Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jon Brown

GET UPDATES FROM Jon Brown
 

Wrong Right to Appeal for Sex Offenders

Posted: 01/09/2012 01:00

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

FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:17 PM on 09/03/2012
I just cannot believe this. While in principle I agree that criminals should get a second chance at life after serving their time, I cannot agree that paedophiles should get another chance at harming children. Most of the literature these days says that paedophiles have a disease, one that they struggle with for life. How can the police monitor these "sufferers" and prevent them from harming other innocents if they get taken off the register after 15 years. I am actually sickened by this! i would happily sign a petition to get this law changed back!
04:36 PM on 09/03/2012
I completely support the NSPCC views on this matter. I think how are we ever going to protect children against sexual abuse if the pedophiles and sex offenders are taken of the register? I believe that it is really important that as a society we take every given opportunity to protect children from pedophiles and sex offenders and therefore the sex offenders register is something that can help prevent them from getting to children in the first place. I just think its really shocking that pedophiles should even be given the opportunity to apply to be taken off it, its just disgusting.
10:19 AM on 09/02/2012
Has it not occurred to anyone that the CRB clearance must be a "nonce's dream"? We now live in a society where if one sees a child fall it is deemed unwise to aid them. That, truly, is sick.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
10:47 PM on 09/01/2012
I agree. Paedophiles are highly devious individuals, and will spend years patiently grooming indivuals and their families. They are not to be trusted, they are ill. It's a mental health issue, relapses into deviant behaviour is highly likely once scrutiny is removed.
07:23 PM on 09/01/2012
I disagree. It seems to me that being clean for 15 years, while undergoing the kind of scrutiny registered offenders get, is very good evidence they are no longer a threat and is a good time to allow an appeal.
10:00 AM on 09/01/2012
My opinion is that no one in a society will be safe once that society decides that human rights only apply to the people they think deserve it. The law is there to protect everyone in a society and there has to be a presumption of innocence. Societies that proceed on a presumption of guilt for selected groups are on a slippery road to totalitarianism. Don't forget that the new law allows appeals after 15 years, but each case will be considered on it's own merits - there will not be an automatic right of removal form the register.
06:52 PM on 09/01/2012
The thing is, if a person is straight, then surely they will always be straight, and if they are gay, they will always be gay. This leads to the obvious conclusion that if someone is sexually attracted to children then they will always be sexually attracted to children, and therefore always a risk. Length of time then becomes irrelevant, and so removal from the register is wrong due to the danger that they represent.
08:12 AM on 09/01/2012
An emotional article that overlooks the fact that a right to appeal against a decision does not mean a right to get it overturned.

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
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NOSHER
01:17 PM on 09/01/2012
i agree mate but these peodos should not be able to appeal i thimk the lot should be shot it will sav e the country some money and make it a safer place ,there no excuse for that scum
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Laatab
All The Worlds A Stage
07:55 AM on 09/01/2012
These people are just propagators of hysteria.
This comment has been removed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
06:40 PM on 08/31/2012
Sex Police on the march... Generally, the impression is that government is in another growth cycle, and one of the things they'd like to control for you, is your reproductive future. Which kind of brings that Planned Parenthood-office-y thing back into question, what does that place do, really? I think more than anything, this is all pursuant to the Stay Away From My Teenage Caucasian Daughter Act, of 2008, mostly. There's some folks out there, that have some pretty bent thoughts, but there's also the idea of parents being responsible for their kids, and throwing all the pot convictions out of prison to make way for things like rape convictions and people with violent sexual histories, possibly themselves having been rape/abuse victims in the past. Best policing of this issue, is at the parent level. There's people in this country, in this world, that are sexually 'hard up'. They're horny, and they can't get no satisfaction. If there wasn't, there would be no multibillion-dollar annual income porn industry. It's the issue of personal maturity and self-control that is at-issue here, more than anything. Well, that and job security from sneaking around and planting bugs and spy-cams in people's homes, and jailbait entrapment strategies, and then emergency services has to be called to pull the law enforcement professional out of the cheerleader...
01:05 PM on 09/01/2012
"Best policing of this issue, is at the parent level". Considering the amount and severity of child abuse that goes on in the home, I wonder what issue you are thinking of here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richie2012
Your micro bio is empty.
05:59 PM on 08/31/2012
" the NSPCC's view is that we can never be sure a sex offender will not re-offend."

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.
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
04:59 PM on 08/31/2012
Three crimes, because of their inherent recidivism (built out of the cause of the crime is not choice, so much as compulsion and a natural tendency to the crime in their genetic/psychological make-up) and the severity of the effect on society, i contend should be treated as special-circumstance-crimes; reversing the balance of probabilities because of the higher likelihood of compulsion to commit the crime, and the crime being not what the person *does* but what the person *is*...
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?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
08:38 PM on 08/31/2012
Guilt by accusation? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You cannot introduce "harsh punishment for proven slander" because you cannot have two distinct punishments for the same crime - slander.

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.
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
08:51 PM on 08/31/2012
Of course you can... we draw distinctions between the penalties of a first-time offender or a repeat offender, between murder and manslaughter, and as long as we draw up clear rules for delineation...?  Of course we could.
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 comment has been removed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:41 AM on 09/01/2012
Sorry mate, I understand your point of view, but there has to be a presumption of innocence. The effect of changing that would be worse on society overall than the cumulative effects of all the serial murders, serial rapists and nonces put together.
photo
Lykos
Nobody Never Eat No Fifty Eggs
01:00 PM on 09/01/2012
We guard the line here. We can just as easily guard the line *there*.
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.