One of the few things guaranteed to depress me these days is the arrogant and irresponsible attitudes of some newspaper editors up and down the country towards the issue of the moment - paedophiles.

Now I know the mere mention of that word will set the neck hairs bristling on some readers but we live in a complicated world and we have to accept that some strange, possibly evil, people exist and they are not going to disappear into the ether.

The practice of outing sex offenders, especially paedophiles, has been utilised by sensation-seeking tabloid papers for some years, however, this questionable habit has now infiltrated the psyche of reporters and editors of smaller, parochial publications.

I say questionable because that's exactly what it is.

'Stop!' I hear some of you yell: 'We have every right to know what kind of sick pervs are living in our midst and what they're up to.'

Quite. And you might believe that newspapers play an important role in keeping you informed of such matters

Well I'm sorry to disappoint some of you but that's not strictly true.

If a reporter uncovers a genuine story where, for example a pervert, unknown to the authorities, is molesting youngsters then it could be argued that the paper had a moral duty to expose this. I can go along with that - although it should be remembered that proving matters like this is fraught with difficulty and the misguided actions of newspaper staff could result in a genuine pervert escaping justice and punishment because of inappropriate editorial meddling.

However examples like this are a far cry from the current leaning towards naming and locating suspected paedophiles. Some papers are even contemplating publishing a compiled list of names and addresses of offenders - why? So that the nearest yob, his brain addled with alcohol, can turn vigilante, go round mob-handed and do some serious damage? Give the sicko the beating he obviously deserves eh? No thanks. That might satisfy the mindless few but it has no part in a civilised society. Yes, children need protecting but what's wrong with the perennial parental advice of staying away from all strangers? Indeed if parents were more attentive there would be less problems all round.

I read recently of a local man who had returned to the community after serving a prison sentence for indecent assault on a minor. One paper chose to reveal this exclusive piece of news to an unsuspecting public. I read with interest to uncover the news in the piece. Had the man struck again? Had he been released through some bureaucratic bungle? Had he served just three days of an eight-year sentence for which our indignation could be rightfully kick-started into action? No. None of these things were true. The man had committed a dreadful crime and has completed his punishment as issued by the court - he had become a free man! Except that there are those among us who feel we have a divine right to interfere and see to it that this man, nor any like him, are ever free.

Having to run the gauntlet of abusive and hostile neighbours, revenge attacks on property or person, humiliation, degradation, scant chance of any constructive job opportunities, death threats and possibly even death could face any man identified as a sex offender. Yes he may have inflicted all those things on some innocent child and deserves to be punished - but in this case he had already been punished and believe me prisoners don't treat sex offenders with kid gloves. These people should be monitored but by the right people. We have to move on. We have to give people the chance to make a fresh start otherwise what's the point in letting them out of prison in the first place?

We know that some people think these people should be locked up forever. Some think they should be killed. Are newspaper editors that irresponsible that they could end up (directly or indirectly) party to such lawlessness?

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.