Among the many provocative, informative and heart-breaking comments to the Ethics Alarms post about the continued persecution of convicted sex offenders after they have completed their sentences is the following Comment of the Day by Peekachu (not to be confused with the Pokemon of the same name—different spelling). This is obviously an emotional topic for many, and I am somewhat surprised that there have not been any comments in defense of the increasingly restrictive limits placed on the Constitutional rights of sex offenders to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….perhaps because there is no defense. I hope to explore this issue more thoroughly in the future, but in the meantime, I urge readers to visit the other comments to the original post, and also to read Ethics Bob Stone’s take on the topic.
Here is the Comment of the Day, by Peekachu, on “America’s Untouchables”:
“There is a saying that is frequently used to legitimize demonizing and marginalizing sex offenders–”for the children”. On even cursory examination, it is clear that the sex offender laws have nothing to do with protecting children. They are about revenge and guilt. Children are hurt by sex offenders. The “wronged” want revenge. Others in society feel guilty because those children could not be protected. The guilt is so strong that it is projected back onto the person who committed the crime who then becomes a “monster”. Its “OK” to create this untouchable class because then we don’t have to feel guilty. The monsters been thrown out of town, the children are safe and we have saved the day.
“The problem with this story is that it is not true. Sex offenders are people, not monsters. The children are not safe because we have ignored the causes of sex crimes and have done nothing to prevent them. In fact, we have left the initial conditions completely intact for others who may be getting ready to offend as well as creating conditions that are ripe for reoffends by putting people who have already served their debt to society in situations where their very instability repeats the internal conditions that led to offense. So we create an untouchable class that puts undamaged children in more danger so we don’t have to feel guilty about the ones who have already been hurt.
“Does anyone else think this is crazy?”
Ethics Alarms 
Bottom line. Convicted sex offenders should not have the opportunity to become repeat offenders. They should go out in the wilderness and build their own public library, just for them. They served their sentences. They did not earn the public trust.
Wrong. They earned the right to earn back that trust, and it is unethical to deny them that opportunity.
In the majority of cases, there were no children involved. Urinating in public is now considered a sex crime in most jurisdictions. Possessing “child porn” can get a sentence. Posting your ex-girlfriend’s nude pictures will be a sex offense. An 18 y/o with a 17 y/o girlfriend can be tagged.
I would never deny that many people ARE child predators and violent rapists and should be jailed a long time. The majority of “sex offenders” though, should be re-integrated into society.
Blanket accusations are seldom correct.
“..And these lesser men were cast into the
void; And some were burned, and some were
put apart from their kind.”
And there once was a man from Pawtucket,
Who kept all his cash in a bucket…
Awesome reply! 😀
I am late to this discussion but I find georgesblog360 reply most alarming and I say this : I find his response one that demonstrates a total lack of respect for society, an ignorance of the subject of ‘public trust’ and I believe people like him should be cast into the wilderness to build their own libraries: I do not want a man like him-so devoid of humanity, around my children.
However I would never actually send him to the wilderness because he is entitled to his view and I will defend his right to that view despite his desire to create a series of second class citizens that is a complete perversion of man’s rights. There is no other sector of society that is reviled (mainly be beat-ups in the media) as the so-called ‘sex offender’ as others rightly point out can become an unfortunate in that category via a variety of circumstances where no other person is actually harmed.
For me personally- I have had my life upended economically by a series of events- 3 house break-ins (under insured) 4 stolen cars (2 un-insured) a business burgled and over $40K worth of musical epuipment stolen (uninsured and which compensation to the band members paid by me wiped out my savings).
Where is the “burglar offender” register or “car thief” register?.
There aren’t any so I can peruse the internet looking for them and for an obvious reason-they would have absolutely no effect upon re-offending.
If jail terms don’t, why on earth would being on a list stop offending ?
In a nut shell-this is part of the problem. the hysteria and ignorance by those who believe these idiotic and vicious regulations will stop activity is highly dangerous.