In which I take an unpopular view...
May. 26th, 2005 05:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyIn a community I'm in, somebody asked if you'd move if you knew you lived near a registered sex offender. And one of the replies was "No, I'd make them move".
*sighs*
Now, I in no way think highly of those who would harm children. We'll assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the only people who are on those lists have either molested children or raped people - no Matthew Limons, no "Well, she told me she was 19!", nothing like that.
So, you do whatever it was, and you go to prison, and you get out... and you have to live somewhere, right? Where do you live? Where, that there are no children around, at all?
As far as I know, there are no lists of convicted burglars, or convicted murderers - or even convicted rapists, unless they raped a minor. So, it can't just be about protecting ourselves, it's got to be about punishing others...
And let's say it is all about protecting our kids. That's fair, nobody wants kids getting hurt. I can see keeping people from getting jobs as teachers, pediatricians, and so on.
The vast majority of children who are molested, it's by somebody in the family, or a family friend. The rest of them, it seems, are mostly victims of authority figures - priests, doctors, teachers, that sort of thing. While some kids certainly are taking candy from the nice man down the block, and others certainly are being snatched from the streets by men in ski masks, that doesn't seem to be very common.
And here's something else. If you're any good at your criminal activities, whatever they are, you don't get caught.
So you want to protect your kids? You won't do that by shutting off your neighborhood. In fact, the false sense of security this gives you may be more dangerous, I think, than not doing that. Best way to protect your kids is to educate them. That's the only way to protect them, not by trying to remove oh-so-dangerous elements from your world.
Besides. Harassment is a crime. You want to be a vigilante? Go put on a mask, and douse yourself with dangerous chemicals like everybody else.
*sighs*
Now, I in no way think highly of those who would harm children. We'll assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the only people who are on those lists have either molested children or raped people - no Matthew Limons, no "Well, she told me she was 19!", nothing like that.
So, you do whatever it was, and you go to prison, and you get out... and you have to live somewhere, right? Where do you live? Where, that there are no children around, at all?
As far as I know, there are no lists of convicted burglars, or convicted murderers - or even convicted rapists, unless they raped a minor. So, it can't just be about protecting ourselves, it's got to be about punishing others...
And let's say it is all about protecting our kids. That's fair, nobody wants kids getting hurt. I can see keeping people from getting jobs as teachers, pediatricians, and so on.
The vast majority of children who are molested, it's by somebody in the family, or a family friend. The rest of them, it seems, are mostly victims of authority figures - priests, doctors, teachers, that sort of thing. While some kids certainly are taking candy from the nice man down the block, and others certainly are being snatched from the streets by men in ski masks, that doesn't seem to be very common.
And here's something else. If you're any good at your criminal activities, whatever they are, you don't get caught.
So you want to protect your kids? You won't do that by shutting off your neighborhood. In fact, the false sense of security this gives you may be more dangerous, I think, than not doing that. Best way to protect your kids is to educate them. That's the only way to protect them, not by trying to remove oh-so-dangerous elements from your world.
Besides. Harassment is a crime. You want to be a vigilante? Go put on a mask, and douse yourself with dangerous chemicals like everybody else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-26 04:21 pm (UTC)This means that there are a heck of a lot of 16-year-old boys who touched the breasts of a 17-year-old girl at a party without her permission, who are now on sex offender lists. I think they can petition to be removed after 10 years, but they can never work as teachers, etc., ever. Now, I'm certainly not saying "boys will be boys" and I think that boys who touch girls' breasts without permission should be punished and I certainly despise people who molest children, but the aforementioned sixteen-year-old boy is certainly not a danger to the six-year-old next door. The girl in question was six weeks shy of 18 (and quite a bit older than the boy), by the way.
Of course, I'm using one specific case as an example—the NJ Appellate Division ruling that established this policy—but there are indeed many high schoolers who had inappropriate sexual contact with other high schoolers and are now on Megan's Law lists. Even though Megan's Law is supposed to protect children from child molesters.