Sex laws: Unjust and Ineffective

The_Minister

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14164614

Another excellent article from The Economist.

It makes the case that Sex Offenders Registers contain many people who don't belong there, and that the broad range of offences that can get a person registered means that the Registers don't protect anyone.

Overheal

Im not sure you can argue fully that it doesnt protect anyone. However, it is without a doubt, very much against the principles the united states themselves were founded upon. Namely freedom, and all that jazz. All Megans Law does is serve to incite the common man to vilify and persecute a minority. As the first Case Study given in the Economist highlights, that persecution is more often than not, grossly misplaced: Ive gone and mapped my zone: at least a Hundred++ misc. Offenses, 2 rapes, 12 child related. This breaks down to over 90% or more of the registered in my area being most likely harmless since committing their crimes.

The nature of the registry is a good thing. Its broad public-but-not-so-informative nature, is a disaster. I see no problem with the Judiciary knowing who and where these people may be, just as they might now common drug offenders, or alcoholics, because of past incidents. The problem is the average citizen is simply too naive to handle that kind of information professionaly. Especially when that information deals with such a sensitive and emotional subject matter. And Most especially when that data is misleading and inconclusive to the citizen-level user.

The middle of the road approach, cannot fly. The system either needs to be put away back to restricted Official Use Only, or it needs to become full disclosure. If you're going to choose the latter, you need to include the same allevances that are offered to former felons that fill out applications and are not legally required to announce to employers past crimes where time has been fully served, with few exceptions. And things that happen, like The Romeo and Juliet clause, need to be retroactive.

As the Economist rightly points out, the only thing stopping these necessary changes from happening is politics. And, something needs to change there, too.

You have to ask yourself, if we can vilify them the way they have, why can't we simply deport them? The answer is They Have Rights afforded to them. But then you have to ask yourself why are some of these rights being protected and other rights being wholly molested from the individual? Maybe its poetic justice.