Argument: Who commits sexual offences?

As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction.

This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them.

1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,

Candidate 1: "Firstly, given the low % of offenders who commit serious crimes within 6 years is around 10%1, this seems like it may be a marginal issue.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that people who already know someone will stop associating with them merely because of their stigmatization. Family, for example, tend to be very forgiving, as are close friends, who are likely to believe their long-term view of somebody is more accurate and to forgive a mistake. Such people will be able to ensure a person is not alienated from all society.

This may also be a benefit; if an offender has a tendency to commit sexual offences within relationships, it may be useful to limit his relationships (or at least warn their partner of such a tendency), such that this is not likely to occur again.

Finally, it can be shown that if this policy does increase the deterrent effect to first-time offenders, this may be more important. This is because some people will be prevented from ever being imprisoned, associating with other prisoners, and acquiring a criminal record"
Candidate 2: "Clearly, vigilantism is a problem; however, the proviso in the policy should act to limit this, as where there is a threat of harm the information will not be released. Furthermore, it will be possible to offer people under threat police protection. Finally, a strong justice system is likely to limit vigilantism, as people perceive justice as being done, and are therefore less likely to resort to acts of individual violence."
Candidate 3: "This helps people protect themselves and their families

People can use the information about the offenders in their area to ensure this. It is especially useful to have a modus operandi; if a local offender is known for typically abducting people walking on their own at night, people can alter their behaviour to ensure they always have company, or get a taxi after dark. More direct measures can be taken, by avoiding contact with that person, or avoiding entering into a close relationship with them. Furthermore, more general measures can be taken to be more vigilant, install better locks, and avoid leaving vulnerable people alone. Some studies1 suggest that there is an increase in measures taken to protect other people where this information is given.

1 Zgoba, K., "Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy", December 2008,"
Candidate 4: "How this would work

This policy involves an active disclosure campaign, through websites and the newspapers, where a sex offender has their name, their photo, their address and the nature of their crime published on a website, or in the local media. It may include poster campaigns about individuals for particularly serious crimes, with the aim of both informing people and causing shame. It may be sensible to allow the police to not disclose the information in the following circumstances; 1) where a significant risk of vigilantism exists, 2) where it is against the wishes of the victim, and 3) where it may jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. Early studies showed that Megan's law in the United States had high rates of voluntary compliance, between 70 and 80% and rising, proving that the policy is practical1.

1 Simpson, Rachel, ''Megan's law' and other forms of sex-offender registration', NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper NBo. 22/99, November 1999,"
Candidate 5: "The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.

All states in some way limit individual freedoms, by requiring them to follow laws and enforcing these laws with the coercive power of the state. However, such limits can be justified in so far as they advance others freedoms; limiting Person A's freedom to kill enhances Person B's freedom to live. States therefore derive their legitimacy to deny freedoms from their advancement of overall freedom. This policy enhances the freedom of people to defend themselves and their family by providing them with information about offenders (see Argument Three), and allows them to determine for themselves the importance of that information1.

1 law.jrank.org, 'Sex Offences"
Candidate 6: "While such an argument may act to limit the value of the deterrent effect, it does not completely remove it; there will remain some additional deterrence to some potential perpetrators of sexual offences. This is because some potential offenders will consider the potential harm to themselves of their action, and a greater potential harm will mean they are less likely to commit these offences."
Candidate 7: "This acts as a deterrent.

Knowing that, if they commit an offence, their name, photograph, and a description of their crimes will be widely published deters people from committing the offence in the first place and equally of reoffending. Firstly, this is because there are strong moral norms preventing such behaviour; this policy acts not only to reinforce those moral norms (by clearly designating people who commit such an offence as being worthy of shaming), it also increases the consequences of breaching such norms. Specifically, potential offenders will realise the harm this may cause to their personal relationships, and any future relationships – these are typically things people value, and so people will act to minimise this harm. Further, if someone is willing to commit a sexual offence, it is reasonable to assume they value sexual encounters. Such publication may limit their opportunity to access such encounters in the future, and therefore the policy aims to operate such as to minimise what a person desires should they commit a crime.

It is perhaps useful to compare this deterrent to the deterrent offered by prison. It can be argued that the deterrent of prison is a weak one, because there is an information problem – people do not know how bad prison is. This is exacerbated by media narratives that suggest prison is a soft touch, even the Prison Officers Association in the UK claims jail is too soft. [1] This may be especially true for those of the socioeconomic background who are more likely to commit criminal offences; they are probabilistically poorer and less likely to have a job, so the harms of prison (loss of freedom, harming job prospects) may seem less important.

[1] Knapton, 2008"

While such an argument may act to limit the value of the deterrent effect, it does not completely remove it; there will remain some additional deterrence to some potential perpetrators of sexual offences. This is because some potential offenders will consider the potential harm to themselves of their action, and a greater potential harm will mean they are less likely to commit these offences.
