While a case can be made it is unfair to inflict the ongoing stigma of registration on past offenders, as this constitutes a retrospective punishment in addition to that already prescribed at the time of the offence, anyone who commits such a crime now that registration is a likely and forseeable consequence, has nothing to complain about other than to argue it's too harsh - which is a completely different issue.

Even given the above, why on Earth would we want to risk our innocent childrens rights so fundamentally, for the sake of giving evil people a second chance. Such thinking is popular with those who don't have children.

If an adult man ever thought it was ok to play with himself in front of school children, then 10 years on the register is a soft outcome in my book. The statistical chance of him being a repeat or a later more serious offender may be low, but it would never be low enough for me to be happy to have him move into my neighbourhood anonomously.

People who think puting these people back on the streets unmonitered is such a good idea should demonstrate their faith by having them babysit their children. What, no takers?

The registry isn't about making people pay their debt to our society, it is about protecting our society, and especially the most innocent and defenseless in our society, our children. I have no time for anyone who would compromise that to uphold the rights of child molesters and rapists. This writer should get his priorities straight.

Personally I believe that not only should these monsters be registered, but should have a chip implanted in the body so their movements can be monitored by GPS. This may seem extreme, however the survivors of these inhuman beings are frightened for life.

Yes they have done their time, if they don't re-offend they have nothing to fear. The chip should be placed into the body where the offender is unable to reach it. Enough is enough too many lives have been ruined by these people to take the view that "they have served their time."

I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with the author of this article.

As the old adage goes 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'.

One only has to experience the trauma - both psychological and physical, that the victims of this most horrible crime have to endure for the rest of their lives to realise that society cannot do enough to ensure the safety of our most vulnerable.

Research and the grand theories are all well and good till reality arrives. Besides, try telling that to a victim and watch the reaction.

These animals have shown neither mercy nor compassion for their victims, so no argument in their defense should be even entertained.

With the highlight on current Government action in the Northern Territory I don't think now is a good time to put before the public a proposal such as this.

This is a highly emotive question that I think even the most liberal of people would find it difficult to reach consensus on. Calls are coming in from a public forced to confront the issue of sex offences to show that we, as a nation, will not tolerate sexual crimes any more. Not great timing, mate.

Like Kalin, I did a doubletake over the chummy-matey approach to the young bloke who committed a "relatively mild" offence. Relatively mild in relation to multiple rape, perhaps? However the physical trauma of rape, however brutal, is healed quite quickly - in some cases there is very little. It is the psychological trauma that causes the scars. And how can one possibly assess the psychological trauma to a child on being forced to witness something they are not ready to see?

As a small child I had a similar experience. And though in later years I endured far worse, the picture of that initial experience stays with me more vividly than anything else. In a few seconds my safe childhood world of kind, jolly male figures became a vision of this engorged, purple monstrosity; feral, rictus grin, and an unknown, unsafe dimension which entered my world, forever changing it. "Relatively mild"? From an adult who connects the naked body with pleasurable activity and who knowingly seeks titillation, maybe. From a kids point of view? Horrific.

Don't think this kite is going to fly for you just yet, mate.I am only one of many who really mean it when we say we need a society who will no longer downplay, ignore or accept sex crimes. Divide them up into "serious" and "relatively mild" for purposes of less discriminatory consequences? Nah, I'll pass on that one. Its ALL serious.

The safety of children is the issue of primary importance here. The obvious way to avoid the penalty is not to commit the crime in the first place. I know that may sound facile but the potential harm to a child is too great.
The courts have awarded millions of dollars in compensation to victims of sex abuse. It is an extremely expensive offence for many innocent people, the immediate victim who can suffer severe psychological and emotional damage and those who, as a group, end up paying psychologically, emotionally and financially.
In general double punishment is to be deplored but where there is any chance at all that we put children at risk they have to come first.

Curious though, isn't it? A stepfather in a defacto relationship can beat his son/daughter to a bloody pulp (a pretty severe form of child abuse), and although he'll go to gaol for it, he won't be chipped and hounded for the rest of his life, nor put on a register. What is so sacrosanct about physical abuse compared with sexual abuse? Or is it about projection of our own unconscious sexuality (in the Jungian sense of the "shadow") that drives this almost hysterical reponse to so-called sexual abuse. Come off it guys, a teenager masturbating in a car in front of a couple of girls just doesn't bear comparison to some of the cases that I read about daily in the newspapers, of children being bearen to near death or actual death by their so-called "carers".