Argument: 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 1: "Those same studies suggest that individuals do little extra to protect themselves, as they consider sexual offences to be suitably rare that they can plausibly tell themselves it won't happen to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that most sexual offences are committed by someone who the victim knows. If they already know the person, they are likely to consider them a limited threat, as the popular perception of sexual offences is still one of an offence committed by a stranger. Furthermore, people tend to be highly trusting of their own impression of people. Finally, the harms from never engaging with former sex offenders in a community are set out at Opposition Argument TWO."
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: "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 4: "The option given to the police and victim to not disclose the information undermines the principled claim in Proposition Argument Two that people should be free to determine the importance of the information on their own; this denies them that freedom in some cases. Given cases where there is a risk of vigilantism are the ones which excite the most public feeling, these cases may be the ones which people feel are most important to know about."
Candidate 5: "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 6: "Freedom is not an absolute good; only something that typically advances overall utility, as we understand that people are normally better placed to maximise their utility, being the only ones with knowledge of their desires and values. This, however, is not such a case – as the opposition arguments below suggest, this causes harmful consequences that outweigh any claimed benefits of utility. Furthermore, this area seems to be one where the police are better placed to determine the importance of the information, given their expertise in offending and re-offending , and especially given the tendency on behalf of the public to panic, and place more importance on past convictions than it factually requires."
Candidate 7: "Firstly, within relationships; a person looking to commit such an offence is unlikely to be deterred because they expect that, because of the existence of the relationship, they will not be convicted of such an offence. Also, sexual offences against a partner are often an expression of a dominating power within a relationship. In such a case, the offender does not expect the offence to be reported due to the control (s)he holds over the victim. As such, the size of the penalty is less important, as they do not expect to receive it.

The second circumstance such offences are committed is against a stranger, typically in public. When a person is willing to act in breach of such clear moral norms, they are less likely to be concerned about this being published broadly, and so the deterrent will be weaker.

These are exacerbated by the fact that many sexual offences are committed in times of passion, where a person’s decision making is focused heavily on the short-term – and so the possibility of a future shaming is not taken into account, and deterrence does not occur.

Finally, it is unrealistic to claim prison is a weak deterrent; the removal of liberty matters to almost everyone, and the difficult conditions of prison are well-known, particularly amongst repeat offenders."
Candidate 8: "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."

Those same studies suggest that individuals do little extra to protect themselves, as they consider sexual offences to be suitably rare that they can plausibly tell themselves it won't happen to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that most sexual offences are committed by someone who the victim knows. If they already know the person, they are likely to consider them a limited threat, as the popular perception of sexual offences is still one of an offence committed by a stranger. Furthermore, people tend to be highly trusting of their own impression of people. Finally, the harms from never engaging with former sex offenders in a community are set out at Opposition Argument TWO.
