CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
29
Yes No
Debate Score:69
Arguments:37
Total Votes:77
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (19)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

KingOfPopForever(6900) pic



Should Sex Offenders be able to get Custody of Kids?

Serious Topic!

Yes

Side Score: 40
VS.

No

Side Score: 29
8 points

It depends on the offense. There are some people who are sex offenders because of technicalities like having sex with someone who was underage, even when they were both in high school. That shouldn't prohibit those kinds of offenders from gaining custody.

Side: yes
4 points

The issue of the sex offender registry is that just about any type of person can be a registered a sex offender. There are children in Middle School who become registered sex offender for celebrating "slap butt" day. I used to do that shit... i was at risk of becoming a sex offender.

As for what Maholinder brought up, this is another issue. In some states, having sex with a 17 year old while you're 18 can make you a registered sex offender.

Clearly, we do not have our priorities correctly lined. I do not support Megan's Law. It is an attack on our privacy and has ruined many lives. If the issue is keeping children away from actual predators, we should focus our resources on taking down actual child rapists and enough with this speculative punishment.

Ideals of "Zero Tolerance" and "The Law is the Law" are counter-productive and examples of totalitarianism.

Side: yes

If they can prove that they will not be repeat offenders, then yes, if not, then no. The problem is it is hard to prove after the first offense.

Side: yes

If they have served the time for their offence, then we have no grounds to refuse sex offenders custody. We have a presumption of innocence, we must assume that someone who has paid his debt to society will follow the law. There should however be checks on the children simply for safety, but we can't refuse custody.

Side: yes
MrObvious(45) Disputed
2 points

You would support a chid molester leaving prison and getting custody of their children, simply because he did his time? I understand your basic premise of the person paid their debt to society so the slate should be wiped clean. I got it. I agree with that on certain crimes, but not crimes against children.

I know individuals who fit this description and the themselves admit that they should never be left alone with children. Just as a felon cannot own firearms, certain crimes come with life long consequences attached, regardless of the fact that they did their time.

Side: No
2 points

"You would support a chid molester leaving prison and getting custody of their children, simply because he did his time?"

Yes, that is the whole reason for sentencing jail time, inmates being punished in the hopes of becoming law abiding members of society.

" I agree with that on certain crimes, but not crimes against children."

As much as you may not like it, the inmates rights are above your opinion. Sex offenders need to pass a test just to be allowed to live in a populated area. If they pass the test, they have every right to live normal lives. Refusing custody based on past action is wrong.

"I know individuals who fit this description and the themselves admit that they should never be left alone with children."

Good for them that they know their boundaries and limits. Those limits do not apply to, nor should be bound to, other past offenders.

" certain crimes come with life long consequences attached, regardless of the fact that they did their time."

Yes life long consequences can be attached, custody should not be one of them. As I said, we have a legal obligation to uphold the presumption of innocence. Until an action is done, or is suspected of being done, we have no grounds for the refusal of custody to past inmates who have served their time.

Side: yes
Cloudyeyes(20) Disputed
2 points

That's a rare case. A child molester would serve enough time that his or her children would be adults by the time they'd get out of prison.

Side: yes
1 point

It depends on what the offense is. When people think of sex offenders, for some reason, they'll automatically think of child molesters. Sex offenders are also comprised of teenagers getting caught "sexting," prostitutes and their Joes, and people urinating in public.

"Sex offender" is a very broad topic that shouldn't have a blanket law draped across it. It would harm a vast majority of people, more-so than for those it was intended to protect. For example, if a teenager was caught sexting with another teenager, this means that teenager, who was caught, would be charged with child pornography, which means that they would need to register as a sex offender for the rest (or a vast majority) of their lives. This means they wouldn't be able to have a child, once they leave prison, and would basically be banned from living in a city. Anyone see how wrong that would be?

"Sex offense" is an extremely sticky topic that deserves many different definitions in its cases and circumstances.

Side: yes

It depends completely upon the offence. If it is indeed something major, then no they should not assuming they have not changed (If they even could.) If it is however something much lighter like accidentally having sex with someone underage when you were told they were not so young then yes it should be allowed. While with the minor causes to be labeled a sex offender they should have checked into things a tad more it should not prohibit them from taking custody of children.

Side: yes
6 points

I am going to say no and add a caveat. It depends upon the crime. If the person was incarcerated for child molestation then obviously no. It would be ridiculous, to say the least, to put children back in harms way claiming that the person has paid their debt to society. You don't take a recovering alcoholic and put a beer in front of them. When a person breaks the law, regardless of time served, there are life-long repercussions.

There are many crimes that get the "tag" sex crime. The person could have been 19 and slept with a 17 year old. The parents got ticked off and pressed charges and now that person is labeled a sex offender for the rest of their life.

Side: No
1 point

no but it depends on the offence it is just hard to trust people after they commit such a crime

Side: No
1 point

The problem is with the vagueness of sex laws, born or puritan bs plaguing our judicial system.

A child molester in the real sense, as in an actual adult with an actual child should never get custody.

Most registered "sex offenders" are 19 year olds or 18 year olds who had sex with a sophomore or freshman their senior year. That's retarded and a tragic miscarriage of justice, and if it were not for all the idiot voters who just need to hear the word "sex" to vote "no" maybe we could change some of these injustices in our system.

Side: No
1 point

Hell no! :(

Side: No