|
Yes you all make perfect sense... and the part of me that feels sympathy for the reformed criminal wholeheartedly agrees with you. BUT the part of me that wants only to protect my family hears this: Since some people take the law into their own hands to harass criminals, I personally should be kept in the dark about a potential threat to my children.
Anonymity for criminals is based on the notion of protecting the criminal (or "reformed" criminal) from us... when for me personally, the opposite situation is the reality. I would never assault or otherwise harrass an X-con, but I would be more able to protect my family if I knew there was a known risk of (insert whatever crime here) in that individual. Unknown risks I can't do much about (other than be a good parent), but if something happened to one of my kids... and the perpetrator was a known danger and the information was purposely withheld from me for his/her benefit, I'd lose it.
Orbost, of your list, "murderers? terror suspects? kidnappers? armed robbers? petty thieves? fraudsters? drug users?", I'd absolutely want to know if murderer, terrorist (not suspect), kidnapper, drug dealer, or ANY threat to my family lived in close proximity to me. I don't agree with singleing out abusers, and I definitely don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands, but I also don't agree with withholding information from me in order to protect a person who's proven themself a threat. I'd rather see stricter punishments for vigilantes (or maybe just enforcement of the laws that exist) as a way of dealing with that problem.
I know it sounds cold and heartless... but my sympathy for criminals extends only as far as it does not risk the safety of my family, it's as simple as that.
|