Two wrongs don’t make it right
Two wrongs, e.g. a public registry and a vigilante using it for their purposes, don’t make it right, e.g. accosting a registered person. This is what the courts and politicians have failed to see or don’t care about when they do see it.
Would love to see the court justices be told by an atty during oral arguments or in a brief that the court registry decisions have killed registered people, people with families too, and what their reactions would be. Would the justices understand that and change things or just say it was a consequence of the registered person’s actions, much like the registry is a consequence and not a punishment; therefore, oh well? If the latter, would that be like the court giving a license to kill, hurt, or maim with a lassie faire attitude despite the fine print saying you cannot use the registry for negative things like vigilantism?
Maybe an editorial is a better way to address that so the atty does not antagonize the court during the hearing. Of course, if it is in the court record…
Actions, reactions, consequences….