As I predicted - although she seemed to try hard her answer to the first part is opinions only without citations to back them up - for instance she says the registry is a tool for law enforcement when a child goes missing - that is her opinion. LE would already have those names and the incident of children missing usually turns up to be false or a parent abduction - but bigger than that the folks that do a child abduction - except in extremely rare instances are NOT folks on the registry.

Rebuttal posted.

She can't find any links to support her arguments, and doesn't believe in government statistics...she's loosing the debate.

Independent - I sent you a PM - see what you think?

the reason she reports that she does not believe in gov't statistics is because she knows the disprove her points!

Last rebuttal and conclusion posted.

Good job! I am impressed~

Great Job!

The primary issue that most people are over looking with the registry is simple and fundamental.
It is unconstitutional.

In the most practical of applications it fails the test of constitutionality.

Meaning, it is not supported by the first fourteen amendments of the US Constitution.

The only claim of support for this registries legality is based on a vague precept that their is a compelling state interest under the tenth amendment.

In reality, the constitution does not provide for the interests of the state to over ride the interests of the people.

The texxt of the 10th amendment says, " Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Those powers are not specified.

States have decided what hose powers are and how they are applied, however, they along with pretty much everyone else have left out the very last and most important part of that amendment. "Or to the People."

Of all rights possessed by the People, Liberty is the most fundamental.

Any law that restricts or hinders the right of the People to Liberty without Due Process of law required by the fifth amendment, is blatantly unconstitutional.

Punishment of any person twice for the same offense is a violation of the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment.

If we look at the historic decisions of the United States Supreme Court, we will see that prior to the politicians taking control of the Judiciary, such things would not be permitted.

Not only were they not permitted to be applied to sex offenders, they were not allowed to be applied to anyone.

Until the Middle of the 20th Century, sentences that contained both prison terms and probation (known as "Split Sentences) were held to be unconstitutional.

The idea that the registry is non punitive, is obvious evidence of ignorance of the United States Constitution.
The only other possible alternative is that the US Constitution is being totally ignored.

The registry is only one part of this issue.

There is also another part of this issue that is not being considered. That part is the number of people that are being falsely convicted simply because it requires no evidence to obtain a conviction in a sex crime allegation.

It only requires that the prosecution be able to frighten the jury to the degree that they will not take a chance of releasing someone who may have "possibly committed a sex offense.

This is a far cry from a conviction obtained on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not all people who have been convicted are innocent by any means. But all who have been convicted are not guilty either.

The judicial system has been seriously compromised and the rights of the people innocent and guilty alike are being violated.

But, in order to fix the punishment portion of these laws, we also have to resolve the problems at trial level.

For those who are skeptical should do a little research, starting with this.

"Wenatchee, Washington, got world attention in 1994-1995, when it found itself in the midst of what was characterized as history's most extensive child sex abuse investigation. Three years later, the investigations had fallen apart amidst accusations of abuses by police and state social workers, and alleged false confessions, badgered child witnesses, and evidence based on the generally discredited "recovered memory" theory. The cases eventually came to be known as the Wenatchee Witch Hunt."

Source; http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7065#

I won't include all of the information, it would take 100,000 words to get it all in here.

My point is this.
Any law that is not constitutional in the United States, can NOT be working to any degree. No matter if the goals are met or not, it is still unconstitutional. That is supposed to be what separates the United States from the rest of the world. "Democracy" A Democracy with laws that are bases on the rights of the People, not on the rights of the states.
Those states rights arguments were removed with the removal of the Articles of Confederation.

When the accused have no rights, then anyone stands to become the accused.

People can debate all they want to for the registry, the simple fact is, it is not constitutional,. It violates the ex post facto rule in many cases, it also violates the double jeopardy clause, it violates the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed under the 5th amendment.

Americans have become the most fearful people on planet earth.
That fear is dictating laws regardless of how little sense they make or how unconstitutional they may be.

In the debate Con said, "Your comment "This sex offender registry is designed to keep strangers away from children, thus it is not effective in the majority of sex crimes against children." That is simply not true. The Registry is not "designed" for anything other than a tool to inform the public of who has been convicted of sexually based crimes. The Registry is not "designed" to SAVE our children or envelope them in a protective coating to eliminate sexual abuse. "

The only legals standing that states have for the registry is that it is designed to protect children and that it is administrative and not punitive since it is designed to protect children, not punish offenders, I would suggest that she read some of the actual case laws and the state laws themselves.

This is simply ignorance and an opinion based on the absence of fact. Unfortunately, the norm now days.

Con also said in the debate, " Most important, it allows those who are most targeted by these crimes the ability to determine the proximity of those who have been convicted of sexually based crimes. It has been determined that only 38% of the general public have accessed their immediate registries. Of those who have and who do it on a regular basis, they have implemented two or more security measures for either their homes and or their children's habits."

I have to think, wow...parents waited until their children were supposedly in danger before the implemented security measures?

We have to understand that laws are not and can not be designed to protect anyone. If they were capable of protecting, there would be no crime !

The only way to protect children, is for parents to use good parenting skills. Even that is no guarantee. Bad things still happen to good people. No matter how diligent we may be.

But, we can reduce the possibility of danger to our families in general, not just our children, if we communicate with each other, consider all possibilities and prepare for the worst while expecting the best.

Con also said in the debate,"The States and the Private sector have equally important compelling interest in maintaining the registry. "

There is no constitutional provision for the private sector to create laws, or any citizens. This would actually be a criminal offense under 18 USC 241.

The only way that the "public sector" can change the constitutional meaning is if we place proposed changes to the Bill Of Rights" on a referendum so that the entire country could vote on those changes.

I believe that if that happened, we would end up with a stronger Bill of Rights than we have now.

People are only concerned with rights, when it is their own rights that are in danger.

ibeentheretoo - you are correct absolutely - from what I understand when the Supreme Court decided is was not punitive the registry was quite different and treated as a civil tool - the problem I cannot get my head around in this is how then the AWA and states in turn have continued to lobby punishments which if federal and state are no longer civil and yet they continue to do it and get away with it.

The answer to that is simple and excusable at the same time.

The Lower Courts are using the existing US Supreme Court ruling to base their decisions for the most part.
Because of the political ramifications, the Supreme Court rarely reverses decisions regardless of what the facts may be.

For example, in DOE v ALASKA, the supreme Court decided that there was no ex-post facto violation because the Alaska law was not punitive.

Getting the Supreme Court to address ex-post facto issues today is basically impossible, because in their minds, that issue has already been decided.

Despite the fact that Doe went back as state level and the Alaska Supreme Court threw out the entire law as punitive and unconstitutional after the US Supreme Court had decided the case.

Basically, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the US Supreme Courts decisions. This is way too rare, but it is happening more than ever and it is happening in SORNA cases.

We are compiling a list of states that have already ruled that the registry laws are unconstitutional regardless of what degree the courts have ruled. Some have ruled the laws are unconstitutional in whole and some in part.

Some states have refused to enact SORNA because of the constitutional issues.

The sorry truth is that politics has eroded our courts. From Trial Courts to the Supreme Court.

To change this, we have to change our constitution,
We have Supreme Court Justices politically appointed for life, regardless of how senile they become they still sit on that court.

They should be elected by the People and they should serve only one four year term in their lifetime.

We would see a difference in the way the Supreme Court considers cases.

The AWA has nothing to do with justice. It is designed to make a name before and never had the basic concept of how a law should be presented as a bill to Congress.

He is also a man who under the AWA should be in prison. He married and under age girl.
The Florida politician who assisted in putting the AWA together was also removed from office for having sex with under aged staff members. He was never tried or convicted for those acts either.

The AWA, SORNA and all of the related laws, are not designed to protect, punish or in the greatest stretch of the imagination supposed to be helpful in correcting the issues.

They are designed to get votes and make a name for people who have far less than qualified experience to make a name on their own merit.

Until the people of this country stand up together in one voice and put aside differences, then we all stand to lose.

The erosion of the US Constitution has not reached completion yet. But, it will in the next two decades. It will become little more than a historic document.

I agree with you - I tell my American History students that the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper with pretty writing on it unless the American people demand the rights contained in it be upheld -

I cannot agree enough with you that the registry should be found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS as an ex post facto punishment. However it is not. Your or my insistence that is does not make it so. The constitution is a living document. Show me where in the constitution it says we have the right to privacy? Or show me the legal theory for Roe v Wade explicitly spelled out in the constitution. You will not find it. That is because constitution and therefore the law is relative to what the current justices decide. It is based on stare decisis but the justices are not bound by anything.

I think that any punishment that continues after someone pay the their debt and completes the punishment adjudicated by a court is cruel, and unusual punishment which is protected by the Constitution It IS punitive under any definition(ex post facto or new) and because it is it must be part of the sentence or vacated - period.

Yeah I'm not saying I disagree with the stance, I clearly agree with it. I'm just saying that the court interprets the law and can do so anyway they see fit. Currently they do not think the registry violates ex post facto laws so it does not according to the law. Whether you agree with that it does is irrelevant because our opinions don't matter, we are not Supreme Court justices with the power to change the law.