“Should the names of sex offenders continue to be made public?” published by the Economist. This editorial from August 6, 2009, edition of the economist. At the beginning of the editorial the economist told a real life story which took place in New Jersey. Seven-year-old Megan Kanka was enticed into a pedophile neighbor home by offering to show her a puppy. The man raped, killed, and dumped her body in a nearby park. “There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They 're supposed to be registered, but we don 't know where they are and we don 't know where they 're living” (Ernie Allen 2005). Managing high-risk sex offender 's in communities gives people warning of their surroundings. The child death could have been avoided by a simple notification to the parent to let them know it is a sex offender in the surrounding area. Megan’s death could have been avoided by a simple notification to her parents informing them that it is a sex offender in the surrounding area. When dealing with such a harsh topic, people tend to be opinionated about this decision. There are three main …show more content…
A few citizens are stuck between publishing or not publishing sex offenders name do not have enough supporting evidence. I agree with keeping sex offenders name public because it informs citizens of danger to the community. Megan Kanka is an example of why I’m for publishing sex offender’s name. Sex offenders are also known to reoffend innocent people. By getting notifications will know where all the sex offenders are located in the community. This can inform their children who to stay away from, or what places to stay away from. Keeping sex offenders name private will increase the offender’s ability to reoffend. Sex offenders who feel embarrassed should have thought about the consequences beforehand. The offenders never think they will get taught. Once a criminal commits a crime their rights as a citizen