Today's (1 September 2012) 15th anniversary of the introduction of the sex offender register brings a surprise present for the very people it was designed to control - and a nasty surprise for anyone with the protection of children at heart.
From today, paedophiles and other criminals who have committed serious sex crimes will be able to appeal against having their names on the register for life.
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a sex offender, including those whose victims were children, has not re-offended for 15 years they can appeal to be taken off the register At a stroke this could make them almost invisible to the authorities whose job is to track them and ensure they do not commit further offences, such as sexual assaults on children or hoarding vast libraries of sickening child abuse images. In effect their dangerous pasts would disappear from view, potentially leaving them free to search for more young victims, both at home and abroad.
But what guarantee is there that they will not abuse again? It is dangerous to rely on re-conviction rates to assess whether a sex offender is still a risk to children. How can we be sure they have not re-offended - maybe they just have not been caught again? And who is to say they will not harm a child again once they are free from the restrictions imposed by the register? In fact, the great majority of child sexual abuse never comes to light and is never prosecuted as the young victims are often too scared to speak out.
Though we understand this legal ruling cannot be overturned, the NSPCC's view is that we can never be sure a sex offender will not re-offend. There is no known 'cure' for adults who sexually abuse children. We can only try to control and contain their behaviour which is why they should stay on the sex offender register for life.
Sex offenders are sophisticated predators. They are manipulative and will often go to great lengths to get close to their potential victims. Some will have abused children many times before they are caught. This is why it is so important that they are closely tracked after their release as there will always be a risk they will abuse again.
Not all child sex offenders receive therapy to address their abusive behaviour and even with those that do, there is no guarantee it will stop them abusing children again, sometimes many years later.
The best way to protect children from known sex offenders is a combination of treatment for offenders in prison. And for the police, and in some cases the probation service, to monitor their movements when they are released into the community. However, we must remember, not all sex offenders have been, or are ever, convicted so it is still vital that the public also take responsibility for protecting children in their community by reporting any concerns to the authorities or the NSPCC.
The UK is only one of four European countries to have a sex offender register and it has made a great contribution to child protection in this country. Nobody is claiming that the register is a silver bullet, but it is still an important weapon in the fight against child abuse. Not only does it help keep paedophiles away from children, it has also increased public understanding and awareness about the way sex offenders operate and the risks they pose.
So even if sex offenders now have the legal right to appeal against being on the register, it is hard to envisage in what cases a successful appeal could be justified. Without undeniable evidence they are no longer a danger to children, surely taking them off the register after such serious offences is too great a risk for society to take. We must never forget how physical and emotional harm from sexual abuse can damage children's lives. The NSPCC believes that justice and protection for children should come above the civil liberties of a convicted sex offender who clearly had no regard for a child's right to be protected from abuse.
Follow Jon Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jonbrown46
Jon Brown: Don't Let Child Protection Myths Spoil a Magical Summer of Sport
However a more serious point is that there are people put on the register who shouldn't be there - such as the 16 year old who has sex with his girlfriend (or vice versa) or the guy caught having a leek and branded a flasher. Because these people get put on the register they should have a right to appeal
Even if 1 child is protected from being abused because of the register isn't that a good thing? Am I the only one that thinks the civil liberties and rights of a child not to be abused should be protected rather than taking a risk on a convicted sex offender that may never be able to stop being sexually attracted to children?
If you really mean enough already, more than 14,000 children would not have been counselled through the NSPCC and more than 500,000 children would not have been able to turn to ChildLine to get advice and help. What is so annoying about that?
Jon, I have guns and I have money. If you take the guns you can also have the money. I couldn't agree with your comments more. But just shoot the b*ggers please.
In escalating order of harm to society and the future of the victims and families: Serial killing, serial rape, and serial paedophilia...
We can either protect the rights of the proven criminal to hope that they break programming and don't repeat offend with these likely-recidivistic crimes; or the rights of the *next* person, who has done nothing wrong, and who we cannot even predict to defend - but not both sets of rights equally, one infringes the other. These three crimes, should be treated as guilty until proven innocent (but with strong public-monitored controls to prevent abuses of that, and harsh punishments for proven slanders) and should be prioritised in prisons as permanent prisoners.
Just me?
What it will mean is that anyone who doesn't want to live near a previous offender will simply call the police, tell them he did something and get rid of him at taxpayer's expense.
If these people indeed have a compulsive disorder, they would hardly be able to go 15 years without reoffending. So the whole issue of this regulation would be moot. But claiming that there is no known "cure", as the article does, is really misleading. Forensic psychotherapy exists, and the fact that we cannot be 100% sure if the treatment worked in a given case doesn't mean that the treatment doesn't work period. We don't know for sure if the treatment worked in many cases of cancer either.
And your example has ignored me saying strong public-monitored controls... You're just saying "no" without hearing the argument, it seems to me... Now there would be problems, yes - but we could solve *those* problems, instead of trying and failing to solve the *current* problems of repeat offense (not so much serial killing in this country, but the other two)...The difference between the cancer example and the paedophilia one is obvious and the crux of my argument: The cancer is affecting just one person, and knowingly trying to do something about it... (i think you picked a daft example, but i do truly know what you were trying to get at!) The paedophilia one risks the *next* innocent person's rights against defending the current proven-guilty person's right to *maybe* rehabilitate with a treatment that cannot make a guarantee (and the odds that it does provide aren't hot, either.) The *nature* of the crime being not what someone does but what they are is what could maybe flip the best way of handling it in these three instances...?
This argument is the same false argument holding back euthanasia in this country. Put a panel of judges and public monitoring on it - and bink! Job done, public protected from the "thin end of the wedge" getting pushed in any further than we want it. No need for us to panic. We already guard the line here. We can guard the line there.
And we're not talking about first-time offenders here, so the presumption of innocence is/could be considered negated by the severity of the crime and the likelihood of biological-imperative-inspired recidivism (what they *are*, not what they do)... So: Clear delineation (justifiable), clear public representation (rights protected) and logically defending the reason why we have laws in the first place... There are things wrong with my idea here - i do know that - but let's fix *those* wrongs, rather than leave unchecked *these* wrongs in the current system, and either way: what you call wrong in my theory, just ain't there, excellent good buddy.