I am not at all surprised by this studies findings. While the protection of children is important for a healthy society, it is not the responsibility of government to insure it. In fact that is the job of PARENTS!
The seemingly political motivation behind SORs notification regime may offer some assistance to a parents responsibility to do so, it only superficially provides protection. Some call it a FALSE SENSE of security because notification schemes like SOR, do not provide defense against those determined to rape, murder and pillage. The incomplete nature of the notification tells too much and too little simultaneously. So while one could find a registrant near them, where they live and so forth, is does not expose what the individual is factually capable of. Thus it is imperative to examine the ambiguity of the registry as much as the plain “Indenture”. Compelled motion though administrative, is still intolerable. The
people’s demand is duplicious and redundant Indeed in most cases the state has already the information it demands!
A computer’s demand for information is infinite AND inherent.. The people’s desire to gather it has indeed grown to the point where actual compliance is not viable from a self interest perspective and to protect ones own family.
I would advise caution to any one who places personal stuff on the web. Being that most Americans are ” all in” on the electronic world. They do so at their own great risk! It is not hard to imagine STALKING being enabled by social media use by victims.
Instead users of registries are left to imagine who is the greater threat among registrants on the website. Indeed a parent may have remembered every photo within a 5 mile radius it will not protect them from SOs not already identified NOR the determined traveling killer, molester.
The dangers to identifying minors as described by the article are the same ones experienced by adults on the registry. Children are less capable of dealing with consequences quenches moral grumbling so some states have decided against the public broadcasting of children’s criminal records.
The case ignored that breech of databases occur thus exposing it anyway.
Do you doubt private databases of offenders do exist now!