Progressive Lawyer Wants To Protect These Criminals – And Endanger Children

In recent years, we’ve seen a drastic push by the left to normalize dangerous behaviors that were taboo to even discuss a few decades ago.

Homosexuality, transgenderism, sexual experimentation – these are all becoming normalized and accepted as the progressive agenda takes hold in cultures all over the world.

Our children are targeted to carry on this ideology and each day, they become more vulnerable – and put in danger by policies that are supposed to protect them.

In the U.S., as well as many other nations, sex offenders are seen as a serious threat against the public, especially to children.

American laws require that they register with the government and undergo mental health screenings and monitoring following their release from prison.

This information is available to the public as part of background checks for employment and even for families moving into neighborhoods.  Anyone can search online to see if a sex offender lives near their home or their children’s school.

It is one of the most heinous crimes there is, especially when the sexual offense is committed against a child.

These offenders are even viewed in the lowest possible regard within the unofficial hierarchies of inmates within the prison system.

With all of the bureaucratic overreach going on in our lives today, one thing government is supposed to do is to protect its citizens.  This is a function of most governments in the western world.

Of course, we’ve seen this function eroding in recent decades as governments seem to be putting profit and politics before the rights and needs of its citizens.

In the U.K., socialist policies have expanded exponentially, and mass immigration and government-run healthcare has put its citizens at risk.

So it comes as no surprise that yet another policy meant to protect citizens is under scrutiny in the U.K.

Policies are changed and the rights of everyday citizens infringed upon in order to prevent “discrimination” against a few minorities who want to be treated as a special class of citizens.

Now, Helen Reece, an attorney in the U.K. and law professor at the London School of Economics has introduced a shocking new request to the U.K. Home Secretary, Theresa May.

She wants to change the rules that prevent sex offenders from working with – or even adopting – children.

Why?  Because, of course, she argues that the ban “violates the human rights of the sex offenders.”

You read that right.

Reece argues that banning sex offenders from having contact with children in a volunteer or employment capacity, as well as being banned from adopting children in foster care, could “contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and may leave the Government open to legal challenge,” as reported by The Telegraph U.K.

She continued, “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.”

Reece states, without apparent proof to back up her statement, that recidivism (re-offense) rates have decreased in recent years – basically saying that sex offenders deserve another chance once they have served their sentence.

She believes that once a sex offender completes their sentence, the slate should be wiped clean and they should be able to re-enter society on equal footing with the rest of the population.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children,” she states in her statement to Theresa May.

But just like in the U.S., sex offenders in the U.K. often serve only a fraction of their sentence and don’t always receive the support and supervision they need due to crowded prisons and overextended supervisory agencies.

Even so, they are always put on probation and barred from working with children or “vulnerable” adults, such as those with special needs who could easily be abused or manipulated.

In fact, the Office of Justice Programs reports that offenders released from prison are re-arrested at a rate of nearly 40 times more than the general population.

The report states that this is a danger to communities, and that sexual offenses are particularly hard to track because many children fail to report them.  If they do, it is often decades after the incident.

As a result, there is widespread recognition that recidivism has a direct impact on public safety and that recidivism reduction should be a key goal of the criminal justice system. This is particularly true with regard to crimes that are sexual in nature, given their impact on individual victims and the larger community.

Unfortunately, recidivism remains a difficult concept to measure, especially in the context of sex offenders. The surreptitious nature of sex crimes, the fact that few sexual offenses are reported to authorities and variation in the ways researchers calculate recidivism rates all contribute to the problem.

This is not the only progressive idea that Reece shares with all who will listen.

She has worked in several prestigious London colleges, received an award for a book entitled, “Divorcing Responsibly,” and feels that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity in court, another idea that endangers victims.

A spokesman for the Home Secretary’s office issued a statement saying that while the vetting and barring system for sex offenders will be reviewed, it is only for the purpose to make sure screening processes are appropriate.

“It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing pedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public,” said the spokesman.

We couldn’t agree more.

No parent would want their child to end up in the care of a registered sex offender because their crimes were simply dismissed after completion of their sentence.

More and more, the rights of the few who feel offended or discriminated against are trampling on the rights of the many – the many law-abiding, taxpaying, everyday citizens who do their best to work hard and protect their families.

And it is hard to believe that many of the most educated in society are often the ones who want more socialist and progressive policies in place.

There is never a case in which child sex abuse, pedophilia, or rape should be normalized.

But increasingly in the U.S. and other western nations, the progressive agenda is pushing for normalization of sexual deviancy, the sexualization of women and children, and a change in laws – even Constitutions – that were put in place generations ago to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Helen Reece’s request is absurd, and there is nothing that should be more important in a society than legal safeguards to keep children safe from predators.

Not only are sexually alternative lifestyles being accepted and even encouraged, now progressives want all sexual activity – even involving children – to be seen as normal.

When will it end?  Are we now supposed to protect sex offenders who are likely to re-offend because they feel discriminated against?

It is truly unbelievable that anyone, especially an expert in all matters of the law, would even introduce such a ludicrous idea.

What do you think of Helen Reece’s request to the U.K.’s Home Secretary to loosen screening processes and bans against sex offenders working with and adopting children?  Leave us your comments.

 

Comments are closed.