Ahhhhh!!! Help please?!?!?

Question

OK, so in my debate class we need to write speeches. Now, I have to write a NEGATIVE speech on making sex offenders not able to live within 5 miles of any schools or preschools. I can't think of any reasons they should be able to besides it would infringe on their rights.. Any help guys?

I don't agree with it either, but I still have to do my mock congress pseech on not passing the law. This is a law to basically HELP child molestors.. I say we killem all but hey, that's me. I gotta go against it though.. Givem rights.. I was thinking maybe I'll make it funny and be like "According to NAMbLA, love between a man and a boy is perfectly natural!!!".

Answer 1

You could look at how easy it is for people to be wrongly placed on the sex offenders list & how hard it is for them to get off that list. Ex. Ohio is considering legislation that would allow ordinary folks to put others on the sex offender list without that person ever having been accused of a crime.

And here's a case where two under-age kids were both put on the sex offenders list for consentual sex, a crime that neither of them could legally consent to in the first place. These two teens will be "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives?

You also might take issue with the "5 miles" portion. Exactly where does that mean sex offenders can live? In any urban area, most schools are placed less than five miles apart. So are we suggesting a mass exodus of sex offenders into rural areas? Have the rural areas been consulted on this plan?

You may want to start your argument by making it clear that you do not harbor any sympathy for true sex offenders. Don't let the affirmative side make the argument be about how terrible sex offenders are: they'll win that argument. Instead, make that a non-issue by agreeing on that point. Also, don't let the argument be about how severe the punishment should be for sex offenses, or how we must keep our kids safe: they'll win those points if you let them. Instead, mention alternative punishment ideas and monitoring ideas that would be more effective and less constitutionally questionable (i.e. being punished twice for the same crime.)

Just some thoughts.

Answer 2

Well I do agree with you but I do see the point of the assignment.
Some ideals:
1.) Most of the sex offenders were convicted of "Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" and NOT "Rape". (So if they didnt commit crimes against children under 12 and the charge was not rape then they should Not have restrictions on where they live.)
2.) We dont place living restrictions on people convicted of murder and such crimes.
3.) Depending on where you live you could argue that there are lots of schools in your school district and that makes it soo much harder for them to find a place to live.
4.) You could debate that It's already going to be complicated for them to get a job. Placing restrictions on where they can live is only going to help force them back into the life of crime.
I am not saying I agree with any of those statements. However I do see the point of the debate and the assignment your asked to do. So I thought id give you some suggestions.
5.) They have paid for their mistakes/crimes and our justic system gives others second changes so why not them.
6.) They are allowed to be near a school just not allowed to live near a school. Which is kinda pointless.
7.) They are going to be monitored.
8.) Anyone can commit a sex crime It dont have nothing to do with the location in which they reside.
9.) That violates their rights.
10.) Do they say they people who rob stores are NOT allowed to go into ANY store from that point on? No they dont they can only bar them from that store and others stores owned by that store/company. So that is segeration in a way.
11.) Some of the people on the sex offender lists are or was 18 when they got charged with "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" and their girfriend/boyfriend was 16 or17 at the time.
12.) Some of the cases it was consential sex not rape. So there shouldnt be a limit on the ones that the only way the law was broke was do to age. (Age shouldnt matter as long as both parties love each other and are wise enough to make their own decsions in life. How can we put an age on when one person matures?)
13.) They already make them register as "sex offenders" and in most states or all states they also mail out letters to the neighborhood the live in and school they are closet to making them aware of it. So what is the purpose of restricting where they can live at?

Answer 3

A negative speech? You mean you have to take the opposite position? If the school was within 5 miles of their only possible places of employment, then the law would keep them from finding jobs, and you can't keep them from working in their fields or trades. It the only affordable neighborhoods in a 5 mile radius also have schools within the same 5 mile radius, then you can't force someone to live above their income, or force them to commute an unreasonable distance to work. Basically, the government cannot deny anyone reasonable access to food, shelter, employment, or medical care, and if schools are within that range, then that's just too bad.

Answer 4

It would discriminate against rural areas. In densely populated cities, if you drew a 10 mile diameter circle around every school, you'd exclude the entire city, leaving only rural areas. This dumps society's burdens that should be shared proportionately on one segment.

How's that?

Answer 5

I don't think you would be able to live in any city if 5 miles was the range. which might be a good idea get them out in the country with the farm animals.

Answer 6

I don't agree that they should be allowed to live in the area but how about these ideas:
They will be closely monitored
They've paid their due to society
Perhaps, their families live in that area (convenience factor)
Perhaps, they really are rehabilitated (I doubt it but just for the sake of your report)
It is their right to live where they choose

Answer 7

yes, as terms of probation. if they err a second time, then there will never be a third time!! gas chamber, rope, headsman's axe, firing squad, ole sparky