So you did. Sorry about that.
My point was that violence is not always a factor in molestation, and that violence can be an essential part of one's sexual identity without being criminal. In other words, I'm saying that I think what you've been told about violence as associated with sexual deviance is oversimplified.
And this illustrates, I think, the crucial problem we face as a society with regard to criminal justice in general and this topic in particular. Hoping that such cases could be sorted out is one thing; taking the time to advocate on behalf of a more thorough, reasonable, and compassionate understanding of the problem is quite another. We have no shortage of people with a superficial understanding of what "sex offender" means, and who are quite happy to make stupid pronouncements about what should be done to anyone who acquires the label for any reason. What we need are more people who take the time to engage their brains before deciding they have the answers to all of society's problems.
Sex Offender is a term of art that serves to sort out which offenders go on the list and which ones don't. I certainly don't think that a guy who gets busted for urinating in public deserves to be on the same list as a guy who hides in the bushes and rapes and strangles a woman. The first doesn't deserve the label and the second doesn't deserve to ever be let out.