The Sex Offender Registry is ineffective in combating child sexual abuse.

Rebuttal: Law enforcement as an effective tool in combating child sexual abuse: I agree that LE plays a role in combating child sexual abuse. I am not saying they do not, what I am proving with my opening and rebuttal positions is just how much of a role does LE actually play in stopping child sexual abuse, which is not very much. Your example of how LE can help stop child abuse is the classic stranger danger scenario. Statistics prove most children are not sexually abused by strangers, but by people they know and usually know quite well. In fact 93% of children are not abused by strangers (1). I have also shown that most runaway children are not "stereotypical kidnappings", less than 0.0014% are (2). All you have shown to prove your point is anecdotal stories which you have not even cited and you have not provided any quantitative data from any reputable source to back up your claim. You also have not shown why the registry needs to be public if it is going to be an effective tool for law enforcement. DOJ research: First of all I have used several sources outside the Bureau of Justice Statistics to prove my points. They stand completely uncontested because you have not shown any studies to back up any of your claims. "With that being said, your statistical data from that particular source carries no weight with persons as myself." Are you a recognized expert in the field of criminology? I can only speak for myself when I say I am not, I rely on people who have made it their careers to study this information and I base my opinions off their research. This research that I am quoting is peer reviewed, meaning that others critique it. If there are good arguments against the BJS data you shouldn't have a hard time finding it. Instead you are calling all the research I am providing into question because you disagree with it and doing so without providing even one counter study to prove that any of your ideas have merit. Con"s "Proof" that a public sex offender registry works: "Various International Private studies have published that offenders do better under a public registration system." What studies might these be? You have not cited any studies thus far that proves anything, nor have you shown anything but anecdotal stories that you have not even cited to bolster your claim. The need for a public registry: "You presume wrongly to take my position as one who leans on "stereotypical kidnappings" as a basis for my stance. But I do take offense to your minimization of ""only 57 children" were kidnapped and sexually assaulted." You have not shown any evidence that the people who are kidnapping these children are already on the sex offender registry. Nor have you provided any evidence that shows how the general public knowing about sex offenders in their area stops a majority of sex offenses. I have shown evidence to show that a public registry can actually cause more offenses because the offender cannot properly reintegrate back into society, my evidence stands uncontested (3). Moreover, 57 children is a drop in the bucket to the total number of children who are sexually abused each year. I do not mean to be crass with this nor am I trying to minimize these crimes, but why are these 57 children so much more important than the rest of the children who are being sexually abused by people they know and their family trusts? We are spending an inordinate amount of money on these "stereotypical kidnappings" and a very little amount on the 93% of victims. This is a bad investment on our part if we are trying to affect the majority of sexual crimes against children. You are also using faulty logic here by assuming everyone on the registry is on it for sexually abusing children. This is simply not true. Sex offenders decrease the security of neighborhoods: "A neighborhood who has a disproportionate amount of sex offenders/predators in relation to the general public has a higher "risk factor" than a neighborhood that does not." Even if I conceded this point, the children in these neighborhoods are still in greater danger from being sexually abused by people they trust! Stranger danger type crimes accounts for 7% of all child sexual abuse situations (1). The ironic part of all of this is that if you believe that sex offender clustering causes more victims, then your past stances on advocating for tougher residency restrictions actually makes it more likely that sex offenders will cluster thus one could say in reality you are advocating for more victims! Sex offenders causing risk by living in areas where children live: "Sex offenders often gravitate to these same communities due to the affordable aspects of these rentals. In my opinion that's a recipe for disaster and an unacceptable risk." Again, children are more likely to be sexually abused by people they know and know well (1). What the registry is designed for: "An informed public is a safer public and with that knowledge they can act accordingly." What evidence do you have that shows an informed public is a safer public? I have presented evidence to the contrary. That an informed public leads to less safety not more. A public registry does not allow for offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society (3). They are forced away from natural familial support systems if their family lives within 2,000 yards of anything child related. This leads to sex offender clustering, which by your very argument is a danger to society. Conclusion: The evidence I have shown in this debate stands uncontested. Con has not brought up any competing sources to debate my points. As such you must find in favor of Pro. I will quickly go through the points that stand uncontested by Con. 1) The majority of perpetrators are not strangers but are known to our children and the families of the children that are sexually abused (1). The registry is not focused on stopping these types of criminals. The registry actually points parents and guardians down the wrong path, which is dangerous for our children. Instead of looking out for the most likely perpetrators of sexual crimes against their children, the registry focuses parents attention on trying to stop strangers from kidnapping and sexually abusing their children. 2) The registry is ineffective because it does not show who on the registry is the most dangerous. A study shows that the general public does not know the difference between a predator and non-predator (5). Con even agrees the public does not understand the registry very well. The sheer size of the registry itself is also a problem for it being effective. All of these less dangerous offenders are on the same registry as someone who is a lot more likely to offend. LE has to spend time focusing on people who may not pose any threat to your child, while not spending enough time tracking the people who are an actual danger to your child. By expanding the registry and what crimes must register as an RSO we are allowing truly dangerous offenders to hide in with people who are not a danger. 3) Not allowing offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society actually makes our community less safe (3). Pushing offenders away with residency restrictions and NIMBY campaigns leads to sex offender clustering, which by Con"s own argument is a threat to children. It also leads to homelessness for offenders who cannot find housing. Homelessness makes it tougher for LE to track these offenders which would make it less of a "viable tool" Con has not taken met her burden, nor cited any source to prove any of her points. You must vote Pro. Works cited: 1. http://www.bjs.gov... 2. https://www.ncjrs.gov... 3.https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... 4.http://elibrary.law.psu.edu... 5.http://www.sciencedirect.com...