POLL: Should there be a Sex Offender Register?

[Jim Burton]

Should there be a Sex Offender Register, and if so, should it be public or private?

[Not Forever]

People should have the right to serve their sentence and move on; a sex offender register is an indelible stain and, for that reason, it should not be allowed. A person should not be subjected to prejudice for their crimes after they have served their sentence—doing so is a form of discrimination that I personally do not like.

[Brain O'Conner]

My thing is, if there is going to be a sex offender registry, then have a thief and murder registry. Let's keep it consistent. If not, then don't waste taxpayer dollars on a sex registry. It's as simple as that.

[DANAT4T]

I have a fun idea for your next poll. Who is the most narcissistic user. I will do my absolute best to win it.

[ReArm!]

As a pro-c I think a public sex offender register is ok, if made as a better alternative to a long prison sentence (how it's done now, yeah, that's stupid, I agree with that), just some amonestation for what should be, if it's a crime at all, a civil one. It however, must be with a society that doesn't make it a big deal, it should be treated as like if you had ran a red light, it forbids you from taking some kind of jobs for a long time and you don't have to face prison for such a stupid crime.

[OnionPetal]

No.

I'll again cite Judith Levine, who argued in her book 'The Feminist and the Sex Offender' that registries are an 'unjust, ineffective, and soul-destroying' form of state violence, which do nothing to serve actual victims, and should be abolished.

As I posted recently, modern sex offender registries emerged following two high-profile child murders in the 1990s. Perhaps there should be a national murderer registry for such cases. But there is not. And instead of being used to warn of child murderers, today's registries are more likely to vilify people who had willing encounters with teens, or looked at happy naked children online. The mere fact that an 'offender registry' is deemed necessary for people looking at pixels, but not for actual murderers, shows how unjust registries are.

[Artaxerxes II]

No.

It constitutes double jeopardy since it punishes the offender for the same crime twice. There's no conclusive evidence that registries work as deterrents, nor that the recidivism of sexual offences are enough to justify a registry solely for sex crimes.

Last but not least, it also creates an indefinite underclass with little to no rights, all for crimes which are less grave than murder.

[Bookshelf]

You can go to prison for murder and be out in a surprisingly short amount of time, and not be subject to any kind of registry. You could be arrested for domestic violence against your partner, or physical child abuse, and as long as there was no sexual element you aren't subject to a registry.

You could break a child's jaw and you'll be let to live your life after your sentence, but you'll need extra special possibly lifelong monitoring if you hug a child the wrong way.

It's weird and sexceptionalist.