Now you are getting into the realm of the "whatif" scenario that is more Orwellian than security minded. Mainly, because most offenders (70%) live with their families, or with roommates, who presumably have rights that are the same as yours and mine. While you are advocating this from a cost effectiveness basis, then it would probably be a far better use of the funds to PREVENT such molestations and abuses in the first place! Why? Simple. DOJ states that of all individuals who are required to register as a sex offender, less than 4% of them will reoffend. While that is in itself not the greatest news, by inference it means that over 95% of all molestations are done by individuals NOT on any registry!

I would much rather create the environment that PREVENTS such molestations than trying to control individuals who, as a group, have less than a 5% chance of re-offending. (Indeed, it can easily be argued that creating all the restrictions on the ex offenders can create stress on their lives that INCREASE the desire to re-offend, but that is a topic for another time).

The bottom line: This is a very slippery slope that we are progressing. IF the offenders are so volatile, they should be in jail in the FIRST place. Once we as a society decide that individuals cannot be free to live their lives after paying their debt to society, that's when we have to give up democracy in the first place.

Bottom line: Increase penalties for most molestations, but once they are out, concentrate on the real danger, not the perceived one.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/newsbriefs/330/1596#1596