Decade after decade, Congress and presidents in a rare showing of bipartisanship have worked to make the sex offender registry a stronger, more effective tool for transparency and public safety.
This work recognizes a common interest in empowering the public, safeguarding the innocent against becoming victims, and helping law enforcement protect the public from predators. The American Law Institute’s new Model Penal Code, however, stands in stark contrast by making the registry generally unavailable to the public, and that includes organizations conducting background checks for employment or volunteer positions that involve interacting with children.
The American Law Institute’s work will make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes, to obtain justice for victims, and to protect the public from sexual predators, without any clear corresponding improvements in criminal justice.
It reverses the years of progress we have made in fighting the growing international criminal industry of human trafficking. This Model Penal Code is out of step with contemporary American law as practiced by prosecutors and law enforcement, and it’s the American people who will pay the price.
1.Should the sex offender registry continue to be open to the public?
2.Should the legal punishment for violent rape be castration (if there is also no charge of murder and a death sentence)?
I’d say yes to both. What’s the point of even having a sex offender registry if it can’t be accessed by people conducting background checks?
We can already see the results of this with pedophiles being hired as school teachers and “Drag Queen Story Hour” performers.
This is another example of the assault on society the left is waging.
No I wouldn’t want the government to have the power to kill, or castrate, or otherwise violently injure any prisoner, simply because the authorities often lock up innocent people, and often the truth is not known for some time afterwards. Take for example the case of the murder of Jill Dando, we still don’t know who killed her:
A man called Barry George spent 8 years in prison for the murder before being acquitted:
after eight years in prison he was acquitted following an appeal and retrial.
Even if the state was generally the benign thing that most people believe it to be I wouldn’t want this, but when the state is as corrupt as it is today, I especially would not support the state having such powers.
A government’s prime purpose is protection. Of the nation by military strength. Of every individual by the rule of law. But you don’t want government to have the power of punishment? Then the rule of law would be impotent. Or you just don’t want it to have the power of ultimate punishment - the taking of the life of one who takes another’s life? Because a mistake is possible?
I think locking someone up is punishment, I’m only saying that the government should not be allowed to inflict permanent harm on anyone (in peace time anyway).
Some crimes are more certain than others but the problem with this argument is that if you start differentiating cases that are certain from cases that are not then you start undermining the legitimacy of some prosecutions - that is I believe why we have the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, it’s a clear threshold for all cases.
In the majority of criminal cases there are no law enforcement people present at the time of the crime (crime becomes a lot less likely when they are around), and so you have to rely on the testimony of witnesses and e.g. DNA evidence. Even forensic evidence can turn out to be unsafe, as happened in the Barry George case, that was partly based on residue supposedly from a firearm:
There have been plenty of other cases in recent times, the law is not infallible. When we encourage the state to have such power we encourage tyranny.