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

Debate format: First round- Acceptance Second round- Pro and Con present their case Third Round- Rebuttals Fourth round- Closing statements (cannot bring new arguments in final round) Terms: Sex offender- Anyone convicted of a crime on the sex offender registry Sex offender registry- a purported non-punitive regulatory scheme designed to protect the public by putting anyone convicted of a sex crime on a public list Ineffective in combating Child Sexual Abuse- meaning not affecting the majority of child sexual abuse cases Burden: In order for my opponent to win this debate, she must prove that there is a compelling state interest in the sex offender registry and that it is effective in combating the majority of sexual abuse cases. My case: According to the National Sexual Violence Research Center, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old (1). These numbers are staggering and it should be obvious to all that we have a major problem in our society with child sexual abuse. In response to this problem politicians have and continue to enact ever more restrictive laws for sex offenders in hopes it will curb abuse. It is my contention that they are going about it in the wrong way. That this singular focus on the sex offender registry as the main tool against child sexual abuse is ignorant of the statistics of who the actual perpetrators of sex crimes against children are, it gives guardians of our children a false sense of security, and it actually makes our children less safe. I begin by offering three arguments as to why the registry is an ineffective tool in combating child sex abuse. 1) Registered sex offenders are not the biggest threat to your child. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that of all sex crimes against juveniles (0-17 years of age) that 34.2% of the perpetrators were related to the victim, and 58.7% were acquaintances of the victim. That means that only 7.1% of the perpetrators are the classic "stranger danger" cases that the sex offender registry is designed to stop (2). This means that the image our society has of child sexual abusers as the boogie man in the trench coat lurking behind your child"s elementary school is not the typical offender. The typical offenders are people known to children and trusted by them. Family members, family friends, neighbors, babysitters, clergy, coaches, teachers, these people are 93% of who are sexually abusing children. Yet our main tool in combating child sexual abuse is the sex offender registry which is designed to stop the boogie man. 2) Because our government focuses so much on sex offenders and the registry, parents follow suit. When parents hear of a sex offender in their neighborhood they immediately assume the worst. However, crimes that involve rape, extreme violence and murder account for, "for less than three percent of sexual offenses perpetrated the United States. " (3) Parents know they need to check the registry to make sure there are not sex offenders in their neighborhood, but do they have that same diligence used to make sure there kids are not being abused by family members and coaches and clergy and family friends? I would contend they do not have the same sense of urgency in checking out these people that represent 93% of the perpetrators in sex crimes against children. The general public has very little understanding of the dangerousness of an offender. One study in Hillsborough County, Florida shows that when a sex offender moved into a neighborhood the housing in the area dropped in value by 2.3% and when they moved out it immediately went back to the normal price. This would be normal and expected, what is not normal though is that prices fell regardless of whether the offender was designated a predator (4). This is what I call bloat. We have increased the number of crimes that require registration and now we do not know who is truly dangerous on the registry and who is not. The assumption is then that all on the registry must be dangerous for the fact the made it onto the registry. This leads to not being able to properly track the 7% of the people who are a serious danger to your child. Not only are we focused on the wrong targets, but in our eagerness to fix the problem by adding people to the registry we are making it harder to track the people that are an actual danger children. 3) The registry can actually make us less safe by not allowing offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society. One study found that sex offender laws may make it less likely for first time offenders to commit an offense, so they may have a very mild deterrent effect. However, total crime is higher though because the registry makes it more likely that a registered person will commit more crime. The study said this could be because of the, "social and financial costs associated with the public release of their personal information. " (5) The registry does a horrific job at allowing people who were previously convicted of a sex crime good opportunities to reintegrate back into society. With residency restrictions making it tough for ex-offenders to find a place to live, and with a felony on their record making it tough to find a job, what do we expect? We are taking stability away from sex offenders, making all but impossible for them to rebuild their lives. My opponent might say that they don"t deserve a life because they took from another person their innocence. I do not disagree with this sentiment but the question is not what I emotionally feel is right but what is going to make our children safer. Not allowing an offender to reintegrate into society does not make children safer. Let's look at a common scenario that happens relatively often in our country, where our knowing about a sex offender and stopping them from moving in actually makes us as a society less safe. The community gets a flier that a registered offender is moving into an apartment complex, they come together and successfully petition the owner to not move the offender into their neighborhood. The sex offender cannot find housing for this person so they release them onto the streets and say register every month with the police since you are homeless. Are we actually safer now? We would then have an ex-offender the police do not know where to find that has no place to live and will have an incredibly difficult time finding a job. Is this best for the safety of our children, having a homeless sex offender who cannot get a job and does not have much to live for? Not in my backyard (NIMBY) may work for you but its end effect makes someone else's child less safe. Conclusion: The registry is an ineffective tool because it does not focus on the majority of perpetrators, it points the guardians of our children in the wrong direction, it does not show us who is truly dangerous, and it makes us less safe by not allowing offenders to successfully reintegrate back into society. Sources: 1. . http://nsvrc.org... 2. . http://www.bjs.gov... 3. . http://elibrary.law.psu.edu... 4. . http://www.sciencedirect.com... 5. . https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu...