It should be legal to stalk someone

Introduction It seems odd that Pro would repeatedly assert that stalkers are easy to escape and stalking is easy to avoid despite the fact that stalkers are often obsessed and hard-to-escape. Stalkers become even harder to avoid if law enforcement agencies refuse to investigate instances of stalking. Thus, for the sake of the safety of stalking victims, I am proud to oppose the motion that "it should be legal to stalk". Signpost Today, I shall reconstruct my positive points and refute my opponent"s points. I shall also make another point: governmental responsibility. Reconstruction To add to my point about helping stalkers become mentally better, I shall explain why banning stalking would make it more likely for stalkers to receive psychological care. When stalkers are accused and go to court, their attorneys might arrange psychiatric evaluations to see if there is a possibility that an insanity defence would stand up in court. Insanity defences have been used in stalking cases before. [1] Thus, in the status quo, it is more likely for stalkers who stalk due to mental illness to be treated. On the other hand, under my opponent"s motion, stalking wouldn"t be seen as illegal, but stalking would still be socially stigmatised. Thus, stalkers would not have a reason to seek psychiatric help at all, since there exists a social stigma against them. This is unlike in the status quo, in which stalkers sometimes do have a reason to seek psychiatric help, at least for court cases, because the effects of being released from jail outweigh social stigma. Rebuttals My opponent states that when stalking is legalised, people would be more careful, thereby reducing stalking. He argues that this is because, in the status quo, anti-stalking laws give people a false sense of security. This is not true. The fact that rape is illegal doesn"t make women go to backalleys frequented by motor gangs. The fact that murder is illegal doesn"t make people leave their homes at 1:00 in the morning and stroll around in urban slums. The fact that muggings are illegal doesn"t mean you would walk around at night with ten billion dollars stored in your bag. The above examples are true because the media reports on instances of crime, making people more aware of what is safe and not safe to do. In my opponent"s world, the media wouldn"t report on instances on stalking as frequently because it isn"t a crime; thus, people would be less, not more, careful. My opponent also makes it seem as if having stalking victims deal with stalking is the perfect solution. This is not true, since a victim"s ability to protect themselves is limited compared to the abilities of police and intelligence agencies. Stalkers are obsessed by definition. A stalking victim can block a stalker online, but said stalker could just register another account or hack a friend"s account (my opponent"s statistics state that even children can hijack accounts) and continue harassing them. As soon as a stalker learns the victim"s address, the victim has no choice but to move, in which case the stalker might be able to learn their new address by tailing them to there in their car. By reporting stalking to authorities, on the other hand, the stalker would most likely be tracked down without much trouble. Pro argues that false accusations in stalking make it necessary to abolish stalking laws. If so, many other laws would also need to be abolished. A VERY conservative estimate of wrongfully convicted death row inmates at 4.1%, and crimes involving the death penalty go through a lot of investigation [2]. One can only imagine the wrongful conviction rates of other crimes, which logically must be way higher. Thus, Pro"s logic could be used to justify abolishing any law. Again, my opponent failed to prove that false accusations of stalking are so bad that they make it necessary to allow stalking. Pro argues that the same logic used to legalize stalking cannot be used to also legalise murder. He does so by claiming that murder and stalking are different in that murder is unpreventable but stalking is preventable. I argue that, in many cases, stalking can be hard to prevent and stop (see above). Likewise, in some cases, murder can be easy to prevent"stay indoors at night, don"t anger the mafia. Thus, Pro"s distinction between murder and stalking is invalid. Therefore, if stalking victims are responsible for preventing stalking, then murder victims would also have to be responsible for preventing murder; Pro"s logic therefore is flawed because it can be used to justify making murder legal. The victims of crime should never be responsible for said crime. The perpetrators should be. Constructive points Governmental Responsibility The government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. That"s why we have laws and regulations in the first place. Stalking causes psychological harm to its victims"it is unwanted by definition"and thus should be considered a crime to keep citizens safe. Since citizens, as proven above, cannot adequately protect themselves from stalking without help from authorities, the government, due to its responsibility to keep citizens safe, must help stalking victims by enforcing anti-stalking laws. Conclusion In this debate, I have proven that stalking is harmful to its victims because it causes psychological trauma and that stalking laws reduce stalking because they disincentivise stalking and give authorities a reason to help stalking victims. I have also shown why stalking laws make it more likely for stalkers to seek psychiatric help. Thus, stalking laws benefit all parties involved in a stalking incident"the stalker and the victim"and therefore should stay. My opponent has failed to address my points on how anti-stalking laws reduce stalking incidences. As such, let it be resolved that it should be illegal to stalk. Sources [1]http://abcnews.go.com... [2]http://time.com...