Think of the Children

[jackofallgeeks]

This article, about a proposal in the Virginia legislature intended to restrict the internet usage of convicted sex offenders, strikes me as a bit...

Well, I'm not really sure how to explain it. The high-pitched wail of "think of the children" has always bothered me, mostly because it seems far more like an appeal to pathos rather than any sort of, you know, actual reasoning. Yeah, kids are vulnerable and need to be protected. And yeah, the world is a dangerous place. And yeah, that dangerous world is getting closer and closer to home the more pervasive the internet and information-collating gets.

But the thing is... deleting a profile? I mean, MySpace *has* kids on it, yeah -- most social networks I know of do -- but it's not a place *for* kids. There are legitimate uses, even for a convicted sex offender. It just seems... excessive to say, "woah, woah, not you buddy." (Oddly, it reminds me of a Dilbert, wherein he plea bargains to have an assault charge reduced to 'lewd conduct with an appliance, or something. 'Would you like a moment alone with Mr. Coffee?')

Never mind any arguments of Big Brother or the slippery slope. 'Think of the children!' is very good at sidestepping those concerns. Like I said, ethos.

But what alternative is there? I hate complaining without offering some alternative. But the convict is the one who can be coerced. You can't depend on kids to enter their real birthdate even, so you can 'protect the children' against their own will -- I have no fewer than 3 or 4 cousins on MySpace claiming to be 2 and 3 years older than they really are. But the thing is that I don't think this registry will *really* make much of an impact because, as the article states, the bigger problem, the real threat, is unregistered, un-convinced offenders. And none of the protections that they're putting into place, nor this proposal, will address that.

So, yeah.

Comments

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

The plea bargain was actually to "drop" a(n attempted) theft charge down to lewd conduct with an appliance, but the original charge isn't important, is it?

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

No, it's not. Actually, that particular comment, and my reaction in general, isn't unrelated, I think, to yesterday's post (http://jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com/653378.html), specifically as pertains to judging people on past behaviors. (I think I should make up a new tag for this sort of thing.)

Granted, you kind of have to -- there's very little with which to judge people, generally -- but at the same time you have to weigh who they are *now* against who they used to be. That's not to say you don't protect the kids -- you don't leave a child alone with an offender simply because he seems to regret it, much in the same way you don't take a recovering alcoholic to the bar. But the unreasoning stigma that piles up is just... well, unreasonable.

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

Yes, so the Original charge is unimportant, it's the fact that it was changed to lewd behavior which caused people to mistrust him with the appliances. It's the recorded charge which he's being judged on.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Right. Which is what I said. ("The original charge isn't important, is it?" "No, it's not.")

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

FYI, mom's looking for you.