People who are determined to kill somebody will choose a target by their own criteria. Sometimes because they don't like them, sometimes because of their smile, their red hair, or because of their political office or because they are on the sex offender list. When presidents get shot, do we do away with the presidential office?
When the majority of these guys committed their crimes, they knew they would probably end up on the sex offender list if they got caught. They didn't let that stop them, so why should it stop Vermont?
When they engage in sexual behavior with a child, they knowingly take the risk of ending up on the list. We don't do anything about people who skydive, drive racecars, or do other risky decisions. So why should we protect a person who knowingly committed a criminal act, knowing that he would likely end up on a sexual offender list, and knowing that most people would disapprove of his actions. I don't believe in going out in shooting them. But I don't believe that we need to protect them from their own risky behavior either.
Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........
Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?
"Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight