Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[kandrathe]

In the eyes of the law? That could be a naive statement, depending on how you take it, or rather, how you meant it. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the words and texts written and followed, I'd agree with you. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the individuals who enforce the laws, you're naive, and I don't mean that to sound insulting.
...

After reading your post, I'm doubting "naive" is the right word. Naive implies the writer is uninformed or ignorant. The concept "overly broad" or "too simplistic" might be better descriptions. I often find people arguing issues using a black and white view, when I believe the topic may be more graduated. Also, it might be that the writer was using an "imagined ideal' for simplification, rather than address reality which is usually more complicated and might require a dissertation qualifying one for an advanced degree in sociology or criminal justice.

So to further analyze your premise, when Mithrandir said, "Whether it is applied in practice 100% of the time or not, the fact is that in the eyes of the law you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison.", it might be considered optimistically reaching to think that in practice parole boards, or "the eye's of the law" would consider released prisoner is rehabilitated. Of course we can't crawl into the brains of the parole board to know what they are thinking. I fear they are looking for fresh bed space. Occhi's source and the ones I've looked at would indicate that recividism is high (around 60% iirc) for drug offenders, and also high for offenders commiting property crimes. Parole boards must realize that the majority of the people they release will end up right back in jail within a few months to years. They are released anyway, since in our system once you have served your sentence you have the right to return to society.

Although, the case of Melissa WolfHawk is an example of just how far the state has gone toward denying felons (and their wives) basic human rights. When this rapist was convicted in 1983 I bet he didn't realize he would be denied parenting for life. Granted they both seem to be somewhat loco, and the state of Pennsylvania might have very good cause to be worried about any children raised in the home for other reasons, but according to the arcticle "But officials say that their primary concern is the record of her husband, DaiShin John WolfHawk, although there is no evidence, they say, that he has abused children recently." I would rather move the topic forward by addressing this type of (mis)use of a sex offender registry, rather than disect one persons intentions on one sentence for 20 posts.