How do you vote? The website has changed and I can't figure out how to vote. This is a no brainer. Ms. Horowitz provided a great and thorough argument. Mr. Federman didn't seem to have any argument at all, just a general dislike of sex offenders, or even just the concept of it.

There was a part in this debate where I had to pause the podcast and shout in my car it was so ridiculous. When asked by John why sex offenders are treated so differently (e.g. there's not a life-long registry for murderers) his response was "well, people really don't like the idea of a 13 year old being raped by a 35 year old", but that's the entire point of the question! If the same 35 year old murders that 13 year old, but doesn't rape them, then they serve time for murder and *are never put on any registry*. The question was "Why are offenders of this crime treated this way and no one else is?" and his answer was "Because, they committed this crime and not another one." Quite possibly the most intellectually-bankrupt response I've heard on this podcast. Also another point, he kept saying that these laws were enacted as a show of great democratic systems, but quite literally explained their advent as a small group of 100 or so parents of sexually assaulted children reaching out to their elected representatives to lobby them on their special interest. I'd say it's an excellent example of a common person being able to bring an issue before their government and get some sort of adjudication or assistance on it, but it's not like these laws were widely discussed and debated and crafted with input from multiple stakeholders. I highly doubt many justice reform advocates were requested for their input on how these laws would affect our growing carceral system or if there could be some backfire in how broadly they classify a registerable offense, as an example. I'm not saying these laws wouldn't pass a referendum vote, but pretending that they are well-crafted voices of our democracy is just ignorant, and to be honest they feel much more like retribution and revenge, which is never a good place for a justice system to be.

Dr. Federman did not do a great job advocating against the motion. But didn't Emily make the case by arguing that those on the registry are less likely to re-offend and easier to convict if they do? Isn't that the point? And is it an all or nothing thing? Couldn't we remove some offenders (e.g., Romeo and Juliet cases or when offenses occured decades before) while keeping a tool that many voters, particularly parents, want?

Cary was disrespectful, incoherent. Unsure why he wasn't just cut out of the debate when that became clear.

"robust, well thought out arguments" - I wonder that John Donvan was able to get the words out with a straight face! This was one of the worst debates I've ever slogged through...the no position offered nothing more than proof by assertion for a "deterence" effect, even asserting that deterrence didn't really mean any kind of deterrent effect.