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