See Debatepedia's Global Climate Change Debate Series with the UN Foundation's The People Speak. Press release.
Debate:Sex Offenders, Naming and Shaming
From Debatepedia
|
[  ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Should sex offenders be named and shamed? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Richard Mott. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
|
|
[ ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Argument #1 | |
|
[  ][ ]YesSex offenders, even more so than other forms of crime, are prone to re-offending upon release from prison. Therefore, to protect society, they should be required to register with a local police station, and their names and addresses should be made available to the public. Police would also supply this information to relevant parties, such as schools and nurseries, who will be consequently far more alert to any risk. Parents would find this information invaluable in ensuring their children’s safety, and it would cut the rate of sexual crime by those freed from prison. In the end, we have to protect our children at any cost. |
[ ][ ]NoThis proposal is a fundamental violation of the principles of our penal system, which are based on the serving of a set punishment before being freed. This registration imposes a new punishment for an old crime, and, inevitably, will lead to sex offenders being demonised by their neighbours, and possible forced to move out. In the UK the publication of addresses by the ‘News of the World’ led to widespread hate campaigns and violence, sometimes against innocent people with similar names, or people living in a house listed in the newspaper as that of a sex offender. Such a risk cannot be tolerated; we cannot as a society revert back to mob rule in place of justice. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][  ]Argument #2 | |
|
[ ][ ]YesCrimes of a sexual nature are among the most abhorrent and damaging that exist; they can ruin a child’s life. As the offenders responsible for these offences cannot be incarcerated for ever, and must be released at some point, extra precautions must be taken to ensure they pose no threat to the public. |
[ ][ ]NoThe proposition are muddying the waters. Psychological evaluations can determine accurately whether an offender is still a risk to society or not. If they are, they should not be released. If they are not, they should be freed and allowed to live a normal life. A register eliminates this distinction, and stigmatises those who have genuinely reformed. We have a penal system at the heart of which is the principle of reforming offenders, and it is ludicrous to simply ignore the possibility of change. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Argument #3 | |
|
[ ][ ]YesA national register would allow police to track down re-offenders faster, thus increasing the success rate and the speed at which they are brought to justice. It would also provide a strong deterrent against re-offence in its own right. |
[ ][ ]NoPolice work can be aided by a register that is only available to law enforcement agencies; making it public adds no advantage. Indeed, it might be counter-productive as the abuse that offenders would have to suffer might drive them underground, thus causing the police to lose track of them. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Argument #4 | |
|
[ ][ ]YesA national register would benefit sexual offenders directly, as they would be on local registers of counselling and psychological help groups, who would be more able to offer help. |
[ ][ ]NoThis is spurious; offenders should have access to these services anyway, regardless of whether their names are available to the general public or not. |
|
[ ]References:[ ]Motions
[ ]In legislation, policy, and the world[ ]See also on Debatepedia:[ ]External links and resources:
[ ]Books
| |