I remember a thread I read back some time ago concerning Criminal Registries. Someone stated that the Sex Offender Registries were good in that they informed people of possible dangers to children. Someone else was stating that they would eventually expand it out into a public shaming system. Well anyway I seen on the news last night that Indiana is trying to pass a Meth Offender registry for our "protection". How does everyone feel about regestries for non sexual related crimes? I think that this new "Public Shaming" is about the worse idea imaginable. To encourage people to sterotype and avoid someone convicted of a drug offense surely will not help them to turn their lives around.
To me it seems like just another way to label and pigeonhole people, so that those in power can manipulate public opinion. I don't think it works with sex offenders either, it just tends to lead to violence by those that feel empowered to extract their own form of justice..
The term "Sex Offender" needs to be clarified first. Pedophiles & sexual predators who prey on kids, need to be publically shamed, ostracized from society, and deserve in every way possible to have their lives ruined. They are nothing but pieces of human garbage. Completley useless to society. But in cases of statutory rape - where a 19 year old guy is having consentual sex with is 17 year old girlfriend - the law needs to be changed. They'll have the stigma of "Sex Offender" on their record too - just like the sick pedophile.
The only reason I could justify the list for meth offenders is in the production of. Due to the chemicals involved if I were renting homes ect I would like to have known if this person may cause me a major financial hardship from having to properly take care of a home that a meth lab was in. Other than that its just another way to label people. As for sex offenders yes it should be left to those crimes classified under pedophile and violent cases not statutory rape cases. But then you know when we give goverment an inch they make a trip to the moon with it.
Where to draw the line that's the question. A nineteen year old is old enough to know what's legal and what isn't. Why give him a pass. We have a legal system, and those that are convicted serve their term, why should their term be expanded by allowing communities to react adversely to people that have served their term and been returned. If the system doesn't work, than revamp the system so that those not rehabbed are never returned to society.
True. However, that's not how it's working right now. Another problem is the states being allowed to have different penalties for the same crime. The murder rate is extremely high in states that don't have the death penalty. Even though it seems like life in prison is worse than death....many violent individuals would prefer that over death...especially if there is a possibility of parole. There are more murders in California than Texas. Why? Cause Texas will kill your ass. They'd have a medieval torture chamber if it were allowed. Texas is hardcore. Until the system is completely overhauled in regards to molestors and rapists, we have to do something to protect people out there. I don't think it's asking to much for some creepy child molestor to not be allowed to live near schools, work with children, or be allowed to care for children. If you touch and rape little kids...you forfeit your freedom to be around them. Period. It's like I also believe that once you maliciously and premeditatedly kill someone...you forfeit your life. You take a gun and shoot a bank clerk in the head...you deserve to die. You stab your boyfriend in the heart or give him rat poison...you deserve to die. You strangle your wife to collect the insurance money....you deserve to die. You kidnap, rape, and then bury a 6 year old alive, and she dies....you deserve to have your balls ripped off and then you die.
Yea, I don't support registries for this stuff either. Child molestors should never be let out of prison or should be executed. Drug offenders are a little different though.
