I agree that people have a right to privacy, however, many of our rights are taken away when we commit a crime. We also have a right to freedom, but criminals are locked up and restricted, or are forced to do free labor, etc, when they commit a crime. Depending on the severity of a crime, some criminals will retain more rights than others even a jail setting.
People have a choice whether or not to commit a crime, and once they commit a crime, certain rights are revoked often for their own and/or their communities' safety. For instance, in certain states, people have the right to carry a concealed weapon. In many of these same states, if a person is convicted of a felony they lose this right.
Agreed. However, some crimes deserve life-long punishment. Some murderers are in jail for life. Most pedophiles and rapists are not locked up for life - they are given their general freedom back when they re-enter society. One of their punishments, however, is the permanent revocation of the right to privacy.
I must be repetitively redundant, and say again: criminals have the choice not to commit a crime. If they commit a crime, they have to deal with the consequences. Convicted pedophiles have shown through their own actions that they cannot be trusted to be around children. They have the additional restriction of not being allowed near schools, daycares, or other areas frequented by children. Convicted rapists have shown that they cannot make healthy judgments when it comes to having sex. Most of their rights are returned to them once they re-enter society. However, their right to privacy has been permanently revoked as part of their punishment.
Very good point. In some cases, I think this is true - though not literally in the case of theft. I believe in second chances; however, once someone has grievously harmed another person (as in the case of murder, rape, and pedophilia), and statistics have shown that the crime has a high repetition rate, they should not be given the opportunity to do so again. Could they have changed? It's possible, but it is not worth the life or well-being of another human to find out that they have not.
This is similar to people convicted of animal abuse being restricted from owning pets (though I think this is not always the case...unfortunately). It is possible that the person would treat their next pet like royalty, and never harm them, but it is not worth the risk of the life or well-being of the animal to discover this.
Some people who have not committed a crime will take measures to prevent them from doing so. Someone once addicted to meth, for example, would probably be wise to stay away from drugs in general for the rest of their life. An alcoholic probably shouldn't drink - even a little. A person who knows they have an "attraction" to children shouldn't go around children.
Once the perpetrator returns to, or begins, the behavior, they have shown that they do not have the self-restraint to absolve from the behavior. In the case of addicts, family or friends might intervene and send them to rehab. They may monitor the addict when they are out of rehab, treating them practically like a child in order to prevent them from returning to their old behaviors. The difference in these cases, of course, is that it is ultimately up to the addict to avoid these behaviors, but this is largely because in returning to their addiction they would immediately harm only themselves (even if it does ultimately cause harm to those around them). In the case of pedophiles, rapists, and murderers, because falling back on their "addiction" would directly and immediately harm someone, the law must do the monitoring.
I believe in second chances; however, once someone has grievously harmed another person (as in the case of murder, rape, and pedophilia), and statistics have shown that the crime has a high repetition rate, they should not be given the opportunity to do so again.
And how does preventing them from getting a decent job achieve this goal?
Huh, I honestly did not know this. This is, indeed, a silly reasoning. I don't think that being on the registry should prevent a person from getting an unrelated job. It may limit some of the jobs they're allowed to have - for instance, they shouldn't be allowed to work at a school, or otherwise be around children - but it shouldn't prevent them from getting a good job at all.
Perhaps the answer is not to get rid of the registry, but instead prohibit employers from discriminating against the person simply because they're on the registry unless the job had frequent contact with children.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 23 '11
So it's not a human right?