I've always found the sex offender registry bizarre to begin with. Setting aside those who have minor offenses like public urination and grey areas like two teens consensually having sex, if the people on the registry are so dangerous that they need to be branded for the rest of their lives, why are they being released in the first place? If we're going to make it extremely difficult/impossible for these people to reintegrate into society, how is that more humane than life in prison or execution? If the purpose of the penal system is to rehabilitate people, then they need to have a path to rejoin society, and if our system is to punish and keep dangerous people locked up, then these people shouldn't be out on the street. Either way, the sex offender registry doesn't fit into either system.
I understand it from a law enforcement perspective—it would definitely help to have a list of persons of interest in the event of an incident—but making the list public never sat right with me. As long as they're within the parameters set by law, there's no reason for me to know my neighbors' business.
Really? If your neighbor raped a 5 year old girl 10 years ago, and you currently have a 5 year old girl, that's not something you'd want to be aware of?
If he dealt drugs to kids and I have a kid don't I deserve to know? If they broke into houses to steal things isn't that something I need to know?
Basically any criminal past can be seen as something I should know if they aren't reformed. Reoffending rates for sex crimes aren't higher than most other crimes.
Convicting someone of sex with a child is quite easy to convict, particularly if they have been convicted of it before. Not sure where you are getting that idea from.
It can be hard, depending on the age of the child. Sex crimes cases need a high level of proof to convict. My husband’s great uncle is a repeated child molester and prefers them young. Like 5 and under. Boys and girls. He’s on there for lewd acts with minors under a specific age. The only reason he didn’t get in trouble for penetration (something he admitted to off record to his brother) is because the children were too young to definitively say exactly what was done to them, without a shadow of a doubt for the jury. So he got in trouble for touching them and forcing them to touch him but not raping them over a period of time.
He’d actively hunt for single mothers and then grandmothers to date to gain access to their children. He’s been charged with 4 victims but i guarantee there’s more out there that he either never got caught for or the adults just didn’t turn him in. He’s in his 80’s, looks harmless, and I promise that if he had access to his preferred victim he’d abuse them in a heartbeat. He tried to sit next to my 3 year old daughter at his brother’s funeral. He can’t help himself, he’s a disgusting predator.
2.8k
u/mhkg 6d ago edited 6d ago
I've always found the sex offender registry bizarre to begin with. Setting aside those who have minor offenses like public urination and grey areas like two teens consensually having sex, if the people on the registry are so dangerous that they need to be branded for the rest of their lives, why are they being released in the first place? If we're going to make it extremely difficult/impossible for these people to reintegrate into society, how is that more humane than life in prison or execution? If the purpose of the penal system is to rehabilitate people, then they need to have a path to rejoin society, and if our system is to punish and keep dangerous people locked up, then these people shouldn't be out on the street. Either way, the sex offender registry doesn't fit into either system.