Table of contentsIntroductionBackgroundAffirmative argumentsRebuttalOpposing argumentConclusionBibliographyIntroductionWith the reality that sexual predators are dangerous and extremely repeat offenders, the empirical question is whether Australia should implement public registration of sex offenders, to increase public safety. and deter crime. However, does this public notification system achieve its objective? The current debate provides an in-depth definition of sex offender registries (SORs) and public sex offender registries (PSORs), when they were created, and how they operate. The discussion then addresses the arguments for PSORs, which include an increase in public safety and an increased response to sex offender arrests. Next comes the rebuttal and opposing arguments, which include vigilantism and recidivism. The principles of punishment are used throughout the debate to reinforce the affirmative and opposing sides; retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the sociological theories of Émile Durkheim, Critical Perspectives and Contemporary Perspectives. Finally, the debate concludes on whether or not Australia should adopt a public sex offender registry. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayBackgroundAn SOR is a system used in several countries that allows law enforcement to record the actions of sex offenders after the expiration of their sentence. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission operates an online application process to manage records and distribute registrant data between police services (ACIC 2016). PSORs are a step above SORs and include Megan's Law in the United States, which uses the distribution of identifying information and personal information about criminal offenders and provides it to the public. Megan's Law was passed across America in 1996, after seven-year-old Megan Kanka was sexually assaulted and killed in July 1994 by a neighbor with a record of sexual offenses against children. Since then, SORs have existed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel and the Republic of Ireland . Although only the United States has implemented a public sex offender registry, 2012 saw several moves towards a PSOR in Western Australia. SOR and SORN procedures are used to help law enforcement reduce sexual offenses and improve community protection. Affirmative Arguments PSOR laws center on community protection, around the idea that communities can protect themselves by notifying convicted sex offenders in the area. Supporters of PSOR say that providing children with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid dangerous situations may be the most effective tool for protecting the public. PSORs appear to be useful in encouraging those who use them to be concerned about their safety and to implement standard prevention measures. Taylor (2017) conducted a web-based survey of 162 users of Western Australia's online records. Around 67% of those surveyed supported an Australian PSOR, 65% thought the community had a right to know if sex offenders resided in their neighborhood, while 56% thought the community had a right to know the identity of all those registered. The PSOR is probablythe result of community members feeling empowered and able to make informed decisions, based on available information. “Deterrence” as a principle of punishment is often seen as an economic model of social control. Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) declared: “To prevent crime, it is necessary to improve and publish the laws…”. Karl Marxist's sociological theory of critical perspectives implies that rules were the codified means by which one class, the rulers, controlled another class, also believing in promoting conformity and order. Registered sex offenders are caught and detained more quickly for additional offenses than those who are not registered (Schram & Milloy, 1995). This finding undoubtedly has positive effects for public protection, as several reports have demonstrated that SORN has a general deterrent impact on unconvicted and first-time sex offenders. This may be due to increased community awareness and surveillance, increased policing efforts, and the perceived threat of being named and shamed on a public record. Létourneau et al. (2010) studied crime trends in South Carolina, USA, and found that SORN reduced the number of first-time sex offenders by 11 percent between 1995 and 2005. “Deterrence” as that principle of punishment is essential to rational choice approaches to crime control, as claimed by general deterrence techniques. that criminal figures are regulated by the risk of punishment. Sociological theory from contemporary perspectives holds that threat assessment of offenders prevents and reduces their risk. The actuarial approaches of Simon and Feeley (1992, 1994) assert that “a fundamental characteristic of actuarial justice is its dependence on the concept of risk”. Thus, informing community members of the whereabouts of convicted offenders reduces the likelihood of crime.Rebuttal "The public's 'right to know' must be weighed against the potential social costs of Megan's Law for communities, as well as for sex offenders who are trying to successfully reintegrate. in society (Levenson & Cotter, 2005). The implementation of SORs provokes knee-jerk reactions born of public anger at the pervasiveness of sexual assault, with implications for the offender, their family and, therefore, the public. Although reducing recidivism is generally considered the goal, a crucial element of SORN involves protecting the public. While several media opinion surveys have gauged support for a PSOR in Australia, fewer than one in five respondents believed the registry would prevent child sexual abuse (14%). Around 23% said it would help police detect more sex offenders, and only 23% thought the system made them feel safe (Daniel Morcombe Foundation, 2016). The question is therefore an empirical one as to whether Australia should adopt a nationwide public sex offender registry. “Rehabilitation” as a principle of punishment focuses on changing attitudes and behavioral problems. Sanctions should be structured to fit the criminal rather than the crime, with the goal of reintegrating the individual into a productive position in society (Miethe and Lu, 2005). Emile Durkheim's sociological method proposes that communities have models and behaviors external to any individual, which attempt to understand the function of social facts. Restitution is crucial because it repairs theold interactions that have been disrupted from their usual form. Opposing Arguments PSORs include several collateral consequences arising from SORs that result in strict punishment for violators. Given the practical challenge of releasing from prison and transitioning to normal life, many offenders view PSORs as additional prison time, resulting from the obstacles that accompany these records. This negative cycle is characterized by an increase in social segregation. This is the result of an escalating moral panic, where the community recognizes an epidemic of sex crimes that makes them more aware of these predators. Previous studies have found that a decrease in social capital and a violation of social connections to the community are strongly associated with mental health problems and recidivism. This segregation restricts an offender's ability to establish and maintain relationships with friends and family, thereby limiting an enrollee's ability to easily access valuable community resources. Contrary to the intention of PSORs to reduce sexual offending, research has shown that they can increase offenders' motivation to reoffend due to lifestyle instability, psychological and emotional damage, lack of support, of isolation and shame. Given labeling theory, the sex offender label assigned to these individuals may lead to internalization and acceptance of society's perception of them as sexual predators, which would lead to additional offenses (Whitting , Day & Powell, 2014). Crime was thought to originate either in internal pathological deficiencies or in external social inequalities. Therefore, “rehabilitation” as a principle of punishment is often seen as a defect in the individual that can be corrected, while the offender is the defect. The sociological theory of Karl Marxist's critical perspective asserts that crimes are committed exclusively by the lower class and minorities, because the lower class is more likely to be pursued, captured and labeled as criminals, and treated more harshly by the system of criminal justice (CJS). ).Clinical psychologists argue that environmental factors are considered relevant in reducing the risk of recidivism, reducing stress levels, obtaining employment, and overcoming denial (Whitting, Day & Powell, 2014). However, these factors are more likely to be put at risk by PSORs, due to fear of retaliation against the offender and their family. Critics of PSORs often point to the potential for widespread public scrutiny and concerns about the physical safety of registered sex offenders. In Britain, a popular newspaper, News of the World, launched a "name and shame" campaign after the sexual assault and murder of a young girl, publishing the names, addresses and photos of the attackers (Terry, 2015). This campaign resulted in a series of vigilante attacks and lynchings, leading to arson, gang bashing, and destruction of property. Policy makers and law enforcement should therefore be aware of the potential for various forms of dangerous actions related to a PSOR and consider whether Australia should adopt a public sex offender registry. When societies were predominantly tribal, the most dominant form of punishment took the form of “an eye for an eye.” Thus, the retributivist seeks the punishment that the criminal deserves, the punishment that society has the right to inflict. Michel Foucault's sociological theory of contemporary perspectives analyzes the relationship between, 27, 667-691.