No, I would argue that the increase is due to evil and Godless souls who prey on the weak and young. The "increase of pornography and sexually suggestive marketing" are symptoms of the fall of man - but then, we would have to admit there is a God first, right?
So, in the entire state of Illinois, population roughly 12 million, they found a total of 90 convicted sexual offenders (with unspecified actual offence) living in the same building as a day-care facility (with unspecified size of the buildings, it could be 500 apt complexes) and ONE case of a person receiving payments from DHS (not sure what relevance that has).
I may be missing something here, but this does not sound like the widespread disaster that the tone of the article implies. I can understand the sentiment that convicted pedophiles should not be allowed to live in the apartment next to a day-care center (and on pure principle, they shouldn’t), but I don’t think that will affect the number of assaults on children significantly. If a deviant is set to go after children, living across town won’t stop him (or her).
Instead of long prison sentences real offenders get phony “treatment programs” that make them worse, not better, and are turned loose to wreak more havoc. Then the therapeutic industry claims, “Oh look at all these offenders. We need more money to treat them”. Then the phony treatments (that make them worse) continue and there are more offenders than ever... all created by the therapists.
Repeat the above.
There is a serious problem with the sex offender registry, which is not helped by its three tier offender levels. The problem is that it is “diluted”, by listing both dangerous offenders and “annoying” offenders.
So say some frat boy gets drunk, and is arrested urinating on the street. He is an “annoying” offender, who is classed as a Class One offender.
But at the same time, the police arrest a serial child rapist, but because of lack of hard evidence, a poor prosecutor, or a serial child rapist sympathetic judge, he is allowed a plea bargain, so he is also classed as a Class One offender, even though he is clearly a Class Three offender.
Even as a Class One, however, he could be under stronger restrictions, but only if the “annoying” offenders weren’t diluting the system.
“Government Bureaucracy Fails To Protect Children”
Wake up, Captain ObviousMan.
Note carefully the following:
1. The Command to be “fruitful and multiply” was given to Adam & Eve, not to government agencies.
2. Raising children is not mentioned as a legitimate function of government in the Constitution.
3. In light of #2, government intrusion into family can be considered a violation of the Constitution by definition.
Given the never ending stream of AgencyPerson decisions regarding children which range from egregiously stupid, to totally wrong, to downright evil, the dimmest of intellects must reluctantly admit that government can’t raise children.
Abuse of a child is evil. However, placing a child in the hands of an agency has proved to be no answer to the evil of child abuse.
Historically, family, relatives, churches dealt with children who needed help.
Goobers in a gooberment agency have not improved the situation. The Founders could have told us that. Wait a minute - they did .....
I think sexual abuse of children is nothing new, I think children have been abused thru history. Children have not always been protected. I am not advocating that we not protect children, but human nature has always been depraved.
Thats what the government can do for ya..