The Instigator
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
baggins
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should We Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2012 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,962 times Debate No: 25073
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

ishallannoyyo

Con

First round is acceptance.

Definitions:
Protect the identity: hide the child's name, blur their picture etc. from the news and newspapers

Young Criminal Offenders: Youth under the age of 18 who have committed a serious crime such as theft, arson, assault, murder etc.

Convicted: Found guilty

I look forward to an exciting debate!
baggins

Pro

I would like to thank ishallannoyyo for initiating this debate.

My opponent has left many rules of the debate unclear. In this round I shall try to clear them up. I shall do my best to be fair.

1. At present the resolution is in form of query rather than statement. The resolution should be read as:

We Should
Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences.


Ishallannoyyo will argue that we should not protect the identity of young criminal offenders (YCO) and I shall argue that their identities should be protected.

2. Burden of Proof is shared. Both the debaters must prove theire cases to win the debate. By default, this debate would be a tie.

3. First round is for acceptance. Arguments can be presented in Round 2 & 3. No new arguments will be presented in Round 4.

I sincerely hope that this framework will allow us to have a serious and informative debate. Waiting for opening arguments from ishallannoyyo.
Debate Round No. 1
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge. I accept the changes made by my opponent.

C1: PUBLIC SAFETY
This principle is the same principle as if you are a patient diagnosed with HIV. You are required by law to tell your sexual partners that you have HIV for their safety. This is the same principle. If someone is coming into your neighbourhood that has a been a repeat offender, wouldn't you like to know who they are? My opponent may argue for a right to privacy, but the right to safety of the public far outweighs the right to privacy of that child. We don't know if these kids will be repeat offenders. Wouldn't you like to know if there is a convicted felon living next door? My opponent may argue that this would mean that we are applying a stigma to these kids, yet that is not what we are doing. I recognize the fact that not every child will be a repeat offender, yet there are kids who are. The fact that people will know about what you did will also act as a deterrent.

C2: DETERRENCE
The fact that everyone will know what crime you committed, this will act as a major deterrent for crime. Kids are scared of being humiliated, laughed at, teased, etc. etc. Now imagine a child being humiliated on a nation wide scale. The idea is of course terrifying for kids and acts as a strong deterrent for kids who are about to commit crimes. It also severs to show others the penalty and the consequences of being in a gang, committing crimes, theft etc.

C3: REHABILITATION IS STILL POSSIBLE EVEN WITH PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
Rehabilitation is still possible even if the public knows about the crimes that these youth commit. If the community supports the rehabilitation of a certain youth, it can even make the rehabilitation even more effective. Anything anyone tries will generally be more successful if the proper support and the proper encouragement is given. The support of an entire community might make rehabilitation for these kids possible.

So it is for these reasons that voters should VOTE CON.
baggins

Pro


Thanks to ishallannoyyo for his arguments.


My opponent has ignored one very relevant fact from his argument. We are talking about YOUNG convicts and not just any convicted criminal. Often criminals themselves are victims of circumstances they are brought up in. In case of young offenders, this is especially true.


We are talking about people who committed some mistake at a very young age. After committing the crime they have also paid the penalty. They already know that crime does not pay. When they get another chance in life, they would be eager to do something good with their life. They are the perfect candidates for rehabilitation.


However there is one problem they may face while trying to turn their life around. The problem is stigma and prejudice. They already know crime does not pay much. What society may teach them is: in their situation, avoiding crime pays even less. This may lead them back to the criminal world.


My esteemed opponent wants to flash photographs and videos of criminal all over the national media and to inform any potential employer and whole neighbor that they are convicts. I am certain that this will make it very difficult for them to get a job, except for a particular kind of jobs which drag them back into the depth they were trying to rise from.


== Rebuttals ==


1. Public Safety: My opponent relies on appeal to emotions.


“Wouldn't you like to know if there is a convicted felon living next door?”


This question itself shows what kind of prejudice young convicts are likely to face in life. No one would welcome them into neighborhood, or rent them their houses or offer them any jobs or even socialize with them. If the brutal ‘civilized’ world refuses to entertain them, what alternative do they have except to go back to the world of crime?


These kids are not habitual offenders. They committed a crime in their youth. It does not mean they are going to do it again. They deserve a chance. It would be extremely cruel to deny them an opportunity.


So what about public safety? I would suggest we should be careful about our neighbors in any case and maintain essential precautions. Even if they are not convicts, they may still commit a crime in future. Or maybe they have committed some crime and escaped arrest!


2. Deterrence: My opponent thinks that we should humiliate the young convicts all over the media. It is an unsubstantiated and outrageous assertion. This may or may not help deterrence. Media is extremely unreliable to be made a part of criminal justice system. It is possible that publicity given by the media may give some kind rebel status to these youngsters and lead to promotion of crime. It will be better if we rely on conventional punishments to curb crime.


3: Rehabilitation is still possible even with public knowledge: The way my opponent has worded the caption shows that rehabilitation is going to be unlikely. I agree it may still be possible in the unlikely event that everyone around them is extremely positive and supportive. Real world does not work like that. Most people do not give a benefit of doubt to ‘convicted felon living next door


The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 2
ishallannoyyo

Con


I thank my opponent for his comments.



When they get another chance in life, they would be eager to do something good with their life.


If this was true, then why are there repeat youth offenders? This is a baseless assumption.



They are the perfect candidates for rehabilitation.


Every youth is subjugated to rehabilitation. Clearly, it isn’t working.



The problem is stigma and prejudice. They already know crime does not pay much. What society may teach them is: in their situation, avoiding crime pays even less. This may lead them back to the criminal world.


Once again, kids are already returning to the criminal world for various reasons. We need to try something different. I have already mentioned in R2, it is an assumption to assume that we are stigmatizing these kids.



I am certain that this will make it very difficult for them to get a job.


This is incorrect. At age 18, your criminal record is wiped clean unless you have committed murder.



If the brutal “civilized” world refuses to entertain them, what alternative do they have except to go back to the world of crime?


Yet communities actively participate and support the rehabilitation of adult criminals, yet they wouldn’t for a child? And following your assumption that these kids aren’t repeat offenders, why fear them? We are not encouraging people to stigmatize, ostracize, and prejudice these kids, but the public has a right to know and a right to safety.



These kids are not habitual offenders.


Incorrect, some kids are.



They deserve a chance.


We are giving them a chance, we aren’t denying them rehabilitation or anything.



So what about public safety? I would suggest we should be careful about our neighbors


Yet safety is always easier to accomplish if you have knowledge. This way you don’t treat everybody walking up the street as a criminal, everything is easier if you have knowledge.



My opponent thinks that we should humiliate the young convicts all over the media.


I have never said that we should purposely humiliate them, yet the mere fact that they are on the news will be a major deterrent. The conventional methods aren’t working.



It may still be possible in the unlikely event that everyone around them is extremely positive and supportive.


Yet these people are! Rehabilitation with the support of family and friends will always be more successful. How can someone support and help someone when they don’t know who they are!


Most people do not give a benefit of doubt to “convicted felon living next door.”


My opponent has said that these kids aren’t repeat offenders, thus, what will the public have to worry about? As I have already said, rehabilitation is still possible and my opponent has failed to negate this point.



My opponents entire case revolves around a stigma, yet a stigma is not what we are putting on these kids. We aren’t assuming every child is a repeat offender, because they aren’t, yet some are and the public has a right to know and a right to safety.



My opponent hasn’t fulfilled his BOP, he hasn’t even provided any arguments. All of my arguments still stand, thus I urge voters to VOTE CON.



baggins

Pro


Many thanks to Ishallannoyyo for his response.


Readers would notice that my esteemed opponent has completely dropped the caption system he introduced in first round. Rather he has responded to my arguments quote by quote. This makes it very difficult to notice how many arguments he has dropped.


In an effort to maintain some organization in the debate; which will hopefully help our readers in following each point of conflict to its natural conclusion; I shall try to reintroduce the original captioning system and organize our arguments. I shall do my best to not to drop any argument in the process.


== My arguments ==


My opponent accuses me of not fulfilling the burden of proof. Yet I did present my arguments in last round. Since it was so simple and brief, my opponent possibly missed it. I shall try to list them again.



  1. The case of young offenders is usually different from that of older offenders, and hence merits different treatment.

  2. Young convicts are often themselves victims of circumstances and upbringing.

  3. With proper assistance chances of rehabilitation is greater.

  4. If their identities are well known, they will face problem in finding jobs, renting houses starting a civil life. I called this the problem of stigma and prejudice.

  5. This endangers rehabilitation efforts.


Pro has presented several trivial questions against my arguments.


Q1. So how come repeat youth offenders still exist?


I never claimed that youth offenders get rehabilitated 100% of the time. I said that the chances of their rehabilitation are greater and hence they merit special consideration.


Q2. Wouldn’t community help them even if they knew they were convicts?


If me opponent knew that particular person is a convict, would he offer him an employment in his company? Would he rent his house to such a person? While it is possible he may agree to help, many people would refuse. This is a major problem with rehabilitation efforts, which can be tackled by hiding identities of young convicts.


In any case, let me submit that the best help community can offer such people is to completely forget their past.


Q3. Rehabilitation efforts are not working and something more drastic is needed.


This is a baseless assertion offered without any evidence. This should be ignored by our kind voters.



== Rebuttals ==


Public Safety: Pro presents an interesting contradiction in his own arguments. He says that employers would never find out about criminal history since crime records are destroyed at age of 18. It is clear that my opponent supports this law.


This is extremely surprising. The issues involved in destruction of records for young convicts are identical to the issues involved in hiding their name and blurring their faces in media. We should have expected Ishallannoyyo to be completely against such destruction. He needs to clearly explain his contradiction.


If the name and identities of young convicts are available in media, enterprising businessmen will be able to prepare unofficial crime records. So the purpose of destroying records is once again defeated. Pro definitely needs to explain his inconsistency on destruction of records.


We can see that we are facing a contradiction between public’s right to safety and consequent prejudice and stigma that offenders may face; endangering rehabilitation efforts. I would like to humbly assert that in case of young offenders, the importance of rehabilitation triumphs over public safety. Legislators who prepared the rule for destruction of record for young convicts obviously agree with me.


Media Humiliation: Pro defends his outrageous suggestion to humiliate young offenders by saying:


I have never said that we should purposely humiliate them,…


His only defense is that he is not ‘purposely’ humiliating them. He said in the first round:


…Kids are scared of being humiliated, laughed at, teased, etc. etc. Now imagine a child being humiliated on a nation wide scale…


It is clear that my opponent advocates a law which designed to humiliate the young convicts as a deterrent. I am certain this amounts to purposely humiliating them.


In the meantime my opponent has offered no proof that such deterrent are going to work.


Rehabilitation will be difficult: My opponent makes a curious statement that there is public is unlikely to worry since they are not repeat offenders. If this is correct, it destroys his public safety argument.


I agree with my opponent that rehabilitation is still possible after media exposure. My argument is that it will be much more difficult.


== Conclusion ==


I have established that disclosing the names of young offenders and revealing their faces on national and local media is likely to lead to prejudice, stigma and will endanger rehabilitation. Pro has been unable to present a single good and valid advantage of using media. The resolution has been negated.


I look forward to my opponent explaining his support to the law of destroying records and the inconsistency involved. He also needs to present some evidence that his humiliating plan of deterrence is likely to be effective.


Debate Round No. 3
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Before I begin, I would like to point out that the caption system I used was only for R1. If you look at the other debates I have had on this website, I use the quote system. Furthermore, I didn’t drop any of my arguments, just refuted the arguments and rebuttals my opponent brought forth.

The case of young offenders is usually different from that of older offenders, and hence merits different treatment.

There is no difference other than age. Youth commit serious crimes, adults commit serious crimes, and there is no difference in crime. Why should youth be given special treatment?

Young convicts are often themselves victims of circumstances and upbringing.

This is quite true. Why though does this mean that we should protect their identities? Are you insinuating that it isn’t their fault and it’s their parents fault or their environment? This is clearly incorrect, they committed the crime, and they should be punished. If they are in a rough environment, social workers can sort that sort of thing out.

With proper assistance chances of rehabilitation is greater.

Quite correct, a family supported or community supported rehabilitation is far more likely to be successful. For example, in Canada a system of community correction (the youth are brought into a community setting with other adults, family etc) is far better than conventional methods of rehabilitation [1].

I called this the problem of stigma and prejudice.

I have already addressed this. This argument is entirely based off an assumption that people will fear youth offenders and shun them. This is no more than a baseless assumption. Adult criminals in our world aren’t faced with this, why should youth be?

This endangers rehabilitation efforts.

Rehabilitation efforts are failing miserably right now. The UK’s toughest rehabilitation centre only works 10% of the time. [2].

I said that the chances of their rehabilitation are greater and hence they merit special consideration.

I have just shown how rehabilitation is more successful if their community was involved so this point is negated.

If my opponent knew that particular person is a convict, would he offer him an employment in his company?
Potentially. You can’t just judge everyone on their past, if we accept this resolution, rehabilitation would be far more successful. Adult criminals are still given jobs, why should there be a difference in youth criminals?

This is a baseless assertion offered without any evidence. This should be ignored by our kind voters.

I have just provided evidence. Rehabilitation in the UK only works 10% of the time. 90% of kids who go through their rehabilitation go through it again, and again, and again. That’s not good enough.

He says that employers would never find out about criminal history since crime records are destroyed at age of 18.

First of all, the purpose of the destruction of criminal records is because those are records of crime committed as youth. As they are adults, they are given a new adult criminal record. Secondly, I have never said that I support the wiping of the criminal record. I had merely said that their criminal record won’t stop them from getting a job. In fact, employers responded to surveys saying that they would “probably” or “definitely” hire a criminal offender for jobs that don’t require college education [3]. Furthermore, employment rates have barely dropped for ex-felons and prisoners, their employment chances dropping 12% if they committed a serious crime. [4]. I am against the destruction of the records, yet I am merely pointing out that the employers would never officially know.

I would like to humbly assert that in case of young offenders, the importance of rehabilitation triumphs over public safety.

This is an absurd statement. In the UK, 90% of kids who go through their toughest rehabilitation program will offend again. They will hurt more people, steal more things, burn more things, and in general HURT MORE PEOPLE. My opponent somehow believes that we need to make this program even tougher and even tougher, even though I have shown that it isn’t working. If we release the identity of these kids, we can have more successful community oriented rehabilitation AND protect the public.

It is clear that my opponent advocates a law designed to humiliate the young convicts as a deterrent.

I never said such thing. I have insinuated that being on the news for something BAD would be embarrassing. Would being in a movie be great? Yeah it would, unless you’re the guy who does something bad or embarrassing.

In the meantime my opponent has offered no proof that such deterrent are going to work.

The media publishing of the penalties that these kids went through (jail etc) will obviously scare kids away from following in these footsteps.

My opponent makes a curious statement that there is public is unlikely to worry since they are not repeat offenders. If this is correct, it destroys his public safety argument.

This statement was made following your assumption as I said when I prefaced that statement.

My argument is that it will be much more difficult.

I have disproved this.

I have shown how this resolution doesn’t at all lead to prejudice, stigma, or endanger rehabilitation. I have shown (with sources) how people are willing to hire convicts, how they are willing to give them a chance, and how community oriented rehabilitation is far more effective than conventional methods. I have shown how the use of media will effectively deter crime as they will show how crime does not pay. My opponent has provided no refutation to my argument of public safety, merely saying that rehabilitation should be the focus. I have on the other hand refuted all of my opponents points and defended my own.

My opponent claims that he has found a contradiction in my argument, but he hasn’t. Thus, it is clear for Voters to VOTE CON. I remind my esteemed opponent not to bring forth new arguments in the next round. I thank my opponent for a though provoking debate! VOTE CON!

  1. http://www.uc.edu...
  2. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
  3. http://www.irp.wisc.edu...
  4. http://www.cepr.net...
baggins

Pro

baggins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Sources to me too.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
...pro on deterrence cite New Mexico's DWI media deal... DWIs ever since are dropping.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
@ ishallannoyyo

My apologies for forfeiting last round. I hate forfeiting, but had no alternative as I got super busy at work.

Conduct should go to Pro since I forfeited. Voters should evaluate other aspects as usual. IMO, I should win arguments even though I skipped last round, however that is for the readers to decide.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Me 2, so no rush
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
I suddenly need to travel. I shall do my best to submit my argument, however it might be a close thing.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Changed it
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
@ishallannoyyo
Reduce it to 4 rounds and I will take it.
Posted by OneElephant 5 years ago
OneElephant
Is this a theoretical debate? Or do we actually have to propose a model, etc etc.
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
I am also Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheBossToss 5 years ago
TheBossToss
ishallannoyyobagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments, demonstrating that, w/ criminal record clearing @ 18, it would not hurt the kid, and that people around them have a right to know of offenders living near them. Also, FF, so conduct to Con.