I do care about preventing crimes and public safety, however, this topic is about SO’s, so I am addressing the issues concerning SO’s. I do have a personal opinion, coming from a person that was abused, and dealing with a 17 year old daughter that was abused by a 68 year old coach. So, I admit I have little sympathy for abusers. However, I feel you are entitled to your perceptions as well. I do not have a problem with your challenge, but I don’t know if you fully see my methods.
.
I believe that information (the SO list) in itself does not pose a threat to anybody and can increase awareness for people who chose not to want to associate with the perpetrators of such crimes. There are people that want to, I am fine with that, and it is their choice. The fear (I think, trying to understand your position) is that being on this list will increase vigilantism, and hinder offenders from rehabilitation.
.
A list of what people have done is just data, what people chose to do with that data is their prerogative. If they chose to commit crimes with that data, then they too should be held accountable for breaking the applicable laws. We as a society should not withhold information out of fear that that information will be misused. No obstacle can stand in the way of a person’s rehabilitation if that is what they chose to do. If they want to be a better person, they can do so, no matter what list they are on.
.
One other point, I do not think the SO list is the only action that should be taken, this is but a part of the solution, not the end all be all of prevention.

I do not disagree with you that the majority of reported offenses are 1st time offenders, we need to deal with them as well. But why not deal with repeat offenders as well as 1st time offenders. I don’t wish for a situation, where we devote all resources to the smallest problem, but I don’t have a problem devoting some of the resources. I don’t believe we should ignore any of the victims of either 1st timers, or repeat offenders. They all need to be monitored. If you offend, you get placed on the list. It is their acts that placed them there. Unfortunately, we don’t have “future crime” where we can predict whom a SO is, so we have to deal with it when we know about it.
.
I do not take joy in seeing anybody destitute, or homeless. I do however know that there are decisions that they made in their lives that influenced them being in this position. The choice to act out towards a person is a set of personal morals, whatever god, belief structure, or spirituality that it is, not physical objects, a job, house, or a car. You can have nothing and still not be a criminal, that’s called integrity.
.
My point about the other crimes not being valid is not to point out that they have no meaning. My point is that we are talking about SO’s, not drunk driving. Let the laws that are in place deal with the other crimes that violate those laws. These laws are pointed towards SO’s, that is where the focus should be, in this discussion. If we want to debate laws against drunk driving, let’s do that on a forum about drunk driving.

As far as others using the list to target the people on that list, if people do this, than hold them accountable for the laws they broke. The incentive to be crime free should come from a personal set of morals that allows a person to think of the repercussions of their actions, not some incentive to live better. A “good” person is not characterized by how much stuff that person has. I have met many poor “good” people. A person that places their desires above another, when they gain more financial independence, will use this to benefit themselves.
.
Withholding information out of fear that it will be misused is an ignorant, way to live life. Educate people on proper ways to use tools, don’t take tools away from people.

This is the perfect example of why your comments about a majority of sex crimes are committed by people not on the list fails. This incident does not fall in to that category, and the second victim could have been prevented. So, for my argument of preventing any incidents, this fits, and your scenario is not applicable.

I don’t care about these people ability to gain employment, or jobs. In my mind they lost that ability, when they put another person’s wellbeing at risk. There actions could have long-lasting physiological and emotional impacts on the victim’s life.

The “other crimes” issue is a red hearing. This topic is about sexual offenders, not drunk drivers, abusers, or other criminals. The argument of “this person is worse than I am, don’t hold me accountable.” Is not a valid argument. Fix one issue, then move on to others. Don’t ignore issues, because there are others to worry about as well.

Well all that is left to say is…
.
Thank you…
.
You present your ideas in a very informed and logical way. I do agree with you, and when I originally posted this, my concept was to point out that the TSA system is but a small cog of the overall machine that is national security. I felt like a large portion of the posters on this sight miss that bit and jump to emotional responses. I don’t have anything more to add to this thread, and I think it was explored thoroughly.
.
Again thanks for the discussion.

I am promoting to make the public aware, what they chose to do with that knowledge is their choice and consequence. We are not talking about other crimes right now. The crime in question is sex offences and IMO if we can prevent one victim, by “post-release punishment”, than I am ok with that. The people committing these offences are done in my book, I don’t care if it is a family member, friend, or anybody I work with, I would disassociate with them. Let them wallow in self pity by them selves, they wont get any from me.

You are missing the most obvious point in this whole debate. The list does nothing but put information out there for people to use. What they chose to use it for it their choice. I personally would use it to keep my children and myself away from these people that chose to place their gratification above the well being of another person. If a person uses this as a “personal hit list” than that person disserves to be held accountable for what ever crime they did. Your scenario is a like to saying “Car crashes cause death, so we have outlawed cars” The cars do not break the law, the list does not break any law. The people that chose to break laws are the ones breaking a law.

I think we don’t see it the same way on the Falafel issue, there are no laws requiring a person to fly as in your scenario where Falafels are required by law. The reality is that air flight is a convenient choice, which people are making; it is not a citizen’s right to do, this is a choice. I have flown a few times since 9/11 and I have not had a single issue with screening. I am not sure why, but it has been easy. I don’t think the system is perfect by any means (none are), but to see some of these other posts about needing to do away with it is like burying your head in the sand and hoping all will be better. People keep talking about the fact that there have not been any terrorists caught due to the increased security. When you are trying to measure a situation for non-occurrence, there is never going to be data that shows this occurred, because of this. It is the same scenario that Cern. is trying to do with measuring dark matter. How do you measure an unknown? Since there have been no repeat incidents like 9/11, one could argue that there is some measurement of success with the institution in place (not that it is perfect).
.
Your scenarios about outside aircraft are accurate, but this goes back to my point about a nation’s air space. If an aircraft with unregistered flight paths were flying over the U.S. (either from within, or from outside the borders) were caught on radar, F-18’s (or the like) would be scrambled. If the plane did not respond, it would be shot down. Air defense is a huge deal with any country, and is a piece to this whole puzzle on government influence in a private business (it operates in government controlled space).

So “95% of the crimes are committed by 1st time offenders”, tell that to this guy’s second known victim. I am sure they will find comfort in it. The list does not place anybody in danger; this is what I don’t understand about this argument, it is logically flawed. The “former offender” (I would just call them an offender, because adding to their title of “former” places a sense of minimization IMO) is who placed their family and children at risk. Their actions put the public and their own family at risk, not some list. If they don’t like the consequences of their actions, then don’t do them.

They will spend the money to stop tagging, but don’t know if they have the resources to prosecute a bunch of juvenile delinquents that chose to participate in civil disobedience and theft.
.
~disturbing~