Innocent, but on THE registry

[Bob S.]

According to the story below, Pete Townshend was placed on the British Sex Offender's Registry despite being cleared of possessing child porn. According to the story, it "was part of a formal police caution he received for accessing a Web site containing images of child abuse."

He had used his credit card to access a site that contained the illegal porn, "but said he was doing research for his autobiography and a campaign against child pornography."

My question is this: should the police be able to put someone on the registry who are found innocent or are cleared of the charges? This just seems to me like a step on the path through dangerous territory.

Yahoo story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=10&u=/ap/20031230/ap_en_ot/people_pete_townshend)

Bob S .

[Bob S.]

According to the story below, Pete Townshend was placed on the British Sex Offender's Registry despite being cleared of possessing child porn. According to the story, it "was part of a formal police caution he received for accessing a Web site containing images of child abuse."

He had used his credit card to access a site that contained the illegal porn, "but said he was doing research for his autobiography and a campaign against child pornography."

My question is this: should the police be able to put someone on the registry who are found innocent or are cleared of the charges? This just seems to me like a step on the path through dangerous territory.

Yahoo story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=10&u=/ap/20031230/ap_en_ot/people_pete_townshend)

Bob S .

[BareInBare]

I agree with you, Bob. He should not be on the registry if a court found him innocent of the charges. That would be the same as if someone here in the states was told they had to be on the Meagan's law registry if they were found innocent of charges that they were wrongly accussed of.

Seems that they could be treading on thin ice with that one opening them selves up to lawsuits for slander and/or libel.

[MikeJB]

That seems illegal to me and I think that man should take his case to a higher court and explain that his charges were dropped but he was still put onto the sexual offenders list wrongfully. I mean im sure there is some legal action he could take because this is just absurd.

[greensunshine]

I would like to answer that question with the following Question:

What was the research for and what ultimately was the expected outcome of doing the research...

Was it to satisfy his own curiosity?
or,
Was it to prove a point with his confirmed academic studies?

If it was the first, let the charge stick, other wise, if it was the later, it should be removed. Also if he was considering returning to school but hadn't, that does not justify removing the charge...a lot of us plan to return to school to further our education, but just because we do, doesn't mean we will...nor will the research that we plan on doing, justify being done at an earlier date and time.

So to sum up my feelings on this subject, it is my suspicions, we do not have all the facts regarding why he was charged...just one side of the story and that too could very well be incorrect or biased, depending on who is telling it /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jochanaan]

Not to answer a question with a question, Greensunshine, but: What's the difference between research for a college class and research for a book?

But you're probably right in saying we don't have all the facts. Still, assuming that Mr. Townshend was telling the truth about his anti-child porn campaign, I think his defense was valid.

Allow me to explain.

The Yahoo! article was very misleading. Mr Townsend wasn't "cleared" of anything. Nor was he convicted. The reason is that the police, after receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, never took the matter to court.

Under English law the police have the discretion to administer a formal caution to anyone who has committed a criminal offence provided:

1. the offence is fully admitted, and

2. there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution to succeed if one were to be brought.

Where a person is cautioned by the police for certain sexual offences, the person's name is placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a determined period. This is NOT at the discretion of the police or anyone else - it is mandatory under the law.

"Research", by the way, does not constitute a defence to procuring indecent images of children.

The reason that Mr Townsend was cautioned rather than prosecuted appears to have been because the offence was extremely minor in character and there was no evidence that he was either habitually involved in paedophilia or a danger to children.

Does that clear it up?

Stu

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>should the police be able to put someone on the registry who are found innocent or are cleared of the charges? This just seems to me like a step on the path through dangerous territory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To my knowledge it never went to trial so he wasn't formally found innocent and cleared of all wrongdoing. They simply declined to prosecute. He did however receive an "official caution", whatever that means.

We don't have an American equivalent. Closest thing would be to plea bargain a felony down to a misdemeanor and then get the sentence suspended.

I think they were trying to say he had probably violated the law but it wasn't worth the effort to prosecute. He accepted the caution as an alternative to forcing them to try to prosecute. In the military here we'd call it an "Article 15".

However to get on an official sex offender registry here, there does have to be some kind of conviction or plea bargain in the courts. Our "list" has some very detailed notification requirements you have to comply with if you move, limits your freedom to travel, publishes your name in a public registry and notifies your neighbors wherever you may move. Don't know what the British list does.

[steevo]

Thanks for your very clear explanation Stu. It makes sence to me.
Steevo here /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[greensunshine]

Stu,

For me, it definitely does, especially since the occurance took place in the same country that you live in...and being that I am an American with only access to some of the information you are able to present...it makes even more sense.

Greensunshine /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Allow me to explain.

The Yahoo! article was very misleading. Mr Townsend wasn't "cleared" of anything. Nor was he convicted. The reason is that the police, after receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, never took the matter to court.

Under English law the police have the discretion to administer a formal caution to anyone who has committed a criminal offence provided:

1. the offence is fully admitted, and

2. there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution to succeed if one were to be brought.

Where a person is cautioned by the police for certain sexual offences, the person's name is placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a determined period. This is NOT at the discretion of the police or anyone else - it is mandatory under the law.

"Research", by the way, does not constitute a defence to procuring indecent images of children.

The reason that Mr Townsend was cautioned rather than prosecuted appears to have been because the offence was extremely minor in character and there was no evidence that he was either habitually involved in paedophilia or a danger to children.

Does that clear it up?

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Bob S.]

Yes, I knew that you would help explain it more, stu. But actually, I found out what the placement entailed earlier in the year on another website. One quetsion for you stu, does a "formal caution" placement on the sex offender's registry last for less time than if the person is convicted?

Greeenie, I would have to say that there is no legitimate reason for accessing a website containing child porn. If he wanted to do research, there are other ways to do it without actually seeing it.

Bob S.

Bob

"does a "formal caution" placement on the sex offender's registry last for less time than if the person is convicted?"

The media and even lawyers call it a "Sex Offender's Register" but that's a bit misleading because there isn't a single "register" as such.

What it really is is a series of duties on the offender to notify the police such as their name and address(including if they relocate), other addresses they habitually use, and if they plan to go abroad. It's called the "Notification Requirement".

The time limits are a bit complicated but to summarise, if a person is sentenced to 30 months or more in prison then they have the "requirement" indefinitely, if they're sentenced to more than 6 months buth less than 30, they it's for 10 years, if they are sentenced to 6 months or less then it's 7 years. In all other cases, including a police caution, it's five years.

So in Pete Townsend's case he will have the Notification Requirement for 5 years.

Stu

[stevenf64]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>should the police be able to put someone on the registry who are found innocent or are cleared of the charges? This just seems to me like a step on the path through dangerous territory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To my knowledge it never went to trial so he wasn't formally found innocent and cleared of all wrongdoing. They simply declined to prosecute. He did however receive an "official caution", whatever that means.

We don't have an American equivalent. Closest thing would be to plea bargain a felony down to a misdemeanor and then get the sentence suspended.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We do have such a thing in this country. Its called pleading to "Facts Sufficient." Were you dont plead guilty but you do agree that if they were to go to court then they would most likely win.
steve

[Bob S.]

TNX stu.

Steve, isn't that also called an Alford Plea (I am not sure I spelled that correctly)?

Bob S.