Should We Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences

Many thanks to Ishallannoyyo for his response. Readers would notice that my esteemed opponent has completely dropped the caption system he introduced in first round. Rather he has responded to my arguments quote by quote. This makes it very difficult to notice how many arguments he has dropped. In an effort to maintain some organization in the debate; which will hopefully help our readers in following each point of conflict to its natural conclusion; I shall try to reintroduce the original captioning system and organize our arguments. I shall do my best to not to drop any argument in the process. == My arguments == My opponent accuses me of not fulfilling the burden of proof. Yet I did present my arguments in last round. Since it was so simple and brief, my opponent possibly missed it. I shall try to list them again. The case of young offenders is usually different from that of older offenders, and hence merits different treatment. Young convicts are often themselves victims of circumstances and upbringing. With proper assistance chances of rehabilitation is greater. If their identities are well known, they will face problem in finding jobs, renting houses starting a civil life. I called this the problem of stigma and prejudice. This endangers rehabilitation efforts. Pro has presented several trivial questions against my arguments. Q1. So how come repeat youth offenders still exist? I never claimed that youth offenders get rehabilitated 100% of the time. I said that the chances of their rehabilitation are greater and hence they merit special consideration. Q2. Wouldn’t community help them even if they knew they were convicts? If me opponent knew that particular person is a convict, would he offer him an employment in his company? Would he rent his house to such a person? While it is possible he may agree to help, many people would refuse. This is a major problem with rehabilitation efforts, which can be tackled by hiding identities of young convicts. In any case, let me submit that the best help community can offer such people is to completely forget their past. Q3. Rehabilitation efforts are not working and something more drastic is needed. This is a baseless assertion offered without any evidence. This should be ignored by our kind voters. == Rebuttals == Public Safety: Pro presents an interesting contradiction in his own arguments. He says that employers would never find out about criminal history since crime records are destroyed at age of 18. It is clear that my opponent supports this law. This is extremely surprising. The issues involved in destruction of records for young convicts are identical to the issues involved in hiding their name and blurring their faces in media. We should have expected Ishallannoyyo to be completely against such destruction. He needs to clearly explain his contradiction. If the name and identities of young convicts are available in media, enterprising businessmen will be able to prepare unofficial crime records. So the purpose of destroying records is once again defeated. Pro definitely needs to explain his inconsistency on destruction of records. We can see that we are facing a contradiction between public’s right to safety and consequent prejudice and stigma that offenders may face; endangering rehabilitation efforts. I would like to humbly assert that in case of young offenders, the importance of rehabilitation triumphs over public safety. Legislators who prepared the rule for destruction of record for young convicts obviously agree with me. Media Humiliation: Pro defends his outrageous suggestion to humiliate young offenders by saying: I have never said that we should purposely humiliate them,… His only defense is that he is not ‘purposely’ humiliating them. He said in the first round: …Kids are scared of being humiliated, laughed at, teased, etc. etc. Now imagine a child being humiliated on a nation wide scale… It is clear that my opponent advocates a law which designed to humiliate the young convicts as a deterrent. I am certain this amounts to purposely humiliating them. In the meantime my opponent has offered no proof that such deterrent are going to work. Rehabilitation will be difficult: My opponent makes a curious statement that there is public is unlikely to worry since they are not repeat offenders. If this is correct, it destroys his public safety argument. I agree with my opponent that rehabilitation is still possible after media exposure. My argument is that it will be much more difficult. == Conclusion == I have established that disclosing the names of young offenders and revealing their faces on national and local media is likely to lead to prejudice, stigma and will endanger rehabilitation. Pro has been unable to present a single good and valid advantage of using media. The resolution has been negated. I look forward to my opponent explaining his support to the law of destroying records and the inconsistency involved. He also needs to present some evidence that his humiliating plan of deterrence is likely to be effective.