Assuming those people are actual, proven, and unanimously agreed upon sex offenders, such as a 50 year old man who did time for making 10 year year old boys perform fellatio on him, I don't see what is wrong with making them pariahs. If anything, they should have been executed rather than reintroduced into society.
Hmm, except that the sex offender registry is also absurdly broad. Should public urination result in you being a life-long pariah? What about being an underage teen sexting?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not with your final sentence. But assuming you aren't. If they did their time, they did their time. Why not ban anyone with a criminal conviction?
>Assuming those people are actual, proven, and unanimously agreed upon sex offenders
How do you prove this to the computer? Have a representative manually handle every case with a sex offender to see if someone is too perverted to join their network? Surely that's a PR nightmare. "Well he had sex with a 17 year old girl, so we're fine with him joining. But a 10 year old boy, that's where we draw the line."
The list of sex offenders is more than just a list of child molesters. Public urination or indecency and anything in between goes on there. All of them are bad to a certain degree, some of them terrible. But if someone has served their time, we should not continue punishing them, but give them a chance to reform.
