Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[Rinnhart]

You contridict yourself(and misrepresent me.)
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.
But enough on that, lets focus on your mistake..

You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "

You just feel that by serving your sentence you are esential even again with socety and your past crimes dont matter. This dirctly implies the finallaty and aceptaance of the legal sentence by soociety.

But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."

Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.
The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.

All law that is defined by it's consequences is fundamentally Hammurabian in nature.

The Code was not "An Eye for an Eye" it was:

The punishment should fit the crime contingent on the circumstances of the events in question and the nature of the involved individuals. The punishment should result in the social absolution of the perpetrator.

There is no contradiction in Mithandir's statements, there is only the convoluted reality of our world.

And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive)

It seems havent seperated these in your mind - you should.
You seems NAIVE because you feel that people can reasonably tell who is and isnt rehailitaed. You are even more NAIVE because you dont realize that subjective questions like that the easiest way for criminals to punished far beyond the law.
There is no way to tell if a pediphile is rehabilitaed or not. Released pediphiles given the oppertunity have a large "relapse" rate. Even if it was just 5% is would be huge. I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance.
I consider the list to be a life sentence and a fair sentence.
But I would also consider lazer etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair.

There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant aford to have you repeat.
-
[right][snapback]109881[/snapback][/right]

And you are naively oversimplifying. I won't even begin to touch your "PURPOSES OF DA LEGAL SYSTEM."

The murderer's brand or the theive's lost hand may have once been acceptable punishments, but this is a society where harassment, slander, and libel are themselves crimes. To provide the means to persue criminal activity is to condone criminal activity; these lists aren't being used for some greater good, they're being used to single out individuals who have paid their debts to society.

The laws that govern punishment regarding specific offenses are often dated by old beliefs and ideals, but that means the Law must be changed and updated, not that the system should be circumvented by additional transgressions, or worse, vigilantism.