“What would be reasonable is to make it a crime for a registrant to intentionally communicate to a minor or put any minor under surveillance at any of those public “safe space” places, but with an affirmative defense available if the registrant chooses to explain-away the communication or surveillance (either that he’s not really doing what it looks like he’s doing, or that he’s got a really good reason that justifies doing it).”
You’re walking on very thin ice with this remark.
So, anyone who was previously convicted of let’s say a consensual relationship with a person who was post pubescent but not of full legal age should be arrested if he/she happens to be talking to his/her friends and their kids? Because your idea here is the same as the legislature and the general public which is: If you found an attraction to 1 teenager, you must certainly want to have sex with them ALL.
This is very dangerous ground you’re treading on with such a comment. It also shows that, like the general population, you think that ONLY people who HAVE committed a previous offense will continue to do so and you ignore (conveniently) the FACT that this leaves the door open for people with NO prior sex conviction to slither their way into the pants of some kid they’ve got their eye on.
But they can have their eye on said kid because; no sex record, no worries. Right?