#Debate

Sexual violence is arguably the most devastating kind. And over the past few decades, the legal landscape has shifted to a more proactive stance. The Wetterling Act requires convicted offenders to register with local authorities. Megan’s Law mandates law enforcement to alert neighbors of those with past convictions in their community. And the U.S. Department of Justice consolidates convictions into a single, searchable site - all in the name of helping people avoid potential predators. But that registry has come under increasing scrutiny. Some suggest that it actually encourages further criminal offenses by making it virtually impossible for offenders to reintegrate into society. Crimes also vary considerably - from public urination, exhibitionists, and so-called “peeping Toms,” to more severe crimes, such as sexual assault and rape. Those differences, they say, are not adequately accounted for in the law. Others say that reducing such a proactive approach and tool will endanger communities, which have consistently supported it in the name of keeping communities safe. In this context, we debate the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?
Debaters:
YES: Emily Horowitz, Author “Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Registry Laws Are Failing Us” and Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice
Emily Horowitz is professor and chair of Sociology and Criminal Justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn where she founded and co-directs the Post-Prison Program, a nationally recognized program that helps formerly incarcerated students earn college degrees. She is the author of “Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us,” and her new book “From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear” is forthcoming (May 2023). Emily has conducted research on sex offense law and policy for over two decades and works with organizations that challenge public conviction registries and banishment laws. She holds a Ph.D. of Sociology from Yale University.
NO: Cary Federman, Author "Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation" and Justice Studies Professor
Cary Federman is a two-time Fulbright Scholarship recipient and social science and law researcher. He is the author of “Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation,” “The Assassination of William McKinley: Anarchism, Insanity, and the Birth of the Social Sciences,” and “The Body and the State: Habeas Corpus and American Jurisprudence.” Federman received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia, James Madison College at Michigan State University, and Duquesne University. He currently teaches at Montclair State University.
#iq2us #debate #sexoffenderegistry #community #safety #law #politics #SexOffenderRegistry #protectingyoungkidsonline #justice #registries #policy #conviction #incarceratedlivesmatter #incarcerated #yaleuniversity #sociology
@yale @sfcedu @universityofvirginia @jamesmadisonu @MichiganStateU @MichiganStateNewsandUpdates @duquesneuniversityschoolof1961 @montclairstateu
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@jamessteele-et2et]

the registry needs to be banned permantly

[@a_tru_blvr]

The registry should be abolished. Its unconstitutional.

[@JennaP302]

As both a victim of long term sexual assault as a minor and an adult as well as a person who works to help people convicted of felonies renter society, I am *very* anti-registry. Not punishment? Let me tell you what people on the registry can’t do in many, many places (I’d daresay most places): - Drop their kids off or pick them up from school - even if they don’t get out of the car, even if their child gets sick in the middle of the day and needs to go home. They’re not allowed. - Go swimming - Go hiking - Attend church - Go to a church funeral - Attend a wedding - Go to a public beach - Take their kids to a park - Attend a family reunion at a park/church/gym - Go to any gym that has a pool or offers childcare (which is most of them) - Go running - Mountain biking - Rock climbing - Watch a band play at a bar - Borrow a car without having to register it (I assure you not many people want their car registered). - Drive a rental car (can’t be registered in many places) - Stay in a hotel that has a pool or is is an exclusion zone - Go to Florida (they put you in their registry for LIFE plus one year after you DIE) - Go to a baseball game - Play on any athletic team - Attend any dance recital, sporting event, play, holiday party, birthday party, etc.. for their children/nephews/nieces - Rent a vacation house - Travel internationally - Stay in a homeless shelter (they’re typically located in downtown areas and most downtown areas are exclusion zones) - Go to a library - Go to a skate park - Go to or take their children to any place deemed “a place where children congregate” - a zoo, aquarium, mini golf, etc… all off limits. Traveling *anywhere* requires an enormous amount of researching complicated and, in many cases, horribly written and contradictory laws. Some states mark your drivers license with “Sexual Predator” - even if all you did was urinate outside and someone happened to see you. Think of all the places you have to use your license - to get a job, cash a check, buy tobacco, go to a doctors office or hospital, fly, rent anything (house/car/apartment/etc..) and tell me that they aren’t subjected to constant humiliation and that they aren’t rejected for jobs and housing. It’s not “can’t live within 100 feet” from a school as Cary stated… some states go as far as to ban RSO’s from living as much as 2000 feet from a church, school, skating rink, bowling alley, park, conservation area, and even from a school bus stop. Even in the areas they CAN live, they have to find someone willing to rent to them knowing they’ll show up on a sex offender registry. Where does that leave, exactly? Not much of anywhere. Some states have those same restrictions for jobs. So, again, good luck finding work. As Cary stated, “they can find work somewhere” - that’s simply untrue. We have many, many cities in the US where almost the entire city is an exclusion zone. I’ve seen cities that will put a park bench on a corner and call it a park just to make that surrounding area an exclusion zone. I can manage to place almost anyone convicted of any felony in a job - even people who murdered babies, brutally stabbed someone, killed an entire family while driving drunk, etc… but finding a job for a Registered Sex Offender is nearly impossible. I find plenty of places willing to hire them, but they’re in an exclusion zone. Almost all of the ones I can get for them are hard labor in more rural areas. Many RSO’s are elderly and simply can’t do hard labor. They often can’t collect Social Security because they didn’t pay in all the years they spent in prison. They can’t get government assistance (food stamps, section 8 housing, etc…) and the amount of RSO’s who end up homeless is absurdly high. No job means nowhere to live, nowhere to live means homeless. Do you think we’re safer that way? Do you think it’s better for someone to be banished from being part of any community group and have no support system? I have a difficult time even finding AA, NA, and SA meetings they can attend because most of them meet at churches. Someone who has no support system, no home, no job, little chance of ever reintegrating and having any semblance of a normal life doesn’t have much to live for or any kind of incentive not to reoffend. Talking about recidivism rates - they calculate those numbers based on a person being rearrested. Most rearrests of sex offenders is due to not being able to follow the associated restrictions, forgetting to register on time, forgetting to register a new car, not knowing all the rules, etc… the number rearrested for sex crimes is exceptionally low. No list is saving your children from the people you invite in to your life and in to your home. Those are the people most likely to molest or sexually assault them. Educating our youth and working to prevent sexual crimes is what we should be doing instead of spending millions and millions of dollars annually registering, tracking, and monitoring people who, for the most part, are not ever going to commit another crime. I’m not entirely opposed to a registry existing for police use, or even a public registry for tier 3 sex offenders (who are deemed most likely to reoffend) but forever punishing someone who, at 20 years old, had consensual sex with a 16 year old and didn’t think to ask her age? Someone who met a girl in a bar in 1992 who claimed she was 21 when she was actually 16 and using a fake ID? Someone who made a really poor decision while intoxicated or suffering from a substance abuse problem? It’s absolutely absurd. They served time in prison for that (the 16 year olds didn’t) and they don’t wish to go back there. But, the registry ensures they’ll never have a normal or peaceful life again. I can’t count the number of “offenders” I’ve met who were busted in very aggressive online stings who are autistic or mentally impaired and I truly don’t think they understood what they were doing. They’re sent photos of adults who *might* mention that they’re 15 or 16 very casually - almost jokingly, then they show up and spend 10 years in prison and a lifetime being punished. I’ve read the chat transcripts myself, a lot of it is absolutely entrapment and preying on people who are not mentally capable of understanding. Registries are cruel, inhumane, and ineffective. While, yes, there are plenty of people on it who commited truly terrible crimes, there are a shocking amount of people (most young men, really) who could quite innocently end up on one. I’ve actually sat my son down and told him to never have sexual contact with anyone without first checking their drivers license to ensure they’re being honest about their age, explicitly and directly asking if they’re sober and absolutely certain they want to have sex, never ever ever urinating in public - even in the woods, being exceptionally careful online when downloading anything, never sending/asking for/receiving a nude or partially nude photo, and not ever talking to someone online without first asking and confirming their age - because any of those things have the potential to land him in prison and on a registry. How many parents think to do that? How many teenage boys and girls don’t know the ramifications of sending an inappropriate photo? Finally, the fact that Cary couldn’t seem to stop snickering and laughing in the background as Dr. Horowitz was speaking speaks volumes about his character, actual knowledge of what the registry is like, and ability to form a reasonable argument.

[@TheKeymaster1053]

@JennaP302 Wow! Well Said! The argument that it's "not punitive" simply because it's a civil action not a criminal one is utterly false. When you get a speeding ticket, you have to pay a fine, That fine is your "punishment". Well, being on the registry, you also have to pay 75.00 per year for "administrative costs" to be on a list you don't want to be on in the first place! you can call it whatever you want, it's still a punishment.

[@JennaP302]

@@TheKeymaster1053 in some of the states where the people I volunteer to help live, their first year out of prison can cost as much as $7000 (monitoring, therapy, probation/parole fee, registration fee, etc…) that’s in addition to paying deposits for utilities, etc… they’re set up for failure from the get-go. I’ve seen places where the fee to register is $250 and they have to register every 3 months. That’s definitely punitive and definitely punishment. How’re people supposed to do that when they can barely find a terrible paying job?

[@maiqtheliar4347]

you're a nice lady, i like your passion

[@SoulforSale]

Well, you could stop molesting kids. Just saying

[@JennaP302]

@@SoulforSale did you read my post before typing that?

[@karenbarrall2247]

If the registry is so worthy,why don't all crimes use a registry to protect the public

[@nomore3296]

I agree with this and ask the same question. Also how does pimps get off of going to prison and the registration knowing that alot of their prostitutes where under age when the pimp started them out prostituting

[@nomore3296]

Oh plus they get them hooked on drugs

[@DocOmally101]

Maybe some should. Sex crimes in particular cause a unique form of psychological distress to an individual and the community. I think that would be the reason why we have it and not for other crimes.

[@SophisticatedDogCat]

@@DocOmally101Please show the study that proves this.

[@kc0jtl]

“[Revé] was beautiful, and she had a body. Boy, this incredible centerfold body. I never gave much thought to how old Revé was. She was pretty…and there was also that body. And after a while I just got over how young she was. We weren’t madly in love with each other. But we had a good time together, and I relaxed a little after she turned seventeen.” John Walsh discussing dating Revé, she was 16, he was 20. - "Tears of Rage" (John Walsh's autobiography) p.18-20. It is very ironic the one person every one associates with the creation of the Sex Offender Registry would probably been on it himself in several states if the law had been applied to him like it has been to other people. The amount of hypocrisy makes me sick.

[@JohannesMorcos]

Agreed

[@magicoctobear1145]

The guy is a Constitutional law "expert", and yet he supports an unconstitutional law. His arguments are based purely on emotion, not on logic. He makes the case for this over and over again, especially when he talks about how outrage rather than reducing recidivism is the goal of the registry. "Not all laws are about efficiency" -- if a law isn't efficient, why have the law in the first place? Makes no sense. He doesn't think people on the registry are harmed in any way? There's NO WAY he's being honest about that. NO WAY. People on the registry are barred from housing, employment, being present in certain areas; they face harassment of all kinds - and I'm not even going into much detail here. The guy HAS to know about these things. He advocates for "civil commitment" laws against sex offenders, which are continued incarceration in anything but name - AFTER a person has served their sentence? And STILL claims to be a "constitutional expert"? Total BS. He ignores her points about the registry being ineffective at reducing sex crimes, and just keeps going back to the emotional appeal and implies that it's more about making a statement than about being "effective". I can't take the dude seriously.

[@ogre706]

His support for civil commitments alone made it impossible to take him seriously. Now there's a slap in the face to the constitution, incarcerating an individual indefinitely after they have completed their initial sentence. If they can do that to an SO, what's to stop the government from taking additional steps? It's a precedent that everyone should be afraid of.

[@kellyronning-rs5tc]

I'm a survivor of sexual abuse as a child in the 70's,I would be for it if it worked, someone close to me is on it, that was wrongfully accused, he was a teacher and his student accused him of pat on the button and a kiss on the forehead,she lied she said to her counselor,cause he didn't let her move her desk to seat by her friend.but there's no taking it back when you falsely accused someone, he was goin to get 80 yrs and plead no contest, cause the lawyer wanted 30k more to fight it, took the plea of 7yrs, registration for life, got out of prison last year, couldn't live in his family house they released him too, and had to be homeless. Driver license says sex offender on it. Couldn't find work, and when he did the staff at the place of register didn't like that he was a truck driver and got him fired and then two weeks later had him arrested for failure to register, when he was in the office register. Looking at 6mos. In jail and 10yrs of probation. If he fights the courts looking at 5-10yrs in prison. How is this justice when you can't win?

[@camilleney7487]

That kind of thing, happens more than people want to admit

[@Jayden-ce5mb]

I know a guy that was accused of being with a teen girl. He was 30. She openly said it was a sexual relationship and she liked it. He ended up pleading to 2 counts of battery (not a violent offense in ohio) because in ohio 16 is the legal age of consent but since she was kicked out of her home and he let her stay at his place for 2 months they said he was in a position of power. He has to register every 90 days for the rest of his life and has to go to prison for 10 years. To top it off there is no evidence he did it and he maintains his innocence, but his attorney said her word alone was enough to convict. That being said he has to be on the same tier 3 registry as a man that has had sex with 6 year olds or has had multiple convictions. This tier list is already unconstitutional but its also trash. If anybody at all should be on a registry it should be violent offenders and most of them are already doing life. If someone is considered a threat to public they should just stay in prison, if they arent a threat then why continue punishing them for life. An actual murderer can kill 3 ppl, go to prison for 20 years and get released and just live next to anybody without them knowing. I think killing ppl is more of a danger to society than someone caught with pictures or someone that was 18 dating a 14 year old.

[@charliestanley2749]

The male guest that is FOR sex offender registration has a genuine Polyanna view of the justice system in the United States. He obviously has no interfacing with sex offenders or victims based on his comments. The registry does more harm than good, and in fact, has been abolished in some European countries. When will Americans wise up ?

[@jbauer72]

Never. Look who more than half of the country wants to be president.

[@zukezamamee9033]

I feel the argument that this is not continuing punishment is a bit dumb. If the state is creating, managing, maintaining and deciding who is on the list... then also the party that is banning / acting on the list... then that would be continuing punishment. If a private entity was hosting / creating the list... it would be different. But it is not. Also, Kelly did dodge the empathy point without answering it. For example... if a 20 y/o woman was placed on the list because she had sex with a 16 y/o boy but they were dating and even ended up being married down the line... they shouldn't be on the list in the first place. But will face continuing punishment by the state... even if the boy and the boys parents didn't want to press charges. It is a noble sentiment to want to prevent rape and sexual assault but I see no reason to think that list is doing that. Cases of rape and repeat rape does not seem to be effected by it. The only argument that I can find thay might defend it is if it actually stopped / prevented these events but evidence suggests thay it simply does not. The records for criminal events, including crimes that are just as bad are keep private for good reason. Not private from the state or background check but private from general public search and for good reason. There are clearly better ways of dealing with this problem that doesn't create massive problems itself and that has better results at creating the desired outcome.

[@MichaelVonEerie]

Cases of Actual Rape , I mean someone who forced a women to have sex (consensual underage sex is still prosecuted as rape) has little to do with sex and all to do with feeling power over the women. People like this are not stopped by laws or registration. Only by long term mental health treatment. The large majority of either CP downloading or consensual sex offenders will never reoffend and offer suffer from extreme guilt over their actions. Even having registries as private are wrong because guess what? The police already have this information in their database after your conviction. But no one is going to be following a SO around all day to make sure they aren't offending . All public registries do is give a false sense of security to parents and avoid them having to actually PARENT their children and educate them about things. People are lazy. Oh and did you know that even though most states stop posting criminal records on employment background checks after 7 yrs , being on a registry will show up as long as your on it. So that's a almost 100% rejection rate for a job before your even given the chance to prove yourself in a interview. It gives someone no chance at employment or renting a apartment. I feel so sorry for the kids In these families that are being punished because of registries. Can't take your kid trick or treating even though there has NEVER been a sex crime of a minor on Halloween EVER since the registry has been enacted.

[@elpidiojr.9772]

Buddy of mine was 16 and got caught with a 13 year old. They arrested him some months after her turned 17 and bang him up as an adult and he got 8 years probation differed adjudication and a life time register. This means he would have the charges dropped after 8 years of completing probation yet would still be on the registry for life. My boy renounced his American citizenship ( luckily he had a Mexican one too) and got himself deported. He now lives a free life on the other side of the border and because the charge was adjudication, he won't have to suffer having the charge on his record for travel to other countries who don't accept criminals. Only place he can never go back to is his own country who banned him from society. Most people do not have this luxury that he did. It's very sad the way they have to live. He now has a second shot at actual life though. He goes to parks and and church and malls and can live where he pleases. Just think of the drastic measures taken. My point in this story is that if you have the chance to meet and marry someone from another country, vote to leave this one and go there if you can. There are far better places to live that offer actual freedom. Imagine living in Cancun instead of going on Vacation or Cozumel? Who wants to go to Miami Beach when there's so much more out there then these pathetic political lawmakers making BS lawyers to make people "safe" when it's really an internal agenda for more money profit and to act like they are helping the community doing something good when in fact they aren't.

[@StyleAdix]

This guys arguments are all based on feelings and making reasons to justify his job and the oppressive system he helps to uphold.

[@joschawil]

My answer is, Violating the Preamble, The Bill of rights, and the whole of the Constitution against every person on the registry-as if that isn't enough-is not a way to allow the sex offender registry to do more harm than good. Naming the Nazis that enforce, defend, rigoriusly lie for sympathy to rule the day with regards to enforcing the illegal sexual offender registry is how to discover that the States violating the RICO act in uniting to violate the rights of citizens who have paid their price to society with the ruinous, Unconstitutional, illegal by its nature and by its violation of the Constitution is how to disciver that the sex offender registry does more harm than good.

[@joschawil]

When Justice Marshall stated in Marbury v Madison 5US)(Cranch) 137, 161, 167 that "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.", he did so because the President and Congress passed an Unconstitutional law that violates the Constitution. His concern became the benchmark of law today. If any law viates the Constitution, it is a vile and illegal law. His triumph was giving the Constitution trumps over all laws. So why is the illegal null and void, repugnant to the Constitution sex offender registry allowed to exist? Because states act in union inder the protection of darkness spreading fear and histeria to divert the judges of our country from declarong this unconstitutional law null and void. It is a sickening miscarriage of Justice based upon lies, hysteria and the feelings police whose felings are hirt while judges allow those hurt feelings to dictate law. What a farce.

[@jzachery]

Not that I'm finding humor in any of this but Cary is coming off like a villain of the X-men.

[@isaiahvictor6773]

This dude was very annoying and had several non sequiturs. His argument did more to turn me against the registry than anything Emily said if I'm being honest.

[@bobroberts9351]

Cary, Since you're a constitutional scholar, you are familiar with the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and usual punishment and ex post facto punishment. Calling the severe restrictions and public registry requirements of sex offenders "administrative non punitive" is wrong and is intentioned to skirt the constitution. In fact, many state supreme courts and some federal courts have held in favor of sex offenders in this regard. The cases that you referenced in your arguments were rape murders. Those offenders go to jail and stay there and are not relevant to an argument on public sex offender registries. A very large number of people on public sex offender registries are there for low level offenses such as urinating in public and dating a seventeen year old when nineteen. Many of those low level offenders have been murdered simply for their names appearing on the public registry. If registrants manage to not be murdered, they are subjected to ridicule, social isolation, harassment, threats, and physical attacks. The extreme restrictions imposed on sex offenders are violations of basic human rights which are God given. The most dangerous offenders against our children are drug dealers who are killing and hurting tens of thousands of our children every year. State and federal legislators are fully aware of the impact of drug dealers on our children, yet continually focus on sex offenders. The primary focus of the FBI, HSI, and USMS is on sex offenders. This extraordinary focus on sex offenders who have among the lowest levels of recidivism cannot be explained rationally, except for a possible religious bias.

[@MichaelVonEerie]

It's because the War on Drugs was such a utter failure plus the legalization of weed has politicians looking for a new scapegoat and a public scare factor so when they need to look tough and get some votes they use sex offender laws and the uninformed public eats it right up z not knowing they pay millions of dollars to keep tracking people that will most likely never reoffend just to keep these politicians in office.

[@jensboettiger5286]

You can pee on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere and get branded forever. It’s obviously insane

[@enderthexenocide760]

absolute nonsense. People have been put on the registry for doing that in front of children but never for doing it in the middle of nowhere with no one seeing but the cop who happens to drive by. You get cited for public urination, not indecent exposure or anything else that would constitute a sexual offense.

[@nickdelaney6953]

​@@enderthexenocide760peeing is not a sexual offense child pee outside all the time are they all sex offenders

[@MichaelVonEerie]

Sid you actually research criminal cases before posting the? Because your incorrect. Cops are assholes and if a prosecutor wants a notch in his belt he will charge them with a sex crime for this. And even if a child is near how the hell is this a sex crime? Kids piss out in public all the time. What's the diff if it's an adult. Maybe not the smartest thing to do but it' shouldn't be a crime. I had to run to piss around the side of a building last week because I went to 4 stores and no one would let me use their bathroom and I was dying.

[@ogre706]

Not nonsense at all actually. It may depend on the state, as some states have their own definitions, but in general there is usually no distinction made whether children were present or not. Simply urinating anywhere that isn't a restroom is enough to get you on the registry, if caught.

[@enderthexenocide760]

@@ogre706no it isn't, you get a public urination charge ffs.

[@seattlejayde]

Just completed this debate. It was very eye-opening and lot of great information. Emily clearly though swayed me and I feel won the debate. The opposing gentleman, did himself no favors by snickering in the background. That was petulant and unprofessional I felt. All in all though, the lady won the day with concise and calm facts and information. Good discussion

[@static9061]

The main problem is there is only black & white and no grey area in these types of cases/convictions. Some one who got caught peeing, gets the same punishment as someone who kidnapped and imprisoned someone for their own gross sexual motives. Someone who was lied to by a young girl & they have sex one time gets the same punishment as a serial rapist. Someone with no prior convictions that had sex with someone 4 years younger than them gets punished the same as the creepy uncle that grooms and habitually abuses their young neice for over a decade. Its a one size fits all type of thing and makes no sense to punish different tiers in the same exact way, same restrictions. They may as well just keep every "sex offender" in prison for the rest of their lives if its that serious considering there are actually "Tiers" when it comes to the registry.

[@camilleney7487]

Try having a loved one on it who was falsely accused and wrongly convicted. All it is, is a directory of where vigilantes can find their victims. Most kids are molested by people NOT on any registry.

[@jamesmullinix2271]

Just shows Emily wins again. His points were no where near the facts. If they think this is civil and not punitive let them try and spend a while on the registry themselves and feel what social death and banishment feels like. It seems to make people feel superior if they can look down on others. Shows what kind of character they have. People shouldn't be defined by their worst mistake. If God could forgive someone maybe he can even forgive law makers for their worst sin.....

[@DanielMussen-ob7uo]

Sex Offender Register should be dismantled Past Present Future

[@user-bf6bs1rv4h]

It does alot more harm when someone is falsely accused of it then their lawyer forces him to take the plea instead of fight the charge.

[@havenbastion]

The sex registry does more harm than good is absolutely the opposite of the orthodox position. That guy's a flipping loony.

[@zwerko]

I've never heard so many 'arguments' backed by nothing but emotions in an hour than from the opposing side in this debate. I still think that there is usefulness to the registry, with some limitations and possible removal from it after a set period of no offense, but in this debate Emily wiped the floor with Cary.

[@brandonman1315]

There is no usefulness to the registry.

[@joschawil]

The feelings police-crazy lady, dictate law. The Constitution is garbage when when crazy lady gives her spiel. So crazy lady Is anybody. The reality of life is that the SOR is punishment meant to violate every right guaranteed by the Constitution including the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with the bill of rights and the Constitution, giving way to the feelings police who are the crazy lady. Do you see how this works? Crazy lady (John Walsh), Dictates law (Bill Clinton's signature) leading to every bit of the Constitution (a wrag to wipe your bottom with) being violated to everyone on the list (Skeletor).

[@badubadu6586]

Jesus, that was a ludicrous debate. As much as I expected this to be a pretty even debate, as there are very reasonable arguments for either position, but Federman argued so badly; and mostly trying to focus on smearing his opponents and the "power of social scientists" (??) did his position no favours. Also, he never actually addressed the question of whether the registers go against 2nd chances. He kept saying "yeah, I believe in 2nd chances." And pressed on it, he goes "their crimes are so horrible!" - so either they deserve 2nd chances or they don't. If you believe their crimes are so heinous they don't deserve 2nd chances, then that's your position and state it (like some people here in the comments). But don't give us this song and dance how you're empathetic, but then don't actually wanna apply it. Ridiculous. You don't believe in 2nd chances for sex offenders and don't have empathy for them. That's fine, that's your opinion. Just be open about it. @intelligencesquaredusdebates: I'm not knocking Federman's credentials, I'm sure he's an expert in what he does, but for god's sake, get a better debater next time, who knows how to argue.

[@dutchymcdutch2553]

The only thing Federman comes up with are n=1 stories with how bad something was. Yeah, we know that rape is terrible, that's not the point. The point is also not if some people like these registries. The question is: Do they help? And the research shows that they don't.

[@enderthexenocide760]

there are so many confounding factors and unknowns that the research showing they don't work is all but worthless because there is no real to conduct a proper analysis of having versus not having it in the same society/time period. The public has a right to know if a child molester has moved in next door to them, plain and simple.

[@nickdelaney6953]

​@@enderthexenocide760 it's proven to not work

[@enderthexenocide760]

@@nickdelaney6953 you clearly don't understand what it means to prove something

[@luci-fer250]

this guy is delusional

[@jonmarck]

Clear win by Emily.

[@DocOmally101]

How so?

[@Saymako_]

​@@DocOmally101how Not?

[@jasonw-123]

Cary tried to claim that he held the minority opinion, but he doesn't. Dr. Emily Horowitz brings a high level of professionalism, backed by research, personal experience and compassion. Cary's argument seems to be that since there have been some high-profile horrific cases, anything that is done in response is justified. While he says he doesn't necessarily want to be punitive, since the registry is a civil scheme, what comes across is a huge desire to extract as much punishment as possible. He is looking to satisfy a lust for the state to inflict harm on his behalf. Cary minimizes everything that Dr. Horowitz explains -- especially the difficulty people on the registry have in getting work. Anyone who has worked on reentry for people convicted of sex offenses knows that it is nearly impossible to find work - and that when they do find work, it's often work below their abilities and not necessarily stable. Dr. Horowitz makes a compelling argument that once convicted, the likelihood someone will commit another offense is low -- and the longer someone is offense-free, the less likely they are to commit another offense. People DO change and dedicate themselves to leading honorable lives and making amends. There needs to be a path for redemption available to all.

[@havenbastion]

The more retribution, the harder for them to integrate, the more likely they are to reoffend.

[@jasonw-123]

@@havenbastion exactly. If it were truly about public safety, the solutions would look very different. Shaming, humiliating and making people feel hopeless is pretty terrible public policy. State inflicted harm as an answer to harm shouldn’t be the answer.

[@amonshaw]

He sounded very condescending with his laughing; his argument that "registries aren't punitive" are a joke! Every PFR and loved one of one knows that the simplest noncompliance doesn't result in a simple fine but rather a new felony (maybe misdemeanor in some more "reasonable" places).

[@mrtwister9002]

They claim that the registry is civil in nature and therefore not subject to human rights violation (cruel and unusual punishment.) That the registry is akin to getting your drivers license. Well, as long as a person doesnt drive and doesn't renew their license they are not subjected to mandatory (90 days jail) for failure to renew drivers license. Or rather in the registrants predicament, failure to register, which btw is a felony! It is disengenous at a minimum to suggest that the registry is not punitive or criminal in nature. I would argue it is akin to lifelong or at the very least lengthy unsupervised probation. Where, even 5th amendment rights are violated. Such as, reporting dates of employment. A person _may not_ remain silent and must be compelled to give dates of ending/beginning employment dates (housing too), even if the individual is past the time limit for reporting employment dates (individuals must report changes within statute time limits.) Thus, compelled to incriminate themselves. No other crime, requires a person to incriminate themselves. Even if you are 100% guilty of murder for example, which carries extreme punishment (life in prison/death penalty,) that individual is still not compelled to incriminate themselves by being forced to give details of said crime. Even 4th amendment violations as well. Said registrant is forced to go to the local police station where they are asked for ID. This is presumed to be because it will make identifying the registrant easier for the officer logging/recording the employment/ housing changes easier. Even in Stop and ID states, it is still a statute and requirement that in order to demand ID, the suspect must be suspected of commiting, will commit or has comitted a crime.

[@theodorbruinix2209]

Since the "public" regestry prevents a offender from building a Useful life & runs any relationships,... Naturally a offender avoides saving lives or helping others, Fact

[@donew1thita11]

It needs to be changed . Most on the list have no reason to be there

[@boyheemskerk4711]

I think the debater on the side of the of “register not working” made way better arguments. People deserve a second chance and a clean slate after they finished their sentence

[@IncubusFolly]

Cary had a hard time arguing that the registry actually served any purpose, which he should have been focusing on. The majority of his argument seemed to be trying to refute Emily on her points, which is not the kind of language he should have engaged in, given his position on this particular topic.

[@violetaddams1035]

No. You get raped or molested it's a life sentence. You face that for life. The registry needs to stand. If you're against that, you have a family member who is a rapist or you are a rapist and you should be ashamed of yourself. Period. Edit - kids should not be on the registry. People with disabilities who statutory rape should not. Otherwise yes.

[@PieInTheSky9]

@@violetaddams1035 the overwhelming majority of people are on the registry for looking at pictures, and never touched anyone physically

[@jimmyearly6316]

Do their victims get a clean slate? Do they get to no longer be violated?

[@JennaP302]

@@jimmyearly6316 as a former victim, I’m still opposed to the registry. It doesn’t make me feel safer, if anything I feel shame because anyone can see an offender, pull their record, and discover what the victim went through, and it’s not difficult to find out who the victim was. It’s happened to me more than once, that someone discovered it that way. That’s not something I want out there for the public to see. I’ve healed myself, I don’t need to relive it because someone pulled up the public court records after seeing someone on a registry.

[@PieInTheSky9]

There is nothing participially special about sex offenses. Except, of course, in how society (or the US specifically) treats them. They are *usually* far less serious than they are made out to be. The people who commit them are far, *far* less dangerous than they are made out to be. Yet they are treated as subhuman for the rest of their lives. And even if you wanted to buy into all the crap, it's indisputable that all this does nothing for public safety, and likely lessens safety and increases crime. Multiple studies have looked at the registries over the years and concluded they either have no effect or a negative effect on crime rates. When people are demonized and have no hope, struggling to find a way to survive, we should expect nothing less. The effect is not unique to those with sex offense convictions, but it is the most pronounced.

[@user-je9sb7sy8k]

My argument is stop putting young twenty something year Olds who date a 16 or 17 year old on the registration depending on the state. We need to recognize that 20 to 25 is still pretty young and trying to figure out life. Demonizing them does no good. Often these are consensual relationships and they just didn't know better. Also if someone lies about their age is should definitely be considered in legal cases. A lie is a lie. Often states like Texas say a 16 year old can't consent but it's OK if they are married? It's either wrong or it's not that's silly to me

[@enderthexenocide760]

I agree a 20 or even 26 year old who had a consensual relationship with a 17 year old should not be registered or even really punished, but a 20 year old who molests a 5 year old absolutely should be registered. Some states have adopted these (ludicrously named) romeo and juliet laws to address this in the former cases.

[@carltonpiercey9220]

The only thing the registry is any good at is fear mongering. Justice is giving consequences for the offender but it's also helping the offender and allowing them to be contributing members of society.

[@Earthman99999]

There needs to be more common sense as to who gets to be on the registry. I don't think some guy who got caught urinating in a public alleyway while drunk many years ago should be put on the registry. Nor do I think some other guy who got caught skinny dipping in a pond 40 years ago as a teen should be put on the registry. Yet these things happen . And many people who have cases like these have their lives ruined forever. There don't seem to be any common sense in America today.

[@r.w.carter9366]

Dude who claims to be a constitutional law expert is totally clueless 😂

[@satexman2585]

Gentlemen says they are a product of democracy. A constitution exist as well that is clearly being violated with much of these laws simply because it’s reworded, and made administrative, which is quite frankly laughable. The problems with these laws and registry are countless and nonproductive and by and large minimally useful or effective. Both of these people are actually filled with lots of myth rather than fact, even though they argue opposite sides, neither are well educated, or informed on the topic. One of the main problems with the registries is threat to our democracy itself because it makes a mockery of the constitution as did the patriot act. It’s just one more example. The survival of the constitution and therefore our nation is far more important than the protection of any one individual or group, we are not east Germany during the Cold War. We are not China who executes people for even minimal offenses, and does so at Will with no repercussions. The question is is what kind of country do you want and you have to be careful what kind of nation you’re handing down to your children and their children, because it may very well be something it’s not worth living in when you are in fact, trying to in your mind, protect them, when in fact, you’re killing them and generations. There are in fact things more important in the larger picture than what they think they’re trying to do the answer to this is awareness in individuals, and in parents who are ultimately the people who are responsible for the safety of their children is terrible as that. And, as was mentioned, the impact varies from person to person in at some point in time, is it a person responsible for their own well-being? Many people have been victimized in someway or another and they combine with this thing you’ll notice two things, a sex offense, and then murder. They attach it because of murder well, are we talking about murder or are we talking about a sex offense because those are two entirely different things one you can recover from the other you cannot.. what is fascinating to me it’s whenever I hear the arguments on this it’s almost always women who argue on the side against the registry and men who are you on the side for it. I would be interested in studying that to be quite honest with you. That is a strange phenomena. And never forget that it is technology that made this even possible and the reason we’re having this argument. So the question becomes more or as much about technology and the use of technology when it comes to our constitution and personal rights and freedom and things like ex post facto, laws, and search and seizure things are, the foundation of our nation are being slowly stripped away due to the technological ability that was not there in the past and is only going to get worse I assure you and at some point in time what it always ends up being is it comes around to everyone and then there you are, and no one knows what to do and everyone’s lost everything. I would argue against it because it’s simply dangerous. The concept of it is incredibly dangerous. And it will only expand and grow to other things. In fact, it already has but people are unaware of those things. All I can say is good luck, and as I told my children who are not on any registry is to get the hell out of this country as it has gone insane, and has been for quite some time. And as far as argument that society has a right to protect itself, they do a person does, but they don’t have the right to do anything to protect themselves, and in the end is not protecting anyone in the concept of it endangers, everyone.

[@jamesjackson8521]

If you have not raped or murdered or had sex but steel put into the cast system. Non-violent To a life of a cast system. Something's wrong with that law.

[@charliestanley2749]

The assumptions have been proven to be invalid, and cause more harm to communities as well as the individual. When will this witch hunt end ?

[@scottemmons6409]

I dont see any of the justifications for the sex offender registry seeming to include people with cases on adults. You cant justify a guy with a rape case on a adult being on the registry by bringing up children or cimes against children. The two crimes have zero to do with each other.

[@nomore3296]

It's easy for this guy to say all of these things. He should put himself on the registry and see how it is for people on it then maybe he will see how hard it is for those on it

[@havenbastion]

Neither being democratic or being the product of deliberation imply much less ensure them being just.

[@jamesjackson8521]

A life sentence for one crime. After penitentiary But not other felonies.

[@enderthexenocide760]

sexual offenses are very different from other types of felonies though so that kind of argument doesn't fit even though people like to use it.

[@havenbastion]

Reasonable, just, evidence based... who could argue that?

[@Nightmarefuel66]

None of those three words describe the atrocious conditions of this publicly accessable HIT LIST! It's WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! And nobody will ever change my mind on that.

[@ShawnWesley-zb3yi]

The law is one size fits all. A Tier 1 no matter what they tell you is treated just like a Tier 3. You lose everything and then they tell you that you can't live anywhere or work anywhere. You become the town's monster on JUST the accusation. I lost my job just because of the accusation far before I ever saw a courtroom. Furthermore, there is no chance of beating the charge at all. You are forced even if innocent to accept a plea deal. I look forward to relocating out of the US where people and government are more logical. Do I believe crimes against juveniles or children are wrong absolutely but bring the evidence forward and law enforcement needs to do their job and stop the assumption of guilt without proper due process and solid evidence. You are guilty and have no chance of proving your innocence. The registry is punitive and it's unconstitutional

[@Saymako_]

Faxx

[@enderthexenocide760]

no one can force you to take a plea deal and in my state tier 1 offenders are not even publicly listed so no they are not all treated the same either.

[@Saymako_]

@@enderthexenocide760 Thats just youre State tho and if a registry should exist it should only be for tier 3s and Private

[@shawnwesley7481]

​@@enderthexenocide760it does not matter tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 go out try to find a job go out try to find a place to live don't sit there and tell me that they don't force you to take a plea deal because they threaten you with 20 plus years in prison unless you take it then they lower the charge down to a ridiculous 3rd degree and give you 3 years just because you're not online doesn't mean the information isn't there

[@enderthexenocide760]

@@shawnwesley7481 again, no one can force you to take a plea deal. If you are guilty and you know that will come out in court then obviously it is in your best interest to take one, and of course they "threaten" you with a long sentence because rightfully so sex-offenses have harsh sentences. If you in fact did not commit the crime and you know that then never take a plea deal no matter how they make it sound because then you are essentially pleading guilty and ruining your life over something that didn't happen and clearing your name even decades later is virtually impossible all due to you taking a plea on something you didn't do. If you are innocent then always fight the charge in court.

[@garrettfrey2764]

It does not 🚫 work any way shape or form.

[@joschawil]

Let's answer that question.ok. Dozens on those on the registry murdered at their door. Dozens of those on the registry assaulted at work or at home. Thousands of families too scared to come out of their houses. Thousands of people running inside of their homes at the sight of someone on the registry. Nope, it works wonders in people's lives.

[@kenmaples6856]

My mother was sexually assaulted by her stepfather and his brothers in the late 1930s and early forties. At 13 she was rushed to the emergency room with a torn uterus. The doctor repair the damage and no investigation was done. No one was held accountable or charges filed. I believe it's because of the apathy in the past that sex offender laws are so strict now. They have done a complete 180-degree turn. Politicians and lawmakers walk a fine line between upholding the Constitution and not appearing to be lenient towards sex offenders. The meaning of the Constitution can be twisted to fit their agenda. It's not about Public Safety but rather politics. If it was about Public Safety Not only would we have common sense sex offender laws but also Common Sense gun laws. As schools now are forced to practice mass shooting drills it has gone Way Beyond stranger danger... Nay nay strangers stay away 🐴 .Addressing one issue and not the other resembles hypocrisy. Try stepping on the rights of those regarding the Second Amendment and see what happens? They Hypocrites will lose their minds.🤬

[@IndianCurrycel]

Also in the past women were treated like property who had no rights and now women are people like men that have rights. Now women are trying to take revenge against men for what their ancestors did. I’m a man born in 1993 and I’m not responsible for what my ancestors did to women. I’m not a sex offender but I’m against the registry because it causes involuntary unemployment, involuntary homelessness and public endangerment.

[@waltonpate2524]

Sounds more like the police wasn't doing a very good job, if that guy went 24 years without getting caught. And for the high profile cases with the young kids, i question is where was the parent????

[@scottemmons6409]

By the current standards of the sex offender list adam walsh shpuld himself be on the list.

[@gimmechevys503]

This wasn't edited was it? I'm wondering because the part of the closing statement that starts at 48:43 is one of the most embarrassing shoehorns of an unrelated grievance I've heard on IQ2; one that just felt like all of a sudden the speaker hopping on their favorite hobby horse. The logical moves made are suspect enough, but even more than that it sits very awkwardly with the rest of the debate for all of a sudden this speaker to claim the other side is relativistic and anti-rational, given that the "more harm" side had the motif of "registries lacks a foundation on empirical research" and the "more good" side defended the ability of communities to legislate for themselves using their own criteria. Normally I come into a IQ2 debate with a particular position, and most of the time even if I don't change my position I'll understand better the other position. Here, I came in believing registries do a lot more harm than good, but was interested to hear the opposing arguments, but I just feel like this particular speaker came in wanting to talk about some broader culture war and not staying with this pretty narrow topic.

[@seattlejayde]

This is a Very Good moderator

[@user-yf7gw4je2d]

I’m m confused so killing a 13 year old is fine and no life long punishment but SA and you are put on a list? I’m confused because both are horrible crimes but one you go on a list one you don’t?

[@jamesbeemer7855]

I hate to admit anything to anything I may not have done , but I did . But I assure you it was not my intention . For this obvious fact , my victim still lives and is enjoying life to limited extent . Her health isn’t so good , twenty years after the fact . Genetics . Now to your question ; DOES THE REGISTRY DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD ? Things are changing but it is unclear how . The qualifications to get on the registry are being expanded . But all of the charges being entertained are sexual in nature . Ex ; car jacking with a child in a car seat in the back of the car . Unintentional kidnapping . They wanted the car , not the kid ! But that’s not the way the laws see it .

[@luci-fer250]

do you also have cops come to your home monthly to make sure you still live where you claim to live

[@OG-Capo---]

First time depending on the crime is how much time you do but if it happened again then definitely on the registry. 3rd time gps for life! Thats how i feel. Everybody deserves 2nd chance.

[@genesimring3135]

Doesn't it depend on the crime? Peeing on the side of the road, an 18 year old dating a 16 year old, or an actual forced rape?

[@jimcook9330]

Can't get decent employment! Housing! AND is in danger because people seem to think they have to punish you more within themselves.

[@mikeanthony8934]

I think it's so popular, especially with lawmakers because most of the one's making the harsh laws know that they, themselves belong on there. They only separate themselves with the fact that a rso has been caught and pled guilty and they haven't. Case closed. Thanks.

[@user-jq9ug4zz2b]

Yes it does it is unconstitutional

[@schang8964]

Cancel culture went too far

[@martinkaye6397]

that guy on there said he didnt want to see a girl of 13yrs being abused by a 35 yr old guy so the sex list was on (for life) i would like to know if he wouldnt mind seeing that girl of 13 dead (because theres no list for murderers and a murderer wouldnt get much more time inside?. its like giving 2 punishments to a crimminal for only one crime (releasing a bank robber from jail when he has served his time but telling him as he goes out -you cant use a bank again --- ever. (a sex offender gets - you cant have a sex relationship -- ever) anyway he said the laws where democratic so i would like a democratic answer to that question. or he can put the length of charges on in relation to the length of time your inside - because being on the SO list is like being permanetly in probation and as probation is a form of the punishment should 1 form off punishment not be made to balance with the --- by the way when i'm reincarnated i'll come back and rob a bank -- the punishment isnt as bad. and courts and jurys can make mistakes and get the wrong people - do they just make an apology if they do? the people who invented these punishments seem to think that the vast number off people who did them at first will do them again, but now so many types of sex crimes have been put on the list its become no more than a waste of money (it was a good idea when it came out, the police could find there sex offending guy faster if there was a rape or child abuse but now crimes from people who will never touch kids or have violent unconsenting sex with adults. have been put on this list, or kids who had sex with there partners (other kids) who are now adults. so as far as the list being there for finding people who may have raped people quicker it no longer does its job and so is just a waste of time. not many people who have looked at indecent pictures (and no more) are going to rape people.

[@007700jr]

Notice how many times both parties keep saying murder wile explaining the purpose of a sex offender website....yet there is no murderer registry. In my experience, democrats like to skew statistics to promote an objective. Simply combining sex offences with sex offences that end in murder. Murder is one crime and a sex offence is another. Both are wrong. But they are two different crimes. Yet, a list of sex offenders can be found with just a couple clicks. Not for murderers though. The sex offender registry was created to shame, embarrass, harass and degrade an individual having to be listed on said registry website. Just like stoning a witch back in the day. It's the modern day stoning. There are no provable benefits for keeping such registry other than the police having a record of people to contact if a child goes missing and can be presumed a sex crime is being committed. In turn, there are lots of provable damages caused to an individual who has that requirement bestowed onto them and there families. The registry is dangerous, unconstitutional and illegal. I know of people getting killed because of the registry website. Not to mention, the low bar needed to be put on said list. Taking a piss off your own porch and your wife pulls up with a friend in the car who sees them. Boom, sex offender! The democrats set the bar so low for what crimes constitute as a sex offence that it made the registry even less affective and more worthless. Like watching a bunch of dodos chase a melon off a cliff. Dumb!

[@user-jq9ug4zz2b]

They have your DNA and fingerprints

[@tamekkaknuth9612]

The best thing thats different from real and fake. Ankle monitor

[@joecoolmccall]

Do they ever discuss in this debate the topic of perhaps reforming the list? A mediating position where a list still exists but it it reserved for particular types of offenders would probably be more productive and affective. I'm afraid I didn't hang around for the entire discuss

[@TheKeymaster1053]

@joecoolmccall No they did not. some have suggested (outside of this debate) that it should go back to the way it was originally, Private, just name, address, and only available to law enforcement. That's all they really need anyways, with your name and address, their computers will tell them everything else they need to know to find and talk to you. But it has run so amok, that I feel a total elimination of it is most likely the best way to start. They would have more success I think, if they implemented a three strikes type system. If someone does the same type of crime three times, knowing the last time will likely get them decades in prison, I would think that would be more of a deterrent than public shaming.

[@Skipbo000]

a difficult topic because where do you draw the line? The worst of the worst are already in prison for life.

[@7heRedBaron]

@@TheKeymaster1053But that would not have the deterrence effect that he says they are after. The deterrence only comes from it being burdensome for those on it and those on it being many. Let’s face it, the whole thing is steeped in double talk. They want deterrence, which we all know is punishment. But they want to call it civil because they don’t want it to be seen as a criminal punishment that would face all of the rational limitations placed on criminal matters. But if the whole thing is just “civil regulations” why is every registry violation a felony? One could easily start out with a misdemeanor sex offense and end up with a felony record from the registry. There is no rationality to it.

[@TheKeymaster1053]

@@7heRedBaron Agreed, and if it's just "civil", then why do they force everyone that is ON that list, (that doesn't want to be) pay an "administrative fee" of 75.00 per year (in MA, not sure other places)?? when you get a speeding ticket, your "punishment" is in the form of a fine (usually), so if taking money from you IS a punishment in that case, why is it not on the registry "fee"??? I would think a good lawyer could base a good defense on that premise alone. That the fact that you are forced to pay money out of your pocket, it is in fact a punishment, and if it is in fact a punishment, then it flies in the face of Double Jeopardy laws!!! Just because they call it civil doesn't change what it is!!!

[@7heRedBaron]

@@TheKeymaster1053 The whole thing is steeped in fascism. A key fascist birthmark is they create minority groups they can stimulate over the top animosity towards. Well it’s out of fashion in the US to hate just about anyone over ethnicity, gender, gender preference etc. Even destroying millions of lives over the imaginary smell of pot smoke is even out of style. Pedophiles are still a fashionable hate group though. The awkward fact is that there aren’t enough actual demonstrated pedophiles in the US to fill Granny’s address book. So they just blur the lines so that every sex offense makes one a potential pedophile. And that just swung open the gates of the ghetto. Then they could easily sweep anyone they want into this category. Once the list topped 1 million, they could target whoever they wanted. It’s not because you’re in one religion or another. It’s because “you’re on the list”. We already see how many states popped up sex offender “hospitals” with slippery laws for civil confinement, but no specific definition for candidates. And we saw how money and influence could keep police and politicians off the list. Meanwhile the money continues to flow. For a million or more citizens the government can abstain any accountability for unemployment and homelessness. It’s their fault for being “on the list”. And the assurance that anything for the children is worth the price as long as someone else pays is getting transparent thin as well. Many of these Karen parents who monitor the list like Seahawks don’t even care what their kids are doing when they aren’t taking them to Cancun to swim with the sharks. Many of us already know what a scam it is. But the whole thing will be obvious when abortions are quietly added as a registry offense. At that point everyone will realize it was never what it was sold as. It is, was, and always will be just an end run around the flanks of the Bill of Rights.

[@Joshallenbigballs]

So if you leave a comment that doesn’t support ped Os than it will get deleted

[@Joshallenbigballs]

Host was 100% bias I would never listen to this channel just for that

[@DocOmally101]

Is anyone else weirded out at the back and forth between the host and the woman? Instead of asking questions that help facilitate a good debate it sounds like they are reading from a script back and forth for some weird propaganda reason. It doesnt have to be that exactly, but that is what it sounds like.

[@jackglockstar]

We need to know where these sickos are. They are incurable. If you think they are curable, will you use your kids to test them? Didn't think so

[@davek905]

Recidivism was addressed dozens of times

[@schang8964]

Cancel someone for lifetime is what you want.

[@jackglockstar]

@davek905 yup. And the stats i heard in the beginning were trash. The majority of sex offenders reoffend. And making people guinea pigs to find out is ridiculous.

[@jackglockstar]

@schang352 yup. Child predators get no second chances. Them relapsing means another child gets hurt. Thats not worth the risk.

[@IncubusFolly]

But we don't know who "these sickos" are the vast majority of the time. Even when we do, the registry doesn't help stop these people from "relapsing" the majority of the time.

[@DocOmally101]

Cool her opening remarks are strawmen. The registry is not about rehabilitation. She said it exactly later on, it IS a scarlet letter/ a brand, THAT IS THE POINT. They have preyed on society, and it is a permanent warning to everyone else.

[@JL-ue9jy]

Thieves and murderers have also preyed on society. Do they too have to register and live a life on the fringes of society, or do they get a chance to reintegrate themselves into society after they paid their debt? Yeah, they get the opportunity to live a normal existence after they spend time in prison, parole, or probation. Yet there exists a separate category considered so vile that they have lifetime punishment, even after their time of incarceration. That is not a way to make society safer, or to treat those who made a mistake and desire to make amends and live productive lives. That is vindictive and malicious. The sole objective of these laws is to humiliate and dehumanize.

[@DocOmally101]

@J L Murder and Theft are different crimes with far wider motivations. Sex offense victims are predominantly the vulnerable, Women and Children. They are predators who prey on societies most vulnerable. They are given a second chance in that they are not held in prison forever, but they should be forced to live with their crimes for the rest of their lives JUST LIKE THEIR VICTIMS. You say mistakes, like its equivalent to a kid stealing with low impulse control. It's not the same at all. It should be a brand, as justice for those victimized and as a warning to potential victims.

[@JL-ue9jy]

@@DocOmally101 The Agony & the Ecstasy of #MeToo: The Hidden Costs of Reliance on Carceral Politics (Guy Hamilton Smith, Southwestern Law Review, 2020) Registration of Children and Adolescents (ATSA, 2020) Fixing a Non-Existent Problem with an Ineffective Solution: (Joshua E. Montgomery, Akron Law Review, 2018) How to prevent child sexual abuse: Know the myths and realities (Elizabeth Jeglic; Cynthia Calkins, 2018) Registering with Dignity (Sex Law and Policy, 2017 Registration, Tracking of Sex Offenders Drives Mass Incarceration Numbers and Costs. (Rick Anderson, PLN, 2016) When facts aren't facts: A look at the effectiveness of sexual offender registries. (Joshua Vaughn, 2016) I'm a public defender. My clients would rather go to jail than register as sex offenders. (Rachel Marshall, Vox, 2016 The List (Sarah Stillman, 2016) Why the sex offender registry isn’t the right way to punish rapists (Dara Lind, Vox, 2016) Hidden challenges Sex offenders legislated into homelessness (Jill Levenson, 2016) No Place to Call Home Rethinking Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders (Gina Puls, Boston College, 2016) "Why the Innocent Plead Guilty": An Exchange (Nancy Gertner, et al, 2016) "Stranger Danger" to Children Vastly Overrated (Glenn Fleishman, 2015) Sex Offender Registration and Notification in the United States: Current Case Law and Issues (DOJ, 2014) Why Kids Sext (Hanna Rosin, 2014) Risky Policies: How Effective Are Restrictions on Sex Offenders in Reducing Reoffending? (Eric Tennen, 2014) Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (Margo Kaplan, 2014) Capitol Punishment: The Troubling Consequences of Federal Child Pornography Laws (Andrew Extein, 2014) Reynolds vs US (RSOL, 2014) My Son, the Sex Offender: One Mother's Mission to Fight the Law (Tony Dokoupil, 2014) Circles of Support and Accountability: How and Why They Work for Sex Offenders (2013) Gangsters to Greyhounds: The Past, Present, and Future of Offender Registration (Elizabeth Platt, 2013) Special Sex Offender Issue, IJBCT (2013) Raised on the Registry (2013) (includes link to full HRW study) Patty Wetterling Questions Sex Offender Laws (2013) Is Civil Commitment Legislation Based on False Premises? (2013) Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Impede Safety Goals (Jill Levenson, 2012) Sex Offenders: The New Second Class Citizens (Derek Logue, 2012) If It Saves One Child (Sandy Rozek, 2012) The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws (Catherine Carpenter, 2011) How Safe Are Trick or Treaters? (Jill Levenson, 2010) Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Juveniles Who Commit Sex OffensesAgainst Minors (2009) Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy (Kristen Zgoba, 2008) SO Myths: From “Towards More Effective Sex Offense Legislation.” (NCIA 2007) No Easy Answers (Human Rights Watch, 2007) Richard B. Krueger, The New Witch Hunt (In public domain.) (2007) Pariah: Sexual Fascism in Progressive America (Used with permission.) (2006) Hollida Wakefield, The Vilification of Sex Offenders (Used with permission.) (2006) Numerous Studies done on the ineffectiveness of the registry to address the true issues at hand. If you were to read just one, only one, read the one titled "Patty Wetterling Questions Sex Offender Laws (2013)" This shows that the mother of a child abducted and murdered, who originally called for the implementing of these very laws, states that the laws now cast a net that is too wide to effect change in any meaningful way. When Kari states that his position is lacking studies showing that the defense of the registry does less harm than good, it is because the reality is that the registry DOES cause more harm than good. The data shows that to be true. The reason no one argues that the registry "does more good than harm" is because there is no evidence that the registry actually prevents crime or reduces the potential for someone to commit the crime. I'm not trying to minimize the heinous nature of these crimes, however, the motivation for passing these laws is "Feel Good Legislation" so politicians can take a victory lap claiming that they "...are tough on crime..." In reality, they did nothing more than waste the taxpayers' dollars on frivolous laws that continue to be just as ineffective as the previous laws.

[@DocOmally101]

@@JL-ue9jy If the laws are too broad, like someone getting put on a registry for public urination, then advocate for narrowing them and creating appeal process for non predatory behavior. I do not care about the resource expenditure. The US government wastes so much money on so much bulk, the small pittance spent on keeping tract of violent offenders is nothing to me or anyone else who cares. Further more, you have not addressed my point. It is a brand, it is supposed to penal. For those who have offended in such a manor, they should be forever marked. You touch a child or rape a person, you now have a mark on your head forever more as a sign that you have broken trust. If you have a point against that, go ahead I am all ears, but these appeals to fiscal inefficiency fall on deaf ears when our money is wasted on so much.

[@JL-ue9jy]

@@DocOmally101 SMITH ET AL. v. DOE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 01-729. Argued November 13, 2002-Decided March 5, 2003 ..... Held: Because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is "NONPUNITIVE", its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Pp.92-106. (Capitalization added for emphasis) You state the registry is supposed to be penal. It's supposed to be a punishment. I don't disagree that people who violate the trust of society should be punished, but it should be meted out with the laws that are on the books at the time of conviction, not ones that get passed later on down the road. However, the ruling in Smith v Doe that makes this scheme nonpunitive violates everything that ex post facto laws are supposed to be for. For example, you are convicted of Sexual of Assault, it's not an aggravated crime, but the girl whom you slept with was 16 and you were 20. Outside the window of the "Romeo & Juliet" laws that are constantly used to justify having sexual contact with minors. For the sake of argument, you go to trial, a jury of their peers finds you guilty of the act you are accused of committing so sentencing takes place. Now, each State differs in its punishment, but let's use a nice round 10-year sentence as the maximum allowed by law. The Judge gives the 10-year sentence. You're shipped off to prison, spend about 8 or 9 years of that sentence behind bars. Then you get parole, are doing fine at a job you found, making the best of getting your life back together. Then congress passes a law changing the minimum sentence to 15 years for the crime you've committed. Now, the sentence you had is increased automatically without due process. You have to stay on parole an additional 5 years. The State says you don't have a say in the matter because you already are convicted of the crime so you cannot argue against its enforcement. This happens over, and over again. People who have been offense free for over thirty years get pulled back into the registry whenever new laws get passed that simply include everyone convicted of the crime listed. These people know how bad they messed up the lives of their victims, their victims' families, their own families, and the community at large. They want nothing more than to live a better life then when they committed their offenses. Those I just referred to are not the same as the serial rapists, or the prolific child molesters like Nadar or Cosby (Who I would like to note, were not listed on a registry and still committed hundreds of offenses, what did the registry do to prevent those victims?) The people who can remorselessly harm others deserve to spend their lives behind bars with those who also have no empathy for others. Each offender is unique, each may have different motivations for what they did, but to hold that simply because they committed a particular crime, then they have no redeeming qualities or no chance at redemption makes little sense to me. If we are to spend resources, I rather it be for something productive that can actually make a difference in its use instead of frivolous spending for the sake of feeling like you "did something". Thank you if you made it to the end of this, hopefully I was able to answer your question. If not, hopefully something managed to connect to you on a logical level.

[@martinkaye6397]

i have just started a worldwide petition to change the sex offenders laws the petition is with a company called - change - and because my file is a new one please look under the section called -recent - the present date is 24/07/2023 please give me some signatures

[@aa-qx9cx]

Sex offenders' human rights are not worthy to be protected, because they are not human. Stressful conditions, risk of poverty, and fear of lynching are the parts of punishment.

[@PieInTheSky9]

They are human though.

[@sandihrozek7051]

And some are registered when they are as young as nine years old. And many are included, some for required lifetime registry, from a consensual relationship when he was an older teen or young adult with a teen just under the age of consent or even a couple of years under the consent age for the state they were in. In quite a few states the age of consent is 18. Many of the latter later married their victims.

[@Xcalator35]

That begs the question for the aplication of Human Rights. You can exclude anyone from the list as you wish. Jews, Black People, Gays, you name it. The declaration of Human Rights loose any validity under your twisted view. It is a consequence of your view that Human Rights simply don't exist.

[@dutchymcdutch2553]

The whole point of human rights is that they apply to everybody, the fact that you don't understand that just shows how incredibly ignorant you are.

[@PieInTheSky9]

People like you are worse than the people on the registries.

[@Chuck_Sexton]

Come on.... sorry, but unsub.

[@TonysMusic1974]

You are unsubscribing because they debated a topic that made you uncomfortable?

[@Xcalator35]

Burying your head in the sand wont solve anything (just saying)

[@JL-ue9jy]

Well, it is now known that you cannot handle mature conversation and debate. It's people such as yourself that rather bury their heads in the sand before hearing truth. Have fun suffocating in your own ignorance.

[@brandonman1315]

Awww poor pansy.

[@user-cn8ip5ym3j]

right on the registry it says that no one is legaly allowed to discriminate against people on the registry.. but they do it anyway. breaking the law to further punish registrants. becoming a criminal themselves while breaking the law that tells them not to do what they are doing. discriminating against registrants. but try to find a lawyer that will represent you in getting justice is whole another problem. and having the money to hire that lawyer is another issue.

[@user-cn8ip5ym3j]

this guy who is doing the argument for pro registry is doing what is called minimising the harm the registry does to forced participants. some times distance restrictions are 1500 feet from parks or schools or where children may gather. that can effectively unhome /unhouse all registrants as well as all employment with in those communities. those communities may be one to three counties large. wild fire spreads. so do unjust laws. so i moved way out into the country. a long ways from any place. a mile from my nearest neighbor. 10 miles from the nearest school. but im forced to live wthout sewar or electric service or water service or road maintenance service; so that the snow builds and im stuck for the winter. and heating fuel is hard to get delivered. so i remove myself from all these sorna a55holes and they still come out to harrass me. even tresspassing on my land lords property to do it. and sometimes they create a technical violation by what they put into my registry info. they put it in there and then charge me for it. the point isnt that its wrong. but that it just cost me 5,000 dollars. every penny i can earn. and it cost me a couple days of my freedom. to date i have spent more than 1 year in jails for technical violations i didnt do. ive been able to fight my way back out. but they ve been actively hunting me for 20 years now. its a punishment and not a deterrent. eveytime i get arrested on these bogus charges. i lose everything i had. i lose my tools and my tent or what ever i was living in and i lose family and friends and they write a story about me. but they never ever appologise and recant the horrid story they told about me. they list me on a bulletin board in public places. so that i have friends approaching me about it and distancing themselves. its one thing to be listed. its harrassment and unconstitutional when they shove public record in peoples faces to the harm of their victim; the registrant. not only have i done unjust time in jails subject to physical violence by the selfrightouse ignoramus drunk or violent assaultive; but i have lost my start up with over 49 years or expericance to this registry and police going to my employees family and informing them of my registry. it wasnt their place to do that. but they did that and then my employee thought it would be justice to do such crappy work that i lost my contract and gained a bad reputation that i couldnt get more work. and that lost me also about 20,000 dollars and 49 years of investment. then said employee i fired and had to kick him out of my r.v. i let him and his family of 6 live in. and they robbed me of another 4,000 dollars in tools. all this damage from the registry. on average i earn about 5,000 a year. those kind of numbers really hurt. this registry is not only burdensome ; but it is punitive.. painfully punitive. its unconstitutional.

[@user-cn8ip5ym3j]

this dude keeps saying deterrent. its not a deterrent. the registry is a punishment. so much so that the circuit court 9 in Idaho ruled that men who committing their crime before the advent of this registry do not have to be subject to the registry. and circuit court 6 in michigan found the registry so burdensome and grievous that the court ruled that michigan must completely re do their registry. two federal justices have found the registry to be punitive and not a deterrent. i think this guy in his hate has completely lost his mind. He is a predator working towards an aggenda during his misinformation distribution.

[@billsmith109]

this guys is rattling off the worst crimes. the registry or threat of jail and registry did not stop the crime. granted these examples belong on a punitive registry. but some people are found guilty of non contact offences, young people doing stupid things, some are innocent and some are mentally challenged. It should be based on a case by case system and the registry requirements should be tiered with certain offenders having time frames with the opportunity of getting off the registry with good behaviour. That is the system in Australia. Would be interesting to compare reoffending with different registries from different nations. In Australia if a person reoffends then they are on the registry for the rest of their lives even if they manage to complete their registry requirements for a previous offence. It would be interesting to see if this causes people to make sure they don't reoffend. I'm sure it will for some people. Of course for serious crimes they are on a registry for good and their reporting requirements are very very strict, as they should be.

[@genesimring3135]

" That is the system in Australia" What do you mean? In Australia there is no opportunity to get off the register for good behavior - in any state.

[@billsmith109]

@@genesimring3135 in Australia the crimes are rated on levels. depending on the level will determine how long one is on the register for. 7 years. 15 years, life etc. in saying getting off for good behaviour, I simply meant, not reoffending. you do your time on the register given to you by the court, you comply and meet all your requirements and you don't reoffend, and that's that. you finish your time and sign off. or you get life. anyone who gets life deserves it. if a person reoffends in a similar way even after they are off of the registry, regardless of the offense level, then its life. maybe these guys better think twice about offending against kids.

[@genesimring3135]

@@billsmith109 When you said "That is the system in Australia" I thought you meant time off for good behavior. I see you actually meant the 3 level system is the way it is in Australia. I would agree with the register if: The conditions relating to the 3 levels were custom made to suite the individual cases, if the register actually worked at reducing sexual offenses and there were similar registers for other serious crimes. The way I see it now, the register is some sort of macabre revenge tactic. It reminds me of ancient Europe's system of banishment from a city.

[@billsmith109]

@@genesimring3135 I guess the one umbrella fits all approach is the problem. I totally agree that each crime should be taken on its merits. the registry does keep a check on some really vile creatures however so it has its place. the problem is that as with most crimes, many are petty and allot of resources are expended watching these people. But many sex offenders are progressive. Their crimes and urges worsen over time and I guess the hope is to keep these guys in check. At least in Australia the police give these guys the opportunity to lead almost normal lives. They don't publish them online or divulge info to their places of work or friends and relatives ect unless its part of a registry requirement, such as an offender moving in with kids etc. The whole thing seems punitive until you speak to a victim. Then even a register isn't enough so to speak. At the end of it all, these guys have either offended against children, they have child porn, including rape or worse, they stalk kids, some potentially will steal kids.. They need to be watched no matter what level they are at. Does it stop offending? Generally not in the original offense because they do it with the hope of not getting caught. But it goes a long way, for many, not all, in stopping reoffending and making people aware who is around their kids, if the registry is done properly.

[@genesimring3135]

@@billsmith109 Thanks for that Bill. A few comments though: " But many sex offenders are progressive. Their crimes and urges worsen over time" Actually the literature proves the opposite. As people get older they mellow and have less sexual urges. The vast majority of convicted sex offenders were in their 20s at the time of the offense. Yes, in Australia the post incarceration punishment (register) is much less draconian than in the USA. I'm not sure if viewing a 17 year model in a sexual context is a threat to our society. Whenever you hear about child porn cases it is always in the absence of detail. So societies mind fills in the detail. A very dangerous situation if one is concerned about truth. I think you may have fallen for the hype when you say "stalk kids, some potentially will steal kids." One result of the registry, as you say, is making parents aware of who is around their kids. A good thing. However, it also produces paranoid kids. Have you noticed when you speak to a young kid they often won't make eye contact with you? They have been scared to death of "stranger danger." So it comes at a cost. One other topic I haven't commented on is the problem of faulty sexual convictions. Contrary to popular belief, a person can be convicted quite easily of a sexual offense that never happened. Why? The presumption of guilt in such matters. So there are who knows how many innocent people punished by the register for a crime they haven't committed.

[@user-cn8ip5ym3j]

i have experience re sentencing techniques done by seperate governments with in the u.s.a. for instance. the native americans on their reservations refuse to accept any leniency the court ruled into your punishment. and they resentence registrants in sorna burden.. so that a registrant working on the reservation has to check in with them each and every time they come to work. that doesnt proetect anybody. but it does add burden. and burden is punishment. its not just checking in. but also checking out and going in person for more times a year than the burden laid upon registrants outside the reservation. and the people running the sorna redefine words to fit their agenda. one such is a day. a day is 24 hours. but according to them a day is a couple hours of habitual attendance over a 10 day a month time frame. so next i guess is reframing what a month is. is a month 28 days now. or is it 32 days. or is judged by the calendar. its unjust and burdensome to twist the words by stretching or condensing in order to add more burden upon a registrant.

[@jamesmullinix2271]

Just shows Emily wins again. His points were no where near the facts. If they think this is civil and not punitive let them try and spend a while on the registry themselves and feel what social death and banishment feels like. It seems to make people feel superior if they can look down on others. Shows what kind of character they have. People shouldn't be defined by their worst mistake. If God could forgive someone maybe he can even forgive law makers for their worst sin.....

[@Joshallenbigballs]

SOs get the biggest break in courts. Just go sit in your local courthouse for 1 day and you will see people get more jail time for a DUI than for touching a innocent kid. A SO is a crime that lasts for the victims life why shouldn’t the offender deal with it for thier whole lives. The registry should be Punitive