[Byzantine]

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.

[lilsunnybee]

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?

http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-...

[squeaky-clean]

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.

[blueskin_]

Because no criminal can ever be reformed, right?

If they're released, it generally implies they no longer pose a threat, and are monitored if not the case.