*takes a deep breath*
Rather than rehash what I've been trying to say, please re-read my last post (quoted here for your convenience) and respond.
:
|
:
|
Nate Dog Woof. The law that you spoke of that makes anyone who has ever been on the sex offendor list incapable of working with children is COMPLETELY the right thing to do. How can people not understand this? I'm not saying these people would EVER TOUCH A CHILD. I'm saying that I refuse to take that chance with my child. I will never claim to know the innocence or guilt of every person on this list or what their intentions are. All I know is that I WILL NOT TAKE THE CHANCE!
|
If I may repeat the gist of the example I gave earlier: This was a teacher who had felt up (but not had sex with) a girl three years younger than him when he was 18. In my classification this does not count as paedophilia so much as him being an idiot.
I understand that you don't want to take any chances but I'd say you're taking a chance every time you let your daughter outside your front door. As dino says, there are pedophiles/pederasts everywhere. Now the guy that this thread started with managed to convince the principal that he was safe. The guy in my example didn't even have the furor that the first guy sparked: 100% of the teachers, students and staff of the school stood behind him as a trustworthy role-model.
So whilst I agree that anyone who has been caught downloading child porn should not work with children, I also believe that there should not be any blanket laws that don't take into account people's circumstance. I'm not sure who should have the final say on the matter: perhaps you could trust the principal as a judge of character. Alternatively, the board of education could have some sort of tribubal to judge the person's character. But either way, it would allow for the extremely small number of people on the register who may not deserve to be there. |