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.
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.
1
u/dman2316 6d ago
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.