Sunday, December 30, 2012

Why do states charge for criminal background checks, but the sex offender registry is free?

Someone brought this issue up in another group, and it's a good question.

We all know most states charge you a small fee to get someone's criminal history, yet using the online sex offender registry is free?

Enforcing the sex offender laws costs a ton of money, so why not start charging people to use them? Then you could use that money to help pay for the costly laws!

Many of the sites who do background checks, charge a fee, and many, if not all, sign you up for a monthly deduction from your checking account, which most people are not aware of.

So when are they going to start charging people to access the sex offender registry? If it's going to be free, then other criminal records should also be free.

We have a right to know, right?

P.S.: Also, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is suppose to be about "Child Protection," which would include abusive parents, kidnapping, gangs who initiate children, drug dealers who sell to children, DUI offenders who hit or kill a child, and many more crimes... So why do we put only sex crimes on the list, even if it doesn't involve a child? If it's a "child protection" law, then why don't we put all people who have harmed children in some form on the online registry and rename it to the "child protection registry" so it's more accurate and goes along with the title of the law? Just saying!



4 comments :

First Last said...

Silly blogger, don't you know that other crimes do not harm children? If a mom or dad get arrested for whatever crime and goes to prison, the kids are not affected. They go on with life. Someone else always takes their place. They're resilient. If someone sells drugs to kids, those kids are not harmed. And there's always rehab. If a house is broken into or a parent is murdered, that doesn't affect the kid - Man up, we tell them. There will only be one or two sleepless nights. Three tops. If an alcoholic gets drunk and runs over a kid, you can make more. But if a 16 year old lies about their age and masturbates on camera and an 18 year old man who goes to the same school as she does sees it, he is a child molester and should be put in stocks for all to see. The poor child, victimized like that. Her parents should start a foundation. I hear that foundations are lucrative.

SOIssues said...

I sure hope you are being sarcastic?

Damian said...

There is no way the above comment could be taken as anything but sarcastic. Lol- come on SOI, you normally have some pretty slick one-liners yourself.

Randy said...

The SOR isn't free. Paid for by taxpayers. Then, additional charges if it is accessed by most sites other than the state or federal government sites. It's easy to make taxpayers pay for it when they are swooned with the idea of absolute child protection.