I am a libertarian by nurture and nature. I hear things like this, and I see red. Last night on Radio 4 (I love Radio 4, if I ever leave England I’ll have to steal it away with me) the head of the local probation service intoned that it was a sad tragedy, but they really weren’t at fault you know, because you can’t eliminate all risk.
Bollocks to that. I just get so frustrated when people confuse the ideals of liberty. Individual liberty is, of course, key, but can’t be overlayed with a confused interpretation of acceptable risk, or worse weighted in favour of the victimiser, rather than the victim. There can be no reason for allowing a known convicted paedophile into the public domain. His rights for freedom where forfeit when he abused a child. If he wanted to stay free his entire life he should never have given in to some rather sick desires. His choice, he got caught, away he goes.
Paedophilia is known to be like alcoholism. It can’t be cured, at best it can be controlled (if the subject is willing that is). When are we as a society going to understand that? We likely can’t completely stop first time abusers, as there’s no safe way to identify who will eventually abuse. Indeed, to go that far would be a major infringement of liberty. Yet… why do we think its right that a risk of another child being abused is more important that infringing a convicted abusers liberty (or *shudder* more cost)?
I despair sometimes.