[Clint Williams]

Hey, he's only a registered sex offender and lots of FReepers --those who say they're the greatest defenders of the constitution-- think such an extra-judicial post-release execution would not only be perfectly fine and justifiable, but that the executioners should be awarded medals

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

[Greysard]

he's only a registered sex offender and lots of FReepers --those who say they're the greatest defenders of the constitution-- think such an extra-judicial post-release execution would not only be perfectly fine and justifiable

A far more popular opinion says that if the offender is still dangerous then he should remain in prison (or under it,) and if the offender is no longer dangerous then he should have his rights restored and become a regular citizen in every aspect. The bar for being safe will be set high; for example, to qualify one has to master a good trade, like a plumber or an electrician, pass exams and get licensed (it isn't easy, street punks have no chance to pass.) Then such a guy has a solid starting point in his following life.

That would mean that 90% of offenders who are released every day should never see freedom again; but the rest should be given the same chance that everyone else has to live in peace.

This approach is based on two facts. One is that many of the released offenders re-offend as soon as they get out of the prison. Another is that offenders who were not dangerous to begin with (or railroaded, which happens) have difficulties with getting accepted back into the society. And it is understandable because of the fact #1 - a business has no assurance (or even a good possibility) that an ex-convict is not going to rob the place. By releasing criminals back onto the streets the corrections system is devaluing those who are genuinely ready to rebuild their lives.