Les Invalides wrote:
> Palindrome posted
>
>>
>> I still think that the probability of someone who possesses child
>> abuse images will also commit actual abuse is greater than the
>> probability of someone who does not possess such images actually
>> committing abuse.
>
> It's probably true. It's just that there is no good evidence for it.
>
>>
>> That doesn't mean that any one person chosen at random from those
>> caught with child abuse images is likely to be a significant threat.
>> But by putting all of them on the SOR, it is reducing the possibility
>> that one or more of them will carry out actual abuse.
>
> The same argument proves it would be even better to put *everybody* on
> the SOR.
>
>
Isn't that the same as putting everyone on the DNA database, it will
reduce crime. Or will it just make it easier to find those who do?
Both would lead to an immense increase in staff to control the databases
- of which neither could actually be employed in the job anyway - as
they are on the database!
--
Robbie |