Why is it important that a convicted child abuser be free to take care of children once their punishment is over? There are plenty of other fields in which they could find employment.

I don't believe in having multiple classes of free citizens. If a free person wants to, they could easily abduct a child, barring them from taking care of kids is a laughable feel-good policy that insults the notion that there should be no free second class citizen.

If someone can't be trusted to not abuse children, they need to be jailed or on probation until they can be trusted. Those people can't be trusted in public. If they've abused children through rape of small children or serious violence against the weak, just execute the low life. Children are everywhere, the idea an abuser is just fine being tempted with children everywhere, from the street to playground, except they'll be nice and honest and use their real SSN and identity when applying to work with children is a hilarious notion.

And frankly, unless proven otherwise, I assume sex convictions are something like pissing by the side of the road or a 19 year old banged their 16 y/o girlfriend. The government loves to imprison people for insane reasons and sex offender registry is a poor guide as to whether someone can be trusted with children.

There is a huge grey area. Statistically, people who have committed a crime are more likely to commit crimes again than those who haven't.

That makes for a good argument not to trust them as much, generally speaking.

On the other hand, integrating them back into society (something that's lacking in the US) works well for most.

Which do you think is harder though, adbucting some kid into a stolen untrackable vehicle and go out into the wilderness where there's no chance in hell you'll be caught, or going to the trouble and length of becoming a childcare worker where your face and likely other details are exposed? Someone who is free can easily do the former, and with a stolen SSN and identity (this is laughably easy to get if you've ever worked in many factories you'll see tons of illegal immigrants with stolen SSN) can also easily do the latter.

The whole premise is just laughable at face.

This think of the children trope is just bait IMO to try and get us to accept that there are second class citizens, and allow us to put restrictions and loss of freedoms on people who have completed their judicial punishment. If we can accept this we might accept ending their constitutional rights such as the right to vote, bear arms, or speak freely.

I understand the desire to protect children in this manner, I just think it's misguided and philosophically inconsistent.

Well that depends on the crime, and a whole host of other factors including the fact that it is ciruclar logic.

We cant trust them because they re offend, but they re offend because of lack of opportunities created by society not trusting them....

It is certainly true for property crimes, drug crimes, and other such actions.

Violent crimes may be an exception to this, but then to the OP's point, if they are violent why are they out in the population to begin with?

That's a terrible analysis. I would bet that even the innocent people convicted of a crime are more liKely to commit a crime after and this speaks more to our poorly functioning justice system than the person convicted. Besides, statistically everyone is a criminal because the number of laws are uncountable and unknowable.

would you rather have a criminal who has not been caught work that job or someone who paid for what they have done and is working to improve?

option c

and how do you know option c is not option a? lol

Its not possible to be sure!

It just seemed the question was phrased in terms of those being the only options, when in fact they are the very rare options. It seems that mostly people you hire are not going to do serious criminal things, either before or after you hire them.