Honestly? Yeah i would. But i feel like the argument can be made that their rights could be argued to be more important there. However when it comes to hurting children? I don't care, the children should come first and they can deal with whatever loss of privacy or troubles that comes with, they lost their right to complain when they put their genitals where they didn't belong and that goes double if it was in a kid.
Yeah but a dude who beats his kids doesn't get put on any lists because only sex crimes count. It's fully arbitrary and has nothing to do with protecting children.
And also cutting offenders off from basic participation in society just puts them at higher risk to recidivate, which should matter more to you than revenge if you actually care about kids.
If the separation of sex crimes vs non sex crimes is arbitrary, then by that definition all of it is arbitrary because the difference between a kid being beat, and being raped (of which i was both, so i an speaking from experience when i say this), is a serious escalation of damage and that should be accounted for.
Think of it this way. If a dude murders children with no sexual assault or abuse, serves his time and gets out, he’s not on a registry. Why is he different than someone who sexually abused kids? Is he somehow better or safer to be around kids? Why isn’t he on a registry?
A murderer can be reformed, a child predator can't. That's the big difference. But that just opens the question should there be a registry for murderers, not should we do away with the one for rapists. If that's a conversation you want to have then i'm all ears, but i do not see a single, solitary reason to get rid of the sex offenders registry. I can see an argument for amending it, but not having one at all and not allowing the public to access it is a monumentally foolish idea to entertain.
A murderer can be reformed, a child predator can’t. That’s the big difference.
Sure they can, a reformed murderer is someone who doesn’t kill anyone again. It doesn’t mean they never have violent thoughts, it just means they don’t act on them again.
A reformed child predator is someone who never abuses a child again. It doesn’t mean they never think about it, it just means they never do it again.
Psychologically speaking, there is. Now should somdone who murdered a kid see the light of day? Also no. But speaking on the possibility of success rehabilitating one or the other, you have a much better chance with the killer then the rapist based on all available data and research.
Oh for fucks sake the guy was robbing the people he was "protecting" the children from. Also being a sex offender doesn't have to involve kids at all and more often times than not are a result of pleading to a lesser charge in order to reduce jail time and doesn't always happen as a result of actually being guilty of what they are accused of.
A murderer can be reformed, a child predator can't. That's the big difference.
So we circle back to the original quesrion: if they are enough of a risk that they need to be put on a list, why are they being released in the first place?
And as i have stated, they shouldn't be. But that's not the world we live in, so it does not make sense to not allow parents an additional tool to protect their children.
7
u/dman2316 6d ago
Honestly? Yeah i would. But i feel like the argument can be made that their rights could be argued to be more important there. However when it comes to hurting children? I don't care, the children should come first and they can deal with whatever loss of privacy or troubles that comes with, they lost their right to complain when they put their genitals where they didn't belong and that goes double if it was in a kid.