But the fact that he went from pictures to watching the kids seems like he's not a recidivist, but was possibly going to escalate his crimes.
The problem with that is the word "seems" and "possibly." One could make the same argument that a driver arrested for being barely over the limit caught at a checkpoint, on a first offense, should be treated the same as a multiple-DUI offender who has killed people in a crash he caused while flaming drunk.
In addition, the ONLY reason the offender was arrested was because of his earlier conviction for a sex offense, and not that he was on the registry.
But aside from that...
I just gave you the percentage of my gf's workload. I stated that 70% of it is directed to the 10% who have 290 considerations. (It should also be noted that not all of the 10% of the offenders were actually on parole for the sex offense they committed that got them on the registry, but by law, if they are on parole for anything, and they are required to register, they fall under the restrictions.) So basically, my gf's workload for non-290's is that she has to direct only 30% of her time to over 90% of those who AREN'T 290's. These include the gang bangers, child and spouse abusers, criminals who uses violence (knives, guns, weapons) in non-290 offenses, etc. Finally, keep in mind that there are more attacks against by children that result in more physical damage that are NOT registrable; hence, no residency restriction for those offenders.
Again, this is not defending the DUmmie's stupid column. But I've always had an uneasy feeling with regard to sex offender registration, because I sense that we are ignoring the real problems of child sexual abuse while concentrating on the post-correctional facility punitive aspect. In short: it's not HOW many children we SAVE from previously convicted offenders that matter ALONE. It is HOW many children we save from ALL offenders, registered or not? Going by DOJ stats, coupled with my gf's real-world experience, I can't say that the registry is a good cost/benefit system to our criminal justice system.
The OBVIOUS solution is to increase the penalty for those who commit violence, that we make sure we differentiate between classes of rape (consensual statutory vs. forced, etc.), and we use common sense for all aspects of the crime. The prisons are the place to segregate criminals during the punitive phase, and we need to overhaul the parole system into a complete community reintegration plan to prevent recidivism across the board. Once you introduce a registry, you dillute the correctional system's purpose to that of a community vigilante service, which leads to all the crap we've had with regard to residency and GPS, which by and large do not work as advertised.
If you want specifics, talk to my girlfriend. She is *DEFINITELY* no fan of crime, and criminals, but she understands the point of restitutive reintegration. The main focus of criminal prosecution is victim restitution, followed by a collective disincentive to committing crimes. If an offender is forced into a situation where he is more likely to commit another offense, then that is where I (and my gf) draw the line.
