first, a paedophile is some one who is attracted to prepubescent children, not anyone who has committed a sex offence.
a man who is attracted to the shape of the body of a post pubescent human female is, tbh, a normal straight man resulting from tens of thousands of years of evolution for men to be attracted to females during their most fertile years. i think to not acknowledge that is unhealthy as a society, and stops men from seeking help, which would then protect children.
obviously it is absolutely not ok in modern culture for men to act on that attraction if that body is owned by an under age teenager as girls that age generally do not have the maturity or experience to realise when they are being manipulated/ taken advantage of/ love bombed, and are still getting used to their new bodies and comfortable with their sexuality and who they are. they are vulnerable. but if i could keep my late teens body for life, heck yes i would. it was much more attractive than my post 30 year old body. and any man who admitted that would simply be being honest. when i was a teenager i found it gross for a much older man to glance at me, mainly because they were old fat and ugly, but can't say i ever wanted them murdered for it. when i was about 13/ 14, an older friend of my older brother persuaded me to play strip poker. he was just old enough that i technically could report him to the police for that. but he's now a family man in his forties and has never inappropriately physically touched anyone. he made one mistake as a teenager. and i wasn't old enough to understand i wasn't old enough to decide if it was wrong, but i did think it was a laugh, took it further than he meant me to, and don't feel affected by it. most of my teenage friends were playing similar games at parties, or going skinny dipping. at least two thirds had lost their virginity by the age of 15. a teenager can be old enough to have sex legally, vote, drive a car, and get married, but if someone over the age of 18 views a self posted picture of their breasts online, that's a sex offence and they're lumped in with men raping little children. obviously some pictures online are from revenge porn, manipulation etc and viewing them fuels that abuse, but there is a wide spectrum of offences.
"sex offences against a child" ranges from kidnapping, raping and murdering a small child, to a drunk 18 year old boy being stupid and sharing a picture of his 17 year old girlfriend's breasts with his friends to try and feel part of a group. sex offences online can range from going on the dark web and paying for a child to be raped, to looking at hand drawn cartoon images of teenagers kissing. all are against the law, but do all of those men deserve to have their house set on fire and family killed 15 years later? or their children bullied, pets killed and posted through their letter box, or car brakes cut? some one who drives drunk at 80 in a 30 zone past a school and kills a child is not the same as some one who drives at 32 in a 30 zone, technically commits an offence, and is recorded as being a dangerous driver.
also, if an online offence, charges can be made before the person is fully investigated. it's called streamlined forensics. DO NOT assume a charged person is guilty until convicted, as some are proved innocent once a full investigation is carried out. yet once charged, their name, photo and address are publicly available, and they may have to wait a couple of years for the process to prove they were innocent. meanwhile they have limited or no access to the children they love, can lose their jobs, and their marriage and health are affected. and some people will always say no smoke without fire.
some people who commit online offences were themselves victims of childhood abuse and view images trying to accept what happened to them. some are mentally ill from ptsd. some have done good things in their lives. a person i knew who was charged with an offence had at one time put their own life at risk to save several people's lives. it doesn't cancel out, but i don't believe that person was evil, more damaged from an experience when they were a vulnerable child.
the most likely person in your life to be arrested for online sex offences is actually your teenager, not your partner/ creepy distant uncle etc. how do you gel that with "i would protect my beloved children against anything and any man doing this in any way will be straight out of my life to protect my precious babies"?
if you out a person, first, they will just be moved somewhere else, and secondly, an innocent person in their family may be the one harmed by vigilantes. their family has probably already gone through hell. they may even want no contact with the person depending on the offence, but would still be further devastated and shocked by some one they may have loved for decades being murdered. please don't do that to their children.
i live just outside a town where a child was taken, raped and killed. i still cry when i think about helping search the fields around the town. i would honestly bring back the death penalty for that monster. and i would kill anyone who so much as touched a hair on the head of the young children in my family. but most sex offenders are not in this category or paedophiles, and many are not a risk for hurting a child. there are also many that are potentially dangerous that have never been caught. the assumption of all parents should be that anyone could be a risk. so unless you see signs this person is grooming a family or child (in which case i would alert police) you are not doing anything to alter the risk level that is already there.
there will be experts monitoring this person, please don't interfere. you won't be protecting any children and may end up responsible for a crime worse than the person you are witch hunting. heck, you could end up responsible for a child being accidentally killed by a vigilante. and lose your job.