|
Absolutely appalling.
The man has committed no crime, yet this ruling effectively makes it impossible for him to lead a normal life. It is pretty much impossible for him to even leave his house during the daytime if he is to follow this restraining order.
Sure, there is something very wrong with this guy. No doubt about it. However, he has committed no crimes, and has explicitly stated that he has no intention to commit any crimes. Yet he has been placed under house arrest - because, let's face it, that's what this is.
Let's compare it to a very ugly straight guy. A straight guy so ugly that he's never gotten laid in his entire life. The only way for that straight guy to have sex with somebody might be rape. Should that guy be prevented from coming near women because he might rape them?
It's exactly the same with this guy. He's a pedophile, yes. That does not necessarily make him a (child) rapist.
I am rather surprised that so few people are opposed to the government taking away essential liberties from people who have committed no crimes. After all, if the government is given the right to do that to anyone, it has the right to do it to everyone. Where does it end? Suspected terrorists? People with rape fantasies? People writing abnormally violent fiction?
The idea that one is innocent until proven guilty (of a crime, not a fantasy) really isn't that bad. Nor is the idea that the government should be prevented from punishing the innocent.
(on a separate note: the guy should have been sent to a mental institution)
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
|