Posted on 11/02/2017 11:16:43 AM PDT by Enlightened1
That's the problem. Many of these cases involve consensual teenage sex. One I can remember was 17 and 16. So "child sex offender" may mean a 17 year old and very often is just that. Examples like this are not rare at all. Many states include those convicted of peeing in public, prostitution, and many other acts that in realty have nothing to do with being what a reasonable person would consider a "sex offender". That's why I say those that are not thinking have in there minds 40 year old men that rape 5 year olds which is an understandably emotional response. If you do a little research I think you will find the sex offender lists rarely have anything to do with these monsters and the lists themselves are full of non sex offender violations. Lastly whatever mechanism you say protects us from printing "climate change denier" on a persons pass port must be the same as what should prevent "sex offender" from being printed on a passport so no reason to believe we are protected.
One should be vary wary of any of this scarlet letter tendency as it's a direct flag for oppressive government. The government is using this reasoning to take away 2nd amendment rights of anyone involved in domestic violence and service members who could have PTSD. They are using it to brand anyone that has been treated for any physiological issues and on and on. It's getting to the point where you better have a lawyer with you when you visit a doctor and refer to the lawyer when asked questions like "are you feeling depressed".
Good grief. I will say it once more. Once a person convicted of a crime has served their sentence then that persons debt to society has been paid. Their punishment ends there. Branding someone never go's away so yes that is prohibited by the 8th amendment.
One would like to think so - but of course felons (ex felons? former felons?) that have served their sentence still can't legally exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Re: sex crimes - I knew a guy that worked admin in a prison, and was on some committee whenever it came time for paroles. He said the sex offenders were the worst. They had to release them based on the various guidelines (good behavior, etc.) - but he said almost all of them committed another sex crime within a certain amount of time.
There are those who would see no difference. Not so many years ago another government made some wear yellow stars and tattoos.
“Anyone that actually should be on a list likely should not be out of prison to begin with.”
Yep.
I say, make the offender a permanent resident in the TombStone “BOOT HILL”, GRAVE YARD.
Guess Hollywood will have to stop filming overseas.
>>That’s the problem.<<
Well, I am not one to argue simply for the sake of argument, and truthfully I agree with with everything you’ve written on this subject. Nevertheless, if I were the final decision maker regarding punishment for child sex abuse, I would have those found guilty of that crime executed, and no argument regarding reason vs. emotion would dissuade me from that decision.
<< Not so many years ago another government made some wear yellow stars and tattoos.<<
Absurd. No equivalency whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.