Publicly accessible online sex offender directories aren't available in Canada, and that's the way things should remain, said Jim Stephenson, whose 11-year-old son Christopher was murdered in June 1988 by convicted child rapist Joseph Fredericks in Brampton.First off, that opinion seems like a manufactured one just so the Star could get their own editorializing put in to the article. After all, this Stephonson character has nothing to do with the story otherwise. It seems that the only reason he is in the article is to offer up a couple of pointless quotes pertaining to protecting the guilty more than the general public. While it appears that Mr. Marshall did use a sex offender registry to find his victims, there is no reason not to have them. The risk that they will re-offend is far greater than the risk that any of the rest of us will go nuts and start shooting them. Of course, none of this would be an issue if they would just keep the sick bastards locked up forever to begin with...
The final paragraph in the article was just odd.
But Toronto lawyer Suzan Fraser said that the Maine case raises questions about possible rehabilitation of sex offenders.Really? It raised a lot of questions in my mind. Was Mr. Marshall ever abused (his dad claims no in the article, but that doesn't mean anything)? Was Mr. Marshall just nuts? Was Mr. Elliott just on the list for "statutory rape" (boinking a 17 year old girlfriend), or was he on their for an actual offense? If the former, shouldn't we really be more selective about who is put on these lists so it is limited to people who are really a danger to society? These are all questions that popped into my head. Never did the question of rehabilitation pop into my head. Unless, of course, Ms. Fraser is saying that the only real sure way to rehabilitate sex offenders is to shoot them. Then I think she may have a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment