Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas Wants to Shame Its Criminals Into Reformation (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously?! (0+ / 0-)
    When you move into public shaming, you further isolate individuals from society, and you make them more likely to offend.
    Seriously?!    We should not require that individuals who are contacting people (potentially children) on the internet to disclose their identity as child rapists, because we should feel constrained by the possibility that revealing the bare facts of their actions without any embellishment might hurt their feelings so much that they will rape another child to make themselves feel better?  

    We already crossed that bridge with the sex offender registry, and we decided it's an over-riding public interest that people who come into contact with a child rapist be aware of the obvious risks.  Even though this knowledge only provides minimal protection, it does provide some minimal protection.  At least we can check before we hire that person as a babysitter.

    If there is any chance that they will rape another child (I am not going to use the clean and sterile word "re-offend" because it fails to convey the trauma, pain and blood involved for the three year old child), then they need to be locked up.   Permanently.    Failing to disclose the facts of their crime is not a sufficient deterrent if we feel that a child rapist will rape again.  If they are that fragile, and that unstable, they should not be walking the streets, or the virtual highways, unchecked.  

    They do have another option, you know, which is to simply refrain from online social networking, or to stick to interacting with people who are not put off by information about their past.    It's what they are going to have to learn to do, because I can assure you that they will never be welcomed into certain circles.

    Whose interests should be considered first?    The citizen who has a young child to protect?    Or the ex-convict whose tender feelings are bruised when the truth of their past acts is revealed?

    Your argument that the act of identifying a person as a child rapist makes that child rapist more dangerous.

    My argument is that if a child rapist remains a danger to children, hiding their identity as a child rapist is insufficient to deal with that danger, and contributes to the danger by failing to warn people of the danger.

    As far as the illusion of security goes, it is true that knowing about known child rapists does not protect from unknown child rapists.  But, in my own experience, having knowledge of who the "funny uncles" are does  help people avoid leaving kids alone around them.

     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site