But sex offenders? Easy targets? Because they were less likely to complain or feared being found "unworthy victims"? Those sex offenders in the unnamed Arkansas County with the unnamed sheriff who call my office complain of constant harassment of unwarranted traffic stops and searches by police, having their faces put on cable TV nearly every day as a "public service" by the Sheriff, citizen harassment of broken windows and damaged cars, hearsay reports of registered sex offenders being burned out of their homes with them in them, and the like.

Not quite a hate crime, I'm afraid, as if the law really cares about rehabilitating them, assuming a sex offender can be. (Depends on the offense, and the "jury's still out on that".)

One would say, in a perfect world, they are getting close to having a tort of outrage claim. The problem is simple, and they all know it: Jury nullification. Would a Rebublicanized jury actually give damages to such a plainfiff? Not hardly. So it keeps on coming.

And now, adding insult to injury, they are the targets of identity theft. I hate to sound cynical (an occupational hazard in criminal defense work), but maybe they should be flattered that somebody thought they were creditworthy and people outside of their home areas don't know about their prior transgression.