DEBATE: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?
On Feb 3rd, the question, “Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?” was debated by Emily Horowitz (For the Motion) and Cary Federman (Against the Motion).
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, they debated the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?
Watch the entire debate here: https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debate/does-the-sex-offender-registry-do-more-harm-than-good/#/
I listened to this, and found that Cary Federman didn’t make even one halfway decent argument during the discussion. His entire argument seemed to be that everyone involved ‘thought about things’ for a long time and that the public really wanted it. At the mall, I think for a while about eating a Cinnabon, and I really want it. However, it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Cary Federman Really had no argument for the registry. Again and again he used the worst examples to justify the laws. The people who raped and killed are not getting out but yet that was his defense. Also in what crazy world does he believe it’s only 100 feet from a school registrants can’t live?
All the online registry will ever do IS harm and never one ounce of good. The registry simply does not protect, prevent or create “awareness.”
It only succeeds in disrupting and displacing lives.
Based on that debate, I would say that Federman’s academic credentials desperately need to be reviewed. It wouldn’t hurt to have a look at his former students, either.
Nowhere in that debate did he even address the question he was supposed to be arguing against, let alone provide any support or substance for his position, all while complaining that his was (supposedly) the minority opinion. I think my IQ dropped about 3 points every time he spoke.
If his credentials check out, what then?
@ Dustin….I did laugh out loud….”my IQ dropped about 3 points every time he spoke”. All I can say is Ditto.
I listened to both sides and enjoyed this debate, than got to thinking about this line of pros and cons. Is there still a line drawn in the sand in many issues we all face. One is for the elimination of much of this registry and one is against. A political issue you say. Isn’t discrimination still an issue. Hey their are even pros and cons of why some stop lights take longer time than others to change. As for the registry Emily won more of the issue than this Cary fellow and the just balance (justice) is still waiting to come.
The “No” proponent did not carry the argument for their thinking, IMO, and was stuck on a limited view in scope of justification for the registry.
Among YouTube comments on this debate, an overwhelming majority so far are anti-registry.
Would that have been the case 15 years ago? Are people starting to get it?