Criminal rehabilitation programs are education based to equip former prisoners with the skills to engage in society rather than following a criminal path.

What you suggest (naming and shaming) could be used by sections of the community, such as employers to discriminate against former sex offenders and their efforts to reform.

[Risto the Great]

Have you considered that fact that your regular beer swilling rapist, as horrendous as his crime is, doesn't target children who require additional protection to an adult?

I just don't know where it stops. And I'm surprised where you've drawn the line on this one. It does appear inconsistent.

So if Al Qaeda is targeting children in its next onslaught, then we should abandon the other liberties afforded to citizens discussed before?

[Vangelovski]

A very large number of criminals, after their release from prison re-offend and end up serving more time.
Criminal rehabilitation programs are education based to equip former prisoners with the skills to engage in society rather than following a criminal path.

What you suggest (naming and shaming) could be used by sections of the community, such as employers to discriminate against former sex offenders and their efforts to reform.

And how does this work in practice? Oh yeah, see if you can have a crack at it in relation to how it works in Macedonia.

[Vangelovski]

I just don't know where it stops. And I'm surprised where you've drawn the line on this one. It does appear inconsistent.

So if Al Qaeda is targeting children in its next onslaught, then we should abandon the other liberties afforded to citizens discussed before?

Where have I drawn the line on this one Chris, and how exactly is your example of terrorism relevant to this example? I'm suggesting a limited violation of the right of the criminal aggressor to privacy because of a more important competing right of the victim.

You're providing an example where no rights are violated in relation to the criminal aggressor (Al Qaeda) and instead the rights of the victims be violated!!! That's a little perverse don't you think? How is that anything like what I have suggested? Its not, so essentially, that question is something for you to answer as you have suggested it as a legitimate response to those circumstances.

I'd also put the question to EM and Phoenix, who have supported the violation of numerous fundamental rights in the past, yet now seem to defend the right of privacy for convicted paedophiles over the right to self-defence of potential victims. That's also somewhat perverse, don't the two of you think?

Let me also pose a simple reality to everyone that's got themselves into a knot over the rights of paedophiles - the information provided on this register, except perhaps their photo, is already public knowledge. All open societies report on criminal procedures - its part of having a transparent criminal justice system. Their names and the crimes they have been convicted of are easily and publicly accessible. Their addresses aren't that hard to find. People, particularly in small communities such as those in Macedonia, usually know everyone, who they are, which family they belong to and where they live. Can any of you actually explain how privacy is being violated in this instance, rather than simply taking on the cause of privacy because Vangelovski posted something against it?

I'll also ask another question of those concerned with the rights of privacy for paedophiles. Aren't you even more concerned for their more important rights, like the right not to be deprived of liberty? Should they not be sent to jail once they are convicted of paedophilia? Or is this just a convenient "concern" for rights simply because Vangelovski is taking the opposite position in this instance?

[EgejskaMakedonia]

EM, you're confused. In that thread, I merely stated a fact - that it was a violation of a right. I never provided any view on it other than to say its debatable as to whether it could have saved any more lives. I never argued for or against such a violation. I simply stated that it was a violation because some couldn't even understand that. Further, while it is a fundamental right, the right to privacy, by nature, is very difficult to protect - even under the best conditions. I'm not sure if you're ready to move off the base level discussion on natural rights, however. I see you still have issues with the concept. Its a pity, as this is a perfect example for a discussion on competing rights.

In this instance, I'm also stating a fact - I'm acknowledging that it is a violation of a right. However, in this case, I'm providing the view that I would accept this limited violation on the grounds that there is a competing right, and in my view, a much more pressing one that supersedes the right of a criminal aggressor to privacy - self-defence for potential victims.

Tom, in your initial post you mentioned that 'as much as it pains [you] to say, [you] largely agree with the points made by Victor on this matter.' Vic was very outright about his view, and any reasonable person here would assume that by agreeing with him, it is rather obvious what your position was regarding the potential violation of rights during the Boston bombings. If we look at the gun owners thread, there is another prime example of you rambling on about natural and fundamental rights. So why has your attitude altered in regards to other rights? It seems like you are prioritising only the supposed rights that suit you, i.e right to bear arms (in an American context).

You may accept this particular violation of a right, but it's not particular fair to potentially marginalise all criminals and exile them from the public. There are plenty of other means to monitor paedophiles and protect the public without this kind of breach. If they've served their time, they should enjoy the same rights that every other citizen does. Public safety is generally considered of utmost importance, but does that mean we should deny every criminal bail, deny them a lawyer, etc? After all, it's in the interest of public safety...right? Small changes like this may seem rather insignificant in the greater picture, but as you and a few others alluded to in the other thread, they have the possibility to cause a ripple effect. Again, why would you support public safety over privacy in this case, but not in the Boston bombings scenario? Common sense would show that an immediate threat requires more drastic measures than what is being proposed here.

As for your question in your response to Risto, I never actually stated whether I agree or not with this public register. I'm simply highlighting the opposing arguments that expose your inconsistency in the matter. In regards to your last question on a criminal's right to liberty, what on earth are you on about?? It really does seem as if you're clutching at straws here. If someone commits a serious offence they forfeit their right to liberty. Of course they are going to be arrested and locked up if they are deemed to be guilty. Tom, these convicted paedophiles have been released from prison. They've served their sentence and should be able to re-integrate into society. I'm not so sure you understand this.

[Phoenix]

Vangelovski, I can see parallels between the name and shame tactics you're proposing with those used by the Nazi regime during WWII to identify Jewish homes.

Next you'll be suggesting or supporting those convicted of crimes to be branded with a mark on the forehead.