Opinion of this pastor (see details)?

[Alcon]

He served his term.  He has to be housed somewhere.  Would you prefer he live on his own, without religious guidance?  Given that dichotomy, I approve.  Doesn't mean that I don't think the pastor is overly sympathetic.

Also, "satisfactory" at what?

[Alcon]

"Satisfactory" means a positive opinion, but not as much as "Great". It means OK, somewhere in between great and neutral.

I understand what "satisfactory" means, haha.  It just seems like a weird way of describing the morality of an act.  It's like a marketing survey.  What do you think of the ethicality of Rev. Pickney's decision?  Somewhat satisfied, all right.  And now, how about your Verizon™ phone service...?

And if we're describing the person, we're trying to judge if he's a "satisfactory" human being based on a context-free news article that doesn't interview the guy?  Maybe this is the worst mistake of his life.  You haven't indicated why; you haven't even answered where else he'd go ("back to jail" is a non-answer and is not always just, anyway.)  But even if it were, that defines him?  People are not the grand sum of the keyhole images through which we see their lives.

I'm sorry.  I feel for these people.  I genuinely do.  But it is NIMBYism.  If I had kids, I'd be utterly terrified.  But they have no more right to not be utterly terrified than anyone else with kids.  And the guy has to be somewhere in society, if he has any hope for redemption.  Hopefully, there is a God who will make this whole unfortunate matter Just.  But, failing that, I see no superior option.  That considered, maybe we should all turn to Matthew 7:1-6.

[Alcon]

I voted "Ugh" and appear to be the only one who voted.

And now for the fun part:  Why do you hold this belief?

[Alcon]

He brought a child killer into this town. Of cours they aren't going to like him.

You're committing a logical fallacy.  You can find as many flaws in A as you want.  But simply dismissing A does not mean you do not have to evaluate B for potentially being even worse.  You have to prove that B>A, too.

In this case, A is having this guy in a pastoral home in a small town.  What is the B that is so superior to A that A justifies an "ugh" vote for this guy's life?  What is the option that is superior at all?

The predictability of the town's emotional response is non-point (beyond whatever ethical "value" you assign the emotional turmoil on the locals -- but I don't see how that's not there with B, too.)

[Alcon]

Put in my neighborhood, I wouldn't care. Urbanites are used to having such people around. This town shouldn't.

If you put so much stock into people's reactions when determining the ethics of being somewhere, why are you still posting here?