Why not have "Child Molester" tatooed on their forehead? Wouldn't that be better than a plate on their car? I mean, they could walk somewhere, couldn't they ....and no one would see their car or the plate.
I'd probably choose the bank robber, because he wasn't a serial killer(he didn't kill for no reason at all), he was obviously more concerned with the money than killing the 2 people. In other words, I could actually hang out with my neighbor if that was the situation; I don't associate with child molesters.So again the scenario: There is a new neighbour moving in next to you.You can choose:
1. A bankrobber who killed 2 while robbing a bank.
2. A child molester who molested a few kids.
Which is your choice?
Neither, but if I had to choose, molested.Personalized question for Oniw:
Let's say you have a child. Would you rather have him killed or molested?
Ok, so by the same logic, you should have chosen the molester as a neighbour...
Not necessery. It depends on our sense of moral and whom we accept as a neighbour,not out of fear but preference...
How do you know what individuals base their preferences? If I don't have children and I am not particulary affraid of being killed, I might as well make up my mind based on their look...
I am watching Faux News (Why oh why?)and they are reporting that Wisconsin might require child molesters to have a green numberplate to easier identification for the public.
I was wondering, why not have a let's say black numberplate for murderers?
Also, whom would you rather have as a next door neighbour, a murderer (killed for money) or a child molester?
The preference would be based on the fear. Considering the high rate of recidivism of child molesters, a killer would make a better neighbour.
People should KNOW they are dealing with a murderer or child molestor.
I am watching Faux News (Why oh why?)and they are reporting that Wisconsin might require child molesters to have a green numberplate to easier identification for the public.
I was wondering, why not have a let's say black numberplate for murderers?
Also, whom would you rather have as a next door neighbour, a murderer (killed for money) or a child molester?
That's insane. If they've served their time and the system is willing to let them out of jail, they should leave them alone. If they don't trust them to live as normal members of society, they shouldn't let them out in the first place.
What's even more disgusting is that it's sex offenders in general who get hounded for the rest of their lives. If a guy urinates in public, he can be hauled in as a sex offender (in Califonia, at least). So he's going to get tagged, followed, has to register himself on a publicly available database and inform his neighbors for the rest of his life just because he had to take a whiz? It's also my understanding that a woman who urinates in public gets a warning or a citation. ("In public" means anywhere not designated a restroom. Even if you go behind a thick clump of bushes miles away from anyone and hold a towel up as a curtain, it's still considered "in public". All that has to happen is for someone to have seen you enough to know what you're doing, even if they don't actually see your anatomy.)
Well, that's what my post about. If we single out childmolesters but leave all other type of criminals alone, where is the equality?
On the other hand, if the criminal paid his debt to society, shouldn't we allow him a fresh start??
Except I don't have kids, and you said the killer was a bank robber.Ok, so by the same logic, you should have chosen the molester as a neighbour...