Quote:
Originally posted by lucky1313
We let officials with speeding tickets and DUI's officiate. It has been 17 years, how long does he have to "pay for his crimes?"
|
Ah yes, the classic appeal to emotion, recasting the reprehensible offender as the vulnerable, innocent victim.
Apparently you missed a vital class period of 10th grade civics. So let me see if I can spell this out very clearly for you.
We, as a compassionate, caring and enlightened society have come to realize that certain kinds of offenders have a demonstrated history of repeating their crimes. And that those crimes are often perpetrated on the most vulernable members of our society. Government, being in the business of securing freedom and liberty to all its citizens -- not just those who so wilfully violate our laws -- has a basic responsibility to instate reasonable measures to protect its citizens. Sometimes that means from each other. Sometimes that means forever.
Yes, the person in question has served his prison sentence. But it would be grossly irresponsible for us as a society to simply turn a blind eye to the potential danger violators like this man still pose. And since we can't know who will commit further crimes, we must err on the side of caution.
It is therefore not an unreasonable precaution or gross violation of this "citizen's" rights to impose restrictions on his ability to freely associate with potential future victims. It is, in fact, right and responsible to do so. You don't put a drink in front of a recovering alcholic, you don't put a vial of crack in easy reach of a junkie in rehab, so why the hell would you expect to give a convicted sex offender ready access to children? Ever?
Some behaviors really do merit losing some of the rights and privleges of full participation in a cooperative and civilized society. That's a fact of life.
Like I teach my children, you are free to choose your actions. You are not free, however, to choose the consequences of those actions.