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

My Rebuttal: "The registry is a timely viable tool for Law Enforcement when a child goes missing. " I am going address this by breaking the statement down into two parts. First that it is a timely viable tool for Law enforcement. Whether or not it is a viable tool for law enforcement is not what we are debating. However, if we were debating that point, the effectiveness of the registry for law enforcement would be the same if the registry was public or not. As I stated in my opening argument, studies show that a public registry can actually cause more harm by not effectively allowing former offenders to reintegrate back into society (1). So if the registry is indeed a viable and valuable tool for law enforcement, which you have not proved that it is, but for the sake of argument let"s say I concede the point to you. If we assume the registry is a viable and valuable tool and we assume that a public registry actually causes more crime (My study stands unconverted in your opening case), then the only logical thing to do would be make the registry law enforcement only. This would keep the "viable tool for law enforcement" but at the same time allow sex offenders to better integrate back into society which will keep everyone safer. My next point will be to show that the registry is a red herring when it comes to missing and exploited children. I am using the definitions from the US Department of Justice"s study, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children so we will have common definitions in talking about this point: Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least 1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child"s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently. 'Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in which a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with intent to keep the child permanently, or killed. ' 'Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity. ' 'Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose name is unknown to the child or family prior to the abduction and whom the child or family did not know well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who the child or family have known for less than 6 months, or someone the family or child have known for longer. ' This study estimates that there were 797,500 reported missing children in 1999. Of those 797,500 missing children, only 115 were "stereotypical kidnappings". And of these 115 children, 49% (57 children) were sexually assaulted. That means that of all the 797,500 missing children, only 0.014% were "stereotypical kidnappings", and 0.0071% of all the kids were kidnapped and sexually assaulted (2). I do support a private registry for law enforcement only to support law enforcement in helping these 115 children every year be safely returned to their families. However, to say we need a public registry, that can actually cause more overall victimization, to help 57 children that are sexually assaulted every year by a "stereotypical kidnapper" seems like a giant leap in logic I am not willing to make. Moreover, con"s argument is that the registry is effective in combating the majority of sexual assaults, missing and exploited children who are kidnapped account for only 57 children who are sexually abused each year. "The Private sector has the ability to access their registry and the information provided allows the public to gauge many aspects that effects them personally. " I agree the public has the ability to access a PUBLIC registry, but to what end? In my opening argument, there was a study that showed that the general public does not understand the difference between a sex offender who is designated as a predator and one who is not. In that study, housing prices in neighborhoods where a sex offender moved in dropped in value by an average of 2.3%. What the study showed though that the price fell by an average of 2.3% regardless of whether the offender was designated a predator (3). This clearly shows that the general public cannot properly gauge even basic aspects of the registry. "It's a birds eye view of the correctional system," I do not know how it is a bird"s eye view of the correctional system. I am defining people in the correctional system as in prison or on parole and probation. According the Bureau of Justice Statistics, State prisons had an estimated 1,314,900 inmates at the end of 2013, only 160,900 or 12.23% were in there for rape of sexual assault (4). The Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks parole and probation by crime, there were 3,910,600 on probation in 2013, of which 3% or 117,318 probationers were on probation for a sex offense. In 2013 there were 853,200 on probation of which, 10% or 85,320 (5). So all totaled there are 6,078,700 people in the correction system of which only 5.9% or 363,448 people are in for sexual offenses. How is 5.9% of the total people in the corrections system a good representation of the total population? "the increased or decreased security of the neighborhoods," I would ask that if you are going to say if sex offenders moving in or out increases or decreases the security of a neighborhood that you would cite an academic study that proves your point. "the effectiveness of local law enforcement," How does having a sex offender in your neighborhood reflect on the effectiveness of local law enforcement? Please cite your studies that show this. "the direct impact of property values in relation to those who have a vested interest in those values. " If you want to know the value of your property get an appraiser or talk to a real estate agent, the sex offender registry cannot tell you the price of your home. "Most important, it allows those who are most targeted by these crimes the ability to determine the proximity of those who have been convicted of sexually based crimes. " The people that are most targeted by these crimes are children. As I said in my opening argument, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 93% of the crimes against children are perpetrated by people known to the child. Stranger danger accounts for 7% of all sexual crimes against children (6). This sex offender registry is designed to keep strangers away from children, thus it is not effective in the majority of sex crimes against children. "It has been determined that only 38% of the general public have accessed their immediate registries. " Again please cite your sources so we can have a proper debate. I would refer back to my earlier point that the general public does not understand the difference between dangerous offenders and non dangers offenders on the registry. Works Cited: 1. . https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... 2. . https://www.ncjrs.gov... 3. . http://www.sciencedirect.com... 4. . http://www.bjs.gov... 5. . http://www.bjs.gov... 6. . http://www.bjs.gov...