One sex offender registry costs of $1,000,000 (million) a year to upkeep and it has only 1 offender listed?
The sex offender isn't a good idea because they can't keep a good job because of their status.
2007-05-24 08:16:08 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Those are 2 valid concerns. If a registry cost 1 mil/year and only contains one name then I would be more concerned over misappropriation of tax funds then the justification of the registry.
There is certainly truth to the idea that convicted and registered sex offenders have greater difficulty finding well paying employment then people with equal qualifications who do not commit sexually based crimes. I think only violent sexual crimes should require registry myself. However if a violent sexual predator has a hard time finding a well paying job there are probably others more deserving of my sympathy.
2007-05-24 08:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should they not be on a list? I check the one in my area weekly, and I'm glad I do, because we just had a child molester move into a neighborhood a few blocks away. Parents and other law-abiding citizens have a right to know this information. These scumbags lose their right to privacy when they decide to rape a child!
2007-05-24 08:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan's mom 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The registry is for the public good. Then let the public, who want the registry, pay.
2007-05-24 08:24:58 · answer #3 · answered by Robert S 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Sex offenders should have to pay .
2007-05-24 08:18:32 · answer #4 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If they were put out of their misery to begin with or at least incarcerated for life one wouldn't have to worry about it. Those people have no reason to be alive or to be free to do it again.
2007-05-24 08:31:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
sex offenders
2007-05-24 08:18:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋