Which do you think is harder though, adbucting some kid into a stolen untrackable vehicle and go out into the wilderness where there's no chance in hell you'll be caught, or going to the trouble and length of becoming a childcare worker where your face and likely other details are exposed? Someone who is free can easily do the former, and with a stolen SSN and identity (this is laughably easy to get if you've ever worked in many factories you'll see tons of illegal immigrants with stolen SSN) can also easily do the latter.
The whole premise is just laughable at face.
This think of the children trope is just bait IMO to try and get us to accept that there are second class citizens, and allow us to put restrictions and loss of freedoms on people who have completed their judicial punishment. If we can accept this we might accept ending their constitutional rights such as the right to vote, bear arms, or speak freely.
I understand the desire to protect children in this manner, I just think it's misguided and philosophically inconsistent.
That's a terrible analysis. I would bet that even the innocent people convicted of a crime are more liKely to commit a crime after and this speaks more to our poorly functioning justice system than the person convicted. Besides, statistically everyone is a criminal because the number of laws are uncountable and unknowable.
It just seemed the question was phrased in terms of those being the only options, when in fact they are the very rare options. It seems that mostly people you hire are not going to do serious criminal things, either before or after you hire them.
That makes for a good argument not to trust them as much, generally speaking.
On the other hand, integrating them back into society (something that's lacking in the US) works well for most.