CAustin II
New member
involve sex? An interesting scenario was brought up to me recently that made me pause over the idea of 'sex crimes,' 'registered sex offenders,' and other such elements of our legal system.
Suppose you have two neighbors: one is a woman who was flashing people for beads at Mardi Gras, who drunkenly flashed an audience that included teenagers. The other is an intensely schizophrenic woman whose pharmacy messed up her meds once, after which she rampaged around her previous neighborhood with knife for a while, stabbing and injuring several neighbors and their pets - but who got off with a reduced sentence and treatment in an insanity plea helped by the fact that her mismedication was not her fault.
You know, by law, about the Mardi Gras woman, because sex offender registries force her to inform her neighbors about her crimes. As for the stabby mismedicated woman with the unreliable pharmacy, her past is her business. Something strikes me as strange priorities here.
So, the question is, does a crime automatically become worse (and necessitate public announcement) when it involves naughty bits? Should any past crime that involves naughty bits be public information, and should any past crime that doesn't be a matter of the former criminal's privacy?
Suppose you have two neighbors: one is a woman who was flashing people for beads at Mardi Gras, who drunkenly flashed an audience that included teenagers. The other is an intensely schizophrenic woman whose pharmacy messed up her meds once, after which she rampaged around her previous neighborhood with knife for a while, stabbing and injuring several neighbors and their pets - but who got off with a reduced sentence and treatment in an insanity plea helped by the fact that her mismedication was not her fault.
You know, by law, about the Mardi Gras woman, because sex offender registries force her to inform her neighbors about her crimes. As for the stabby mismedicated woman with the unreliable pharmacy, her past is her business. Something strikes me as strange priorities here.
So, the question is, does a crime automatically become worse (and necessitate public announcement) when it involves naughty bits? Should any past crime that involves naughty bits be public information, and should any past crime that doesn't be a matter of the former criminal's privacy?