Do you think that's an effective deterrent? Do people go "better not download that inappropriately underage video, they might not let me in the library anymore"? And, if a punishment is not an effective deterrent - what's the point of it? What are we trying to achieve?
Going meta - your comments are all along the lines of crime and punishment and whether they "deserve" it etc. The replies to you are all along pragmatic lines - what we should do to make society behave the way we want. These approaches are incompatible - when the pragmatic approach disagrees with the fire-and-brimstone approach, ignoring pragmatism will by definition get a worse outcome. Your own feeling of righteous anger is not a good thing to optimize society around.
The notion of justice and punishment is a subsidiary mechanism to pragmatism - one of many ways to achieve a peaceful, stable society.
(One that does not appear to scale especially well beyond groups where everyone knows each other, or into deeply complicated and partially enforced rule sets. Don't kill your tribe member or the tribe will cast you out = effective. Don't exceed the speed limit or you might possibly receive a fine of some constant amount plus a proportional factor to the amount you exceeded it by = ineffective.)
But you should try to discover the truth about them, or reserve judgement. The original dire presumed meaning of "sex offender" has been legally castrated (bad joke) in many states as shallow thinkers seize on the definition and its National implications to CHEAPLY hang any behavior THEY consider objectionable.
The most egregious misapplication (in my opinion) is "public urination", that is, being caught doing it by the wrong person, or if they consider you an unperson. Used to brand the homeless and turn them into national criminals by following them around with a camera.
Or human traditions under attack. A mixed group of adults and minors caught skinny dipping in the wild by the Wrong Deputy is another example. They'll nail the oldest and fill the younger with crushing guilt, if they are friends.
Consensual sex between teenagers is another. It's the ultimate glass-house throw stone legal abomination. And one or both gets the Scarlet Letter into their young adult years. Talk about a suicide trigger!
"Most people assume that a registered sex offender is someone who has sexually abused a child or engaged in a violent sexual assault of an adult. A review of state sex offender registration laws by Human Rights Watch reveals that states require individuals to register as sex offenders even when their conduct did not involve coercion or violence, and may have had little or no connection to sex. For example:
"At least five states require registration for adult prostitution-related offenses;[108]*
"At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;[109]
"At least 29 states require registration for consensual sex between teenagers;[110] and
"At least 32 states require registration for exposing genitals in public;[111] of those, seven states require the victim to be a minor.[112]
People get put on sex offender lists for urinating in public. Not saying that's what happened here but it's worth considering before passing judgement.
If they can't control themselves we really don't want them wandering around the streets, we want to know where they are. Constant monitoring is an important reoffending protection measure for some sex offenders.
This comment about sex offender lists being full of people who had a single piss in public, but whenever I've asked for evidence people post maybe three or four examples.
Feel free to show me research that these public urinators aren't people flashing to children.
