Reply #133: They can't be in balance, they are conflicting values... [View All]

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have the "possible victimization" of the molester because his name and address are made public (threats of vigilantes, aggressive neighbors, etc)... and you have the "possible victimization" of children he has access to that DON'T know his history (neighboring families he becomes friendly with, church he joins, etc).

Neither future "crime" is guaranteed to happen, but both will probably happen given the statistics. In this case, the molester should be made to take the chance of future violations against him because HE CHOSE TO COMMIT THE CRIME that caused the situation. The children in the community he moves to should not be made to suffer sexual abuse to protect him from suffering for his own actions.