Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

Thank you for good arguments. I will introduce two new arguments, refute Con's arguments and defend my previous contentions. NEW arguments 1) Blanket punishment: These registries are bad because they impose the same punishment on a wide range of sexual offenders, from people stopping to urinate, to rapists. .. even kids exchanging nude photos on their phones find a spot on these lists, FOR LIFE. Such a blanket punishment is decidedly unfair, because it punishes the lightest offenders as strictly as the highest ones. Since punishment should be fair (i. e. it should fit the crime), these registries should be discontinued. The rapists might deserve a lifetime of social censure, but must the person who peed in a public place also undergo a similar fate? 2) Disincentivize rehabilation Sex offenders shy away from seeking therapist help, because they fear being revealed and put on the list permanently. The families of the sex offenders cover up the sexual offender's deviance to keep his name - and the family name - off the lists. Consequently, sex offender rehabilation slows down. The offenders are more likely to commit their crime again, harming both society and themselves, again. Defense: 3) Dehumanization and self-fufilling prophesy Con advocates a punitive mindset. Con says the offenders "should suffer the consequences". I advocate a rehabilitative framework. Let the past be the past: our function is to reintegrate people into society as quickly as possible. A rehabilitative framework is better than a punitive framework. Rehabilation builds the future; punishment gets stuck in the past and neglects today and tomorrow. Con says that 44% of Americans are unconcerned about the harassment that sexual offenders suffer. This evidence actually reinforces my argument, and I thank Con for bringing it up. This evidence demonstrates the DEHUMANIZATION that offenders have undergone. They have become monsters, monsters who do not elicit our sympathy for their suffering. Such dehumanization is the cause of much social evil: racism flourished because blacks were dehumanized; nazism grew through the dehumanization of Jews. I ask the reader to affirm that all humans are equal, that offenders are human and deserve our concern. .. that, in the words of Martin Luther King, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. " Con says offenders do not solely commit acts from ostracization. I do not need to prove that, however. .. I only need to show that ostracization leads to a lack of rehabilation, which increases sexual offenses. And this argument is obvious: sex offenders cannot get jobs, friends. .. they cannot live where they want, or work as they are capable of. Lonely and miserable, they are at a much higher risk of committing sexual offenses. 5) Unfair punishment. Con is correct when she says that thieves go to jail, but so do sexual offenders! Why do offenders need the EXTRA punishment of being publicized FOR LIFE? 6) Vigilantism Con says that society will hear about the offenders even without the registries. If this is the case, WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THE REGISTRIES IN THE FIRST PLACE? Note that Con has herself disproved the need for such registries! No, such registries inform much more people than gossip would be able to, and thus promotes vigilantism, and murder. Refuting Con's arguments: I will address all 3 of con's arguments together. Con says that the only benefit registries serve is to inform parents and children that sex offenders may be near. Con admits that registries are ineffective at reducing sex crimes (and in fact, cites a study that concludes the same). I will accept this. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS The benefit that registries serve is far less than their harms. They only help insofar as they make people aware of sex offenders, but do not reduce sexual offenses! On the other hand, registries dehumanize offenders, increase recidivism by reducing rehabilation, and increase unlawful vigilantism. Sex Offender Registries do little more than provide a false sense of hope; they benefit few folks others than the politicians who use these lists to make themselves look good and active.