While we acknowledge the utility of a Web site that allows users to locate nearby sex offenders in their county, we question if this added public scrutiny is fair to those one-time offenders.
The same is true for having to re-register as a sex offender after moving.
By no means do we view sexual offenses as insignificant crimes -- quite the opposite, actually.
However, the lifelong stigma of being labeled a sex offender is too severe if we're not 100 percent sure that person is worthy of carrying that label with them for the rest of their life.
We discussed scenarios where an over-18 partner is convicted of sexual abuse after having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who is not of age.
There could have been consent at the time, but if that person comes back with charges of rape, there's no way to disprove such accusations, and just like that, someone is forever labeled a sex offender.
Is this fair?
We believe that, rather than having set guidelines that apply to each situation, a case-by-case method of determining whether sexual abuse actually occurred would be more just than the current method.
Obviously this process would be more time consuming and more costly.
But again, when someone is dealing with the everlasting dishonor of being known as a sex offender, the "Ah, but we're going to have to do more work!" excuse loses the minute amount of worth it had in the first place.
Maybe a change should be implemented that would eliminate the tainted status after so many years of a clean record.
While there should be no leniency for repeat offenders, we think it's unfair to require the constant registration for a one-time sex offender after they have already served their time.
One-time convicts of other crimes aren't forced to publicly introduce themselves as a criminal after serving their time.
They're certainly not listed with name and address on the sheriff's Web site, either.
Again, with revision to the system, lifting of the label could be something that is dependent on the severity of the crime, as well.
Why is it that only sex offenders are persistently highlighted for their crimes?
We don't believe in revision of the system simply for justice, but for safety as well.
If the reason for providing citizens with the names and locations of local sex offenders is to heighten their awareness and to protect them, then why not alert them about the proximity of previous convicts of other crimes?
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
