Omaha Red Sox wrote:In theory, I'm all for this. These people are less than human in my eyes so I wouldn't have an issue with stripping them of every right we possibly can. However, and this goes for the laws that prohibit them from being miles away from schools, parks, daycares, libraries, etc., anywhere a kid might be, you take away all these things and what will they do? They'll go underground. And then you've lost all control. The number of unregistered offenders goes up. I'm not saying there shouldn't be restrictions, there definitely should be, but I don't think we're preventing these offenses as much as we think we are by taking liberties away all the time. We have to remember, just like with gun laws, these people do not respect the law, therefore, they will break the law. To expect otherwise is naive and dangerous.
Agreed, although the sex offender label can be assigned with a very broad and unfair brush in some cases. Things like high schoolers having consensual sex can get someone plastered with that label. False allegation of rape (happened to a friend, thankfully charges were dismissed) where the benefit of the doubt very often falls to the woman. Also, many of these people are not mentally ill, have paid their dues in prison time (much worse for sex offenders of all stripes apparently than other offenses) and would stand to benefit all of society by becoming productive and upstanding members post-release. Zoning restrictions make this very difficult. There is certainly a place for some safeguards due to recidivism (not sure what the rates are for various crimes) but keeping them registered and out in the open offers better control. I read some article a month or so ago about a group of sex offenders that lived homeless under an overpass b/c it was the only liveable place within a certain area due to sex offender residency rules. I'm sure that wasn't a provision of their sentencing.