- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 1
Agree. It's a tough situation to be sure. On one hand, we have to give criminals, yes even sex offenders a second chance at life. And the only way to do that is to have the label of criminal, permanently removed from their "file". But at the same time, it would suck if say a daycare center unknowingly hires aphile, or if an office hires a guy who went postal at his previous job. You gotta consider the safety of the other workers.
As it stands now though, the only way to succeed after getting out of prison is to be a rapper or something.
Don't get me wrong.
I am 100% for sex offender registry's - and registry for criminals of other types. What I'm saying is that we need a little more leeway with how we dish out these labels.
I think "Sex Offender" has such a stigma tied to it, that it should be reserved for people who have committed the worst crimes. The above example I gave of the guy who had sex with the 16 year old girl, peeping toms, guys who are caught with prostitutes etc.. I don't consider these criminals the same class as rapists, child molestors (pre puberty rape), child pornographers, date-rape druggers, etc.
But what we're saying when we throw out an umbrella term like "sex offender", is that all of these criminals are the same. A guy caught jerking off in an X-rated movie theater now has a sign in his yard that says "Don't trick or treat here, I'm a sex offender" - the same as Bob down the street who fucked a little boy in his ass and ruined his life.
That sort of shit isn't fair, and needs to be looked at. That's all I'm saying. In the meantime, it's the law - and the law needs to be obeyed.
