Reason and the Soho Forum Want to Know, Do We Abolish the Registry?

[UPDATED links 2/21/18] [sexlawandpolicy.org]

Dr. Emily Horowitz, noted sex offense policy researcher, and Marci Hamilton, child safety advocate, went toe-to-toe in an engaging debate Monday night, which may be a first of its kind on the need for sex offender registries. On the resolution for whether the laws requiring those convicted of sex offenses to put their names in a registry should be abolished, Dr. Emily Horowitz argued the affirmative and Ms. Marci Hamilton the negative. Even though Dr. Horowitz crafted a well-reasoned argument against the use of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies, Marci Hamilton’s rebuttals highlighted the emotional rhetoric plaguing any serious conversation and reconsideration of SORN policies.

Dr. Horowitz opened by unapologetically declaring that SORN policies are grounded in emotional reasoning that doesn’t help society reckon with sexual wrongdoing. There is no room for accountability in our current retribution-based system of laws. Empirical evidence demonstrates that not only were sex crime rates on the decline prior to the enactment of SORN policies, but they also don’t prevent sexual violence or reduce rates of re-offense. Registries are based on faulty assumptions, create numerous collateral consequences, exacerbate social inequalities, and are inconsistently applied. Dr. Horowitz concluded by remarking that even Patty Wetterling has changed her mind on registries and called on the audience for an open-minded and rational approach to registries.

Read more

Related:

Takeaways from the First-Ever Debate on Sex-Offense Registries [added 2/21/18]

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hey…..Wow!….. I didn’t know all registrants had “150 victims!!!” Marci Hamilton is a quack and part of a larger problem, namely the slow death of the Constitution.

“Prior to the debate 39% voted in the affirmative, 22% in the negative, and 39% were undecided. 72% of the audience closed ranks around Dr. Horowitz after she razed the hastily constructed fortress of feelings about the registry. 16% sided with Ms. Hamilton and 12% were still undecided.”

This shows that getting the right information out there into the mainstream is key to abolishing the registry. What would it take to have a debate like this on mainstream media, especially something like FoxNews where a vast majority of their audience favors the registry and constant additions to the burdens on us?

So there is little to no evidence that a registry prevents recidivism and/or protects the public. Evidence suggest that a registry actually *causes* recidivism–presumably because it hinders a person’s successful reintegration. Yet CASOMB continues to call for a registry that focuses attention to “high” risk offenders. I wonder if the egregious conflict-of-interests, as well as business interests, within CASOMB impacts the decision to back a ‘high’ risk registry.

This was a tough video to watch, solely due to the outlandish statements by Marci Hamilton. Wow. She seems to believe Nasser is the center of the bell curve, not the outlier, and is definitely one of the hair-on-fire people we need to counter. Good job, Emily Horowitz!
*****
Marci Hamilton: “1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused by the time they’re 18. That is a statistic that is confirmed again and again and again.”
—–
Thank you for confirming that RC laws are ineffective.
=====
Paraphrasing: “To be on a registry, you have to have been convicted.”
—–
Thank you for confirming it’s based purely on conviction, meaning it’s retributive (i.e. punitive).
=====
“You know what would be really great? To say there’s no recidivism.”
—–
No sh!t, Sherlock. Name a crime where that wouldn’t be great! What an asinine statement.
=====
Ms. Hamilton comes across as a mean, angry person who will not entertain anything outside what she “knows” to be true, studies be damned. (I got a chuckle when Ms. Horowitz said to her, “that’s rude.”) I wonder what she thinks about Snyder and Muniz, given her allegiance to constitutionality.

They should do a debate about the IML.