The publicly available sex offender registry should be abolished.
Debate Rounds (4)
I oppose the existence of a publicly available sex offender registry. Note that this argument deals only with a registry that all citizens can access. I am not arguing that a record should not be kept by law enforcement. I also oppose background checks, but that is not material to this argument. I am confining the scope of this argument to publicly available sex offender registries. This in no way suggests that I am okay with rape or any other sex offense. To assert that would be to assert a false dilemma. I could as easily say that if you don't support cutting off hands for shoplifting, then you support shoplifting.
1)Sex offenders have an extremely low recidivism rate.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any group of offenders, and it isn't even close. All legitimate sources will confirm this. (Note: blogs, random websites, and the Huffington Post are not legitimate sources for data, criminal databases are.)
If the numbers were not available, we could simply think about the rational effect of a registry. The registry causes these people to become social pariahs, so their options for consensual relationships are severely curtailed if not completely obliterated. The problem with this is that if they will now have the option of no relationship or forcing their way on someone. If someone has been rehabilitated and is then thrust into this situation I would suggest their odds of reverting to their former state rises. Thankfully the rate of recidivism is, as previously stated, very low, but it would seem that the registry is more likely to raise the rate of recidivism than lower it.
The registry does not really protect anyone, it is just extra punishment beyond the prison time that the offenders serve. These offenders have already served their time, and if qualified professionals (ie psychiatrists) think a person is still likely to be a danger to society but has served his sentence, he should be getting therapy to treat his disorder and possibly confined in some way(eg a tracking ankle bracelet or confinement to a facility to treat these offenders).
If you disagree with my conclusion that the registry should be abolished as it is cruel and unusual punishment, then it seems to follow that you should think anyone convicted of any offense should be put on a registry because any other offender is far more likely to re-offend.
2)The sex offender registry is horribly abused by the public.
What is the real use of the sex offender registry? We brand sex offenders with a scarlet letter(the sex offender registry). This is then used by bullies and sadists so they can find someone they can harass or attack while claiming that they are doing something heroic. In truth, they are just cowards looking for approval. Similarly, those who set up stings to catch pedophiles online have been shown to falsify information and entrap people as was the case with Letzgohunting when they made a profile of a person of legal age then when the meeting was scheduled sent a text minutes before the meeting telling their mark that the girl was "actually" 15. They then chased him around town filming him and sending the film to his place of work to shame him for a thing he did not do all in the name of seeming like heroes for attacking someone they falsely claimed fit into a group that society deems worthy of harassment and attacks. I do not have statistical data on how common these attacks are. I know they exist based on news reports, but I have no way to compute their frequency.
Before I begin I would like to thank the pro for choosing me for this debate. In this debate I will be giving reasons as to why sex offender registry should be publicy available.
Rebuttal 1-Sex offenders have an extremely low recidivism rate.
The pro did not list any sources as to how low recidivism rates for sex offenders are so it is truly hard to know what "low" is, but I will do my best to rebut this."The 61 studies provided information on 28,972 sexual offenders, although sample sizes were smaller for any particular analysis"."When recidivism was defined as any reoffense, the rates were predictably higher: 36.3% overall (n = 19,347), 36,9% for the child molesters (n = 3,363), and 46,2% for rapists (n = 4,017). These averages should be considered cautiously because they are based on diverse methods and follow-up periods, and many sexual offenses remain undetected." After reading through this paragraph there are a few things we will look at to do some calculations recidivism of any offense is 36.3% out of 28,927 sex offenders which is equal to 19,347. As of 2015 there are 811,389 registered sex offenders in the U.S. So if we take 33.3% of 811,389 we get 270,192 repeat offenders. This is a fairly large number even though the Pro stated that there was only a small percentage of repeat offenders.
The pro states "The problem with this is that if they will now have the option of no relationship or forcing their way on someone." If a former sex offender chooses the latter of these two options wouldn't that mean that te had never changed to begin with. With this in mind wouldn't it be better for people to be aware of possible threats?
Next the Pro stated "If you disagree with my conclusion that the registry should be abolished as it is cruel and unusual punishment, then it seems to follow that you should think anyone convicted of any offense should be put on a registry." This is quite untrue due to the fact that many crimes such as theft are nearly impossible to prevent, so a registry for that wouldn't matter.
Rebuttal 2- The sex offender registry is horribly abused by the public.
The talks about the Letzgo Hunting group is irrelevant due to the fact that they do not use the sex offender registry to find their "victims", but rather set out to find unregistered offenders by using chat rooms.
Argument 1- safety
The registration of sex offenders is very important for safety reasons. For example when moving to a new city with your family(if you don't have one you can imagine) wouldn't you want to know how safe it is. Of course you can check how many burgularies, grand theft autos, and murders occur but you would still be missing the amount of sex offenders in the area. Due to this you wouldn't have even been able know if it was safe let your children walk to school, or walk down the street to the store. For this reason public access to the sex offender registry is a necessity. I await the pro's response.
Here are some appropriate numbers:
"Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime"
"Within 3 years, 2.5% of the 3,138 released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of the 4,443 persons who had served time for homicide were rearrested for a homicide. Among other offenses, the percentages rearrested for the same category of offense for which they were just in prison were 13.4% of released robbers 22.0% of released assaulters
23.4% of released burglars 33.9% of released larcenists 11.5% of released thieves of motor vehicles 19.0% of released defrauders 41.2% of released drug offenders."
As you can see, the only group less likely to repeat their crime are murderers. Every other category is significantly more likely to repeat their crime.
As to people who had not been reformed, I already clearly said that people should be evaulated and possibly monitored by law enforcement, but not by regular citizens.
Personally, I think a very easy way to make burglary less likely is to not move into an apartment that houses burglars. A registry would be very helpful with this. Also, what makes you think it is easier to prevent a sex crime than a burglary? If someone breaks into your house to commit a crime whether it is to rape you or to rob you, there is not much you can do about it at that point.
To your second rebuttal:
The point of the Letzgo hunting group is that they are a symptom of the idea that attacking sex offenders is acceptable which is perpetuated by the registry which flags the second least likely group to repeat their crime as the most appropriate people to target.
To your safety argument:
You can already get the rate of sex offenses in a city, you do not need the individual names of offenders to know how likely rape is in the community. Additionally, the registry only lets you find these people at their home and place of work. It does not help you identify them anywhere else. A new haircut, not having mugshot face on, or wearing sunglasses will make the person anonymous, so knowing the individual's information will not help you in places like parks or outside of schools.
Another problem is that this suggests that if nobody has yet been convicted of a sex offense in a community it would be a good idea to let small children wander around unsupervised. Sex offenders are not born on the registry, they need to offend before this happens, so assuming that nobody on the registry means kids won't be raped is not a particularly good assumption. Using a registry to guess that your kids will not be assaulted is not a good way to prevent assaults. Making sure they are supervised is.
Another problem is even if you personally knew and could identify every single past present and future offender in your town, that leaves one big gap. Somebody could just go and do his raping in a town where he would not be recognized. Again, a registry would not help you.
One thing must be pointed out at this point, not every sex offender is a child molester. Sex offenses happen to children, adults, men, and women. You seem focused on one subset of offenders.
My conclusion at this point is that the registry does not make you any safer, it still only provides a means to harass people who have already served their sentence and prevent them from leading productive lives once they are allowed back into society.
TBSmothers forfeited this round.
I would not steal a loaf of bread today because I have access to food, but if I became impoverished and was starving(in a non welfare country), I might. This is analogous to the idea that stamping ex offenders with a scarlet letter could be raising the probability of recidivism.
I regret saying this but, due to my 2nd round forfeiture I concede all 7 points to the pro.
TBSmothers forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded "all seven points to the pro".
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.