Should sex offenders be allowed to use the Internet?
Debate Rounds (3)
I'll take the pro. Sex offenders cannot be lumped into one large group and then banned from the most important means of communication ever invented. Such a sweeping ban violates free speech rights. There should be a case-by-case determination as to whether or not a sex offender is a "danger" when it comes to online access. Not all sex offenders used the Internet to commit their crimes, and not all sex offenders are "predators" or dangerous. For example, if an 18-year-old is considered a sex offender because he has a 16-year-old girlfriend (and they're both in the same high school), then why should Facebook ban him? He didn't use the Internet or Facebook to commit a crime, so there shouldn't be any such restriction. Now, if some old man is out trolling the Internet for kids, then he should obviously be banned, or at least monitored. But to deny access to ALL members of group cannot be supported.
The Internet is an important means of communication and research. Education has been shown to prevent crimes. So why cut off access to information?
My main argument will be privilege!
To me the Internet is a privilege! To have access to the wealth of information should be seen as such! Sex offenders do not pay for their crimes and many times the victims are not awarded justice! There are several non victimless crimes that demand even more jail time than child molesters!
Illinois: Bill to Create Mandatory Jail Time for Victimless Crimes
Average number of years a sex offender serves of an 8 year sentence3.5 years
That is an insult to every to anyone who serves time for drugs or public-order!
I think the main concern is that they will not be tempted to repeat the same patterns of predatory behavior.. you do not give them access to the best place to reach out to children. It would be like giving a recovering alcoholic a bottle of their favorite scotch!
I think this debate will heavily lean towards classification! How do we determine the level of sentencing or punishment for the degree of the crime? Do we have to look at this without emotion? I hardly believe that is necessary! A predator in society is exactly why prisons and reform restrictions are formed! Are they strict enough? I guess we should discuss the category of sex offender that should receive restrictions (like the Internet)! Is there maybe a compromise where they have monitored use or a program that nannies the allowed websites?
I'm sorry if I ranted instead of gave strong arguments.. but I kind of want to see where you are taking this so I do not bulldog your debate! Obviously I have a lot to say on the subject. I will tell you that I have never been a victim of abuse of any kind (lucky/great parents) So I should definitely (hopefully) Keep emotions at bay for this debate! I am learning (slowly) to be civil so I do not shoot myself in the foot here, so If I come off as crass feel free to let me have it!
In the first place, the Internet is not a "privilege." There is no difference between the Internet, a telephone, sending a text message, or sending a letter by postal mail. The telephone is not a "privilege," either. Each of these is simply a tool that can be utilized as a means of communication, period.
You state that the main concern is that they will not be tempted to repeat patterns of predatory behavior. I note that you completely ignored the focus of my topic: that "sex offenders" are lumped into one large group, no matter what their crime was, or the identity of the victim (age, gender, etc.). You immediately jumped to crimes against children, and the mistaken notion that all sex offenders are "predators" who are trolling the Internet searching for more victims. As I pointed out in my original post, not all sex offenses involve the Internet, and not all sex offenses involve children. To lump all offenders into one group, and then say that the entire group should be cut off from modern communication tools, without regard to individuality, undermines the entire purpose of the right to free speech. Restrictions must be based upon the individual harms caused, the type of offense, and an objective risk of future harms. The courts recognize this, and have consistently ruled that if the crime did not involve the Internet, no such restriction may be imposed. http://www.politico.com.... However, corrections departments frequently ignore these rulings.
Keep in mind that not all sex offenders are "predators." There is a distinct difference. A sex offender may include, as the example I gave, a high school romance. A sex offender may include two individuals (adult male and female) who got drunk at a tavern. Neither of these examples could be classified as "predators."
This argument has nothing to do with whether or not sex offenders "pay" for their crimes, whether or not the sentences imposed are sufficient, or whether or not justice is served. That is the purpose of our system of justice: the judge and/or jury makes those decisions, and thus that portion of your argument would be better settled in another debate topic. However, I will briefly respond to your concern. You state that this comes down to classification, and you ask how that could be done. One example I have seen from a judge is, IF the offense involves a child, the judge takes the age of the offender minus the age of the victim, and that is the sentence imposed. So, if a 20-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old, then the sentence is 5 years (20 minus 15). That does not mean, of course, a prison term of 5 years, but rather the combined total supervision (prison plus parole) equals 5 years. Obviously there is a HUGE difference between an offender who is 20 with a 15 year old victim, and an offender who is 40 and screwing around with a 5-year-old. We MUST recognize these differences, instead of lumping all offenders into a single category.
You are correct that there compromises, such as monitoring software. This is a useful tool, but only as long as the offender is currently on supervision. Such software is illegal to use on someone who has completed their sentence. That misses the point, however. I will again state, if the sex offense did NOT INVOLVE the Internet in any way, then why should such a restriction (or monitoring) be imposed in the first place?
It is understandable that this is an emotional topic for many people, whether they are victims of sexual abuse or not. But, we have to remember that this is not an issue of emotions. As I have pointed out, access to communications tools and education has been shown to REDUCE the risk of reoffending.
Unfortunately it will not help this debate that we pretty much agree on the issue.. mostly! You should not ban someone from the Internet under not violent or non predatory behavior! My understanding is that its like quitting drugs. You need to change your life radically to fall out of the same self destructive patterns propelled by triggers in your life! So if the Internet was your source to prey on anyone.. yeah you cannot be trusted with access. Again its unfortunate that I accepted this debate only to agree with you.. mostly! Anyways.. my apologies!
Unfortunately, I have seen in my line of work that many people (mostly bureaucrats and politicians) simply cannot or will not look beyond the label of "offender," and think that a one-size-fits-all rule is an adequate solution.
I do agree with you that "predators" (those legally found to be predators, I mean, such as through civil commitment) should be banned, or at least heavily monitored. THOSE are the people who have been found to be unable to control themselves. What I don't agree with is the notion that ALL sex offenders are "predators," when anybody with common sense can clearly see the difference.
I do appreciate the opportunity to debate with you. Thank you.
Finalfan forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paigeb 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: In the beginning, I believed that sex offenders should not have access to the internet. Pro did state they cannot be lumped together, which is true, but the question would still allow all sex offenders have all access. I would of agreed in the pro side in the beginning if there was a more specific target of what degree of the crime could be liable for use of the internet. (For example, a high school romance instead of all sex offenders, like online predators.) After the debate, I did agree with pro, and gave them the points for more convincing arguments, for the reasons that con did end up agreeing. (I would of loved if con tried harder to find information or statistics of how many sex offenders are "high school romances" or actual extreme cases or what not.) I think trying to debate the side you do not believe in is the best way to become more informed. In the end, I had to go with pro, since con agreed with the opponent and forfeited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.