Overwhelming WIN for Emily Horowitz in Yesterday’s Debate on Abolishing the Sex Offender Registry
Debate Results Favor Abolishing Sex Offender Registries
Last night, The Soho Forum and Reason.com held a debate on whether, “All the laws requiring those convicted of sex offenses to put their names in a registry should be abolished.”
Listeners were asked to vote BEFORE hearing the debate and then, again, AFTER hearing the debate.The results and a link to the debate are below.
As you can see, Emily Horowitz’s argument (in favor of abolishing the registry) was overwhelmingly persuasive and congratulations on the win. ***Readers, please note this is an academic debate. It is NOT a court hearing and the results of this debate will not have any impact on sex offender laws.***
Watch the video: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/12/should-the-sex-offender-registry-be-abol
| Pre | Post | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 38.89% | 72.22% | 33.33% |
| No | 22.22% | 15.56% | -6.67% |
| Undecided | 38.89% | 12.22% | -26.67% |
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amen! When people are given information, facts, and reasons why the registry is not only unfair, but unconstitutional, they see the light.
I hade to wait till my blood pressure came back to earth. Marci showed she was as dumb as a box of rocks covered with sand .She completely ignored all facts and studies basing her arguments on a few isolated cases. She never addressed the questions posed to her but kept going back to the same cases. She refused to comment on the registry as a whole which was supposed to be the purpose of the debate.she refused to acknowledge all the ones and there families that have been destroyed by the registry but kept going back blindly ,it’s worth it for the children,(like Hitler did) When you have people like this in powerful positions it’s no wonder things are as they are.
Where did this Marci woman get the statistic that “most sex offenders have over 150 victims?” That seems like a highly conflated stat and not to mention empirically impossible to prove with sound data. Can anyone provide a link to such a study? It appears that she has drank the Kool-Aid the Supreme Court passed out when they said sex offenders have an alarmingly high recidivism rate. I know personally a few sex offenders, most of which have no victim – they were caught in online entrapment stings – and the others had 1 victim and readily admits his fault. This 150 victims per sex offender claim is utterly ludicrous, as well as her pointing to the Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky cases as proof of the necessity of a public registry. Neither man was on the registry because adults didn’t turn them in. The registry wouldn’t have prevented further victimization, but rather if the adults and universities would’ve reported the crimes to the police. Furthermore, her claims about about making sure they’re not hired is asinine. Background checks would preclude anyone with a felony offense, and especially a sex offense, from being hired in a position that works with children. The logical gymnastics she’s practicing could earn her an Olympic gold medal.
That number is absurd. I can’t imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense that was in the audience believed her.
The problem is; when people like that spew “facts” out of their asses and people hear it, they get shocked and demand action.
Do you think that if Ron Book didn’t get up there and say, “100% reoffend – it’s not a matter of if, it’s when” but instead told the truth that actually 95% WON’T re-offend, his client Geo Group would be very happy with him?
Two other intellectually dishonest remarks Marci continuously made that make my blood boil was 1) ignoring the fact that many on the registry committed crimes against adults and not children and 2) using the term pedophile as if it is synonymous with sex offender. There are those who have been clinically diagnosed with pedophilia, however, I’m willing to bet that’s an overwhelming minority of those forced to register and also doesn’t excuse the fact that those who are not pedophiles are swept up in this one-size-fits-all registry in mass. She appeals to the lowest common denominator to justify the existence of the registry.
Valid points. The MAJORITY of registrants are NOT Pedophiles, but the name is used synonymously with sex offender. Same thing with child molester.
Emily based her position on facts. Her opponent…on ‘text book’ knowledge and on examples that represent a tine, tiny fraction of sex offenders. Also, her opponent doesn’t seem to know the difference from someone who might molest a child out of ‘circumstance’ and a ‘pedophile’…two totally different situations. One is a spur of the moment act and the other is a mental condition. Not all child molesters are pedophiles.
Funny how Hamilton kept bringing up Nasser and Sandusky, both in prison for life and not a threat to the public, as support for her argument that the registry is necessary for public safety.
Also the fact that they, like well over 95% of any sex crimes, were never on the registry when the crimes were first committed. So the registry would do exactly zero in preventing future Nasser and Sanduskys. The registry does absolutely nothing in preventing future crimes, but in fact contributes to them in one way or another (crimes against registered citizens or forcing someone into criminal activity such as theft due lack of employment and housing caused by the registry).
Never had a doubt she would lose. Congrats to Emily Horowitz.
Very interesting indeed.
Ok, so random question that I need help on
I have a friend in California that wants me to fly out there to visit him once I get off probation this summer. I asked him do they check ID’s before you board the plane, and he said yes. So automatically I get nervous. I haven’t flown in 8 years, so I’m just wondering, now under my new status, what should I be concerned about with TSA/security and such? Are there any reporting requirements you have to do before embarking on such a trip, and if you fly? I’m under the impression if you’re not gone for more than 5 days somewhere, then no reporting is needed. I’m under probation rules now, so none of that is relevant. But when I get off probation, I know I will have to go by the registration rules. So I was just wondering if anyone has any answers on that. Or if anyone has flown while off probation and can tell me their experience. A trip out of Florida would be much welcomed! 🙂
No issues anywhere to states or territories just make sure you follow registration requirements both here and destination.
I know what you mean by “a trip out of Florida”. My last vacation was in 1997.
I am no longer on probation, however, when I leave the state I need to inform the sheriff’s office that I’m leaving, where I’m going, where I’ll be staying and when I’ll be back.
Dan, please tell me where in Florida Law you must notify anyone when you leave and return. as far as to my knowledge you only must notify if you are vacating a perm. or temp. address and not even sure about temp. but if you are not moving from your perm. address as far as i know you do not need to notify anyone just abide by the 1000000’s of laws/regulations wherever you stop at
Do you live here in Florida?
If you’re going to be in California for more than 5 days you’ll need to register with the local PD and then register out when you leave. If you’re here for less time than that then you’re good to go. The only restriction you’ll need to follow is to stay off school grounds but other than that we have no other restrictions if you’re no longer on supervision. You also shouldn’t have any issues flying domestically. They’ll check your ID as they would anyone when going through security, but there’s nothing to preclude you from flying.
As to what you’d need to do with your home state, that’s something you’ll need to research. Some states might require you to submit a travel plan if you’re going to be out of you jurisdiction for longer than X period of time. Call your local department and find out.
You don’t have to notify if your leaving only when you return when you leave you are not under the State jurisdiction only at your destination be aware of the Megan’s law some states adopted a three day rule to check in with local law enforcement. Don’t let these people making these laws stop you from living life!!
The notification rule varies greatly from state to state. Hawaii its 10 days. Alaska it’s 24 hours. Some states you can get around the rule because it’s for continues days (so you can step out of state, buy a lotto ticket as proof and pop back in to reset the clock), while others count the total number of days for the entire year (if the law says 5 days, that’s 5 days for the entire year whether you’re there 5 days continually or 1 day each across 5 months). Then you also have several states that allow (or at least turn a blind eye) for individual counties and even cities to make their own rules in addition to that of the state (one article I read recently imposed a 2000 foot barrier even while driving with the exception being if you’re on your way to see your PO. Otherwise, if you’re going grocery shopping or whatever, you’d have to take a detour in order to adhere to the law and not drive too close to a school or park. Thankfully, the article was about the law being challenged but it was still in effect otherwise) . It can be a true nightmare for us to travel while adhering to all the rules and regulations. It’s certainly more than a slight inconvenience when you technically need to research just about every mile of your trip due to America not having this issue streamlined across the board.
I hear they LOVE to search electronics….like smartphones and laptops. But I’ve not flown anywhere since 2008 so I can’t say for certain. Refer to that RTAG travel matrix FAC posts around here somewhere. There’s accounts of people who flew and what happened. Some of it international though.
Remember the 14th amendment against unreasonable search and sezure I always ask the officer for their name and badge number it pisses them off they get smart I remind them they decide to violate my rights I decide if I want to sue