Fun with cognitive dissonance and the Sensible Sentencing Trust!

Good parents who are just doing their best raising horrible children => get investigated for assaulting said children => no further action taken when Police/CYFS are satisfied no abuse taking place?

HORRIBLE PERSECUTION OF INNOCENTS, STATE OVERREACHING ITS BOUNDS.

Random people who may or may not be sex offenders => names published in a sex offender registry accidentally => potentially face actual persecution in the form of mobs, harassment, being chased out of neighbourhoods?

WE MUST KEEP THIS NATION SAFE!!!!  WHY DO YOU LOVE CHILD ABUSERS???

Homework:  create a mind-map showing what qualities you think the Sensible Sentencing Trust assumes those two groups of people (“good parents” and “random not-actually-convicted-of-anything people who someone thinks is a sex offender”) have, and how to distinguish between them.

Bonus credit: present an internally-consistent explanation of how the Sensible Sentencing Trust can expect our Police and child protection services to crack down on abuse while simultaneously never investigating Good Parents.

2 comments