This story is about a father who posed as an FBI officer, and interviewed 3 registered sex offenders, and killed 2 of them. http://www.komonews.com/news/story.asp?ID=39003
The Nancy Grace Show had an interesting segment on it, posing some tough, intriguing questions. For instance, will this be a reason NOT to publicly list the addresses of registered sex offenders?
Should the law look only at the crime, and not the victims? If it considers that the victims were child rapists, does that mean that characters of other victims of crime should be considered (I'm mostly thinking of sex workers who have been raped).
According to the NG show, the killer was a victim of molesting himself, and says he did it to protect his children, and the future victims of these men. He had also said that he didn't kill the 3rd s.o. because that man showed remorse for his former crimes, and didn't seem like he would do it again.
Should the society consider the fact that sex offenders are the perpetrators most likely to commit the same crime again & again? After all, these men did serve their sentences and were in compliance with registering with law enforcement. But the likelihood of their attacking again is high.
Personally, I think that protecting the safety of our children and the society as a whole takes precendence over the needs of these men (and yes, I realize that they, too, often were victims of abuse themselves - i feel so badly for those children being mistreated today). Had these men been serving stiffer sentences, they would not be dead today; either way, little ones were protected.
On the other hand, vigilante actions are so scary and it is easy for them to get out of hand - as when blacks in the South were abused & killed by gangs of white men.
What do you think?
The Nancy Grace Show had an interesting segment on it, posing some tough, intriguing questions. For instance, will this be a reason NOT to publicly list the addresses of registered sex offenders?
Should the law look only at the crime, and not the victims? If it considers that the victims were child rapists, does that mean that characters of other victims of crime should be considered (I'm mostly thinking of sex workers who have been raped).
According to the NG show, the killer was a victim of molesting himself, and says he did it to protect his children, and the future victims of these men. He had also said that he didn't kill the 3rd s.o. because that man showed remorse for his former crimes, and didn't seem like he would do it again.
Should the society consider the fact that sex offenders are the perpetrators most likely to commit the same crime again & again? After all, these men did serve their sentences and were in compliance with registering with law enforcement. But the likelihood of their attacking again is high.
Personally, I think that protecting the safety of our children and the society as a whole takes precendence over the needs of these men (and yes, I realize that they, too, often were victims of abuse themselves - i feel so badly for those children being mistreated today). Had these men been serving stiffer sentences, they would not be dead today; either way, little ones were protected.
On the other hand, vigilante actions are so scary and it is easy for them to get out of hand - as when blacks in the South were abused & killed by gangs of white men.
What do you think?
Thanks for including domestic violence in that 
This is yes, why, I don't believe in putting fate in the hands of victims or the basic public. So much could go so horribly wrong ..Look at the KKK.
