Re:California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says...
by garmaine on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @06:51PM
(#19259555)
Those aren't the same thing. Someone isn't accidentally a pedophile, or becomes a pedophile because of some mistake they made once, etc. There really isn't a way for a prison to change what their sexual preferences are, so the list makes sense. But felony convictions for crimes of necessity, passion, or lack of opportunity? Those are categorically different things.
(Of course, before someone jumps in, there are a bunch of people who end up on the list that don't deserve to be there because of backwards laws on the books or excessively aggressive prosecutors. But I'm speaking to the idea behind the law here.)
Re:California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says...
by TomVDB on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @07:01PM
(#19259633)
Before I accept that as truth, I want to see how things work in countries without sex offender list in term of recidivism.
The kind of sexual of behaviors that should end up on the list (because there is no possible way that it could be fixed) is probably quite limited.
Well, this would make perfect sense if we didn't have sex offender lists. Or if we didn't do things like taking the ability to own guns away from the mentally ill, even those who have committed no crime whatsoever. Or if we didn't in many places remove the right to vote or serve on a jury from felons.
I don't mean to say that all of these things are unquestionable and perfect, but it seems like there are many ways in which people generally agree that some rights can be lost and should be lost even after incarceration is over. And it's not necessarily about retribution. I think everybody knows prisons are not effective at rehabilitation.