Child Sexual Exploitation - Assignment Example

?Child Sexual Exploitation Portfolio By Child Sexual Exploitation Sharing Of Information between Agencies When it comes to sharing of information between agencies in preventing and detecting of child sexual abuse offences, it has not been an easy road. Thus, in Australia just like UK privacy laws mostly impede communication and cooperation involving government child welfare agencies, and non-government organisations to work effectively. There are inconsistencies in the way in which such laws are, in addition to having principles that are impractical. This brings about confusion between the agencies as well as obstacles to information sharing. For instance, a report by the Victorian ombudsmen in Australia, revealed that child protection personnel do have false beliefs concerning their limits under the Information Privacy Act and in most instances they end up not revealing identity of offenders or the child victims to the Police when allegations of sexual abuse arises (Australian Government, 2012). This is also true in UK whereby the child protection departments do not offer their personnel sufficient training, guidance or even resources to make certain a suitable phase of privacy compliance is taken into consideration, in relation to collection, application and revelation of personal information regarding alleged offenders or the child (National Council to educe Violence against Women and their Children, 2009, p. 2011). Likewise, the UK faces the same challenges whereby the agencies concerned with child protection are reactive rather than preventive in most cases. It takes a long time for the information concerning a particular child sex abuse investigation with approach to be taken, from being defined based on the problem presented. The police and the social work service do not effectively share or jointly assess all of their relevant information during the initial planning. Planning ought to take into consideration the needs of and danger to the child, in particular the medical information (Dewar, 1998, p 5). The same case is in South Africa whreby child welfare agencies are not colloborating effectively under a common framework using the three-pronged strategy of prevention, safeguard and prosecution. The agencies in most instances do not possess a shared consideration of the predicament of child sexual exploitation (South African Human Rights Commission, 2002, p. 16) For instance, in the case of Martin Jenkins, care workers were aware that Martin Jenkins had sex with the mispers whilst at the flat and that Martin Jenkins would only allow this to happen if the girls performed oral sex on him, but such information was not disclosed acted upon by the police until when PV1 made an official complaint with the police even though the care workers knew about it. Unlike in Australia UK professionals interacting with the child even though they are aware of the developing awkward behaviours, do not make collaborate effectively to make referral to suitable agencies, due to restrictive privacy laws. The screening process does not lead to risk assessments having high rate of correctness, and as such the risk instruments result in inappropriately high phases of false positives (Munro, 2007). In terms of multi-agency workings, differences do exist in the manner in which child exploitation professionals, evaluate what is considered to be conventional and what is not, in particular where individual organisations feels that there are issues that need to be addressed. For these agencies to be effective, the collective responsibility should involve an overlap or integration of roles, whereby Communication is at every level of working. Emphasis should be placed on effective information allotment, cooperation and understanding involving agencies and notable professional when it comes to promoting the children well-being plus safeguarding them from sexual exploitation (Atkinson & et tal, 2002, p. 3). Infra-Structure to Support Victims According to a research conducted by the “International Centre for the Study of Sexually Exploited and Trafficked Young People”, most of the sexually exploited children in UK are taken care by the local authority, with quite a number of them being sheltered in residential care (Jago & et tal, 2011, p. 6). Other forms of support include Counselling, helpline, education, provision of foster carers and telephone plus email support. One difference between the UK and Australia support structures for victims is that the UK Children Act 1989 does not address the needs of the victims when significant exploitation to the child victim are not substantiated (Morgan, 2007, p. 16). Local Children protection Boards have not effectively put in place mechanisms which monitor the prevalence as well as responses to child sexual exploitation in their own area. In supporting victims of child sexual exploitation, the Australian Department for Child Protection provides intended social services in terms of child-centered family support, counseling, treatment. The development of agencies like the Victorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children strengthened the responsibility of non-government organizations in performing early measures for child protection in Australia (Department of Families, Housing and Community services, 2012). They function in a similar manner like the UK National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and they are in charge of investigating plus reporting child sexual abuse. In Australia there is a collective child protection service involving the police and non-governmental Child Protection Society in what is refereed to as the balance involving legal child protection services on one hand, and the family support services on the other side. This in turn has resulted in Australia child protection services together with the family support services to function more collaboratively giving them more options in responding to suspected incidences of child sexual abuse (Lamont & Bromfield, 2010, p. 5). Therefore, if the UK had such a model in place, then Operation Washing could have commenced immediately the first concerns were raised into the sexual activity of Martin Jenkins. This model could have enabled the police, the social services workers and Youth Offending Service to modify responses that could have possibly identify the perceived needs of the children one by one, instead of in general assessment. On the other hand, most of South Africa victims of sexual exploitation seek help in clinics and hospitals, while others go to extended family or friends, civic organizations, as well as social welfare agencies (South African Parliamentary Task Group on Sexual Abuse Children, 2002, p. 44). Role of Police The role of the police in UK, Australia and South Africa is to response and investigate allegations of child sexual abuse. They are tasked with gathering evidence to be used during prosecution. After a report has been lodged, and statement obtained a case is opened and recorded in the Crime Administration System. However, in UK the protocol is conducted jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service, Police Officers, education department, Local Government, and Social Services. The police are required to cooperate with the other agencies, so as to share information during investigations with the intention of criminal prosecutions. The Police together with the Crown Prosecution Service are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of the child victim and only apply for witness summons in order to obtain material from other agencies that are relevant in the investigation (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2012, para. 20). On the other hand, the Australian Police possess the prime responsibility in investigating criminal offences concerning child sexual abuse. Criminal investigation is set in motion by the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Unit or else the Criminal Investigation Unit (Department of Human Services, 2009, p. 15). In both nations, when child sexual abuse is alleged even if no protective apprehension exists, the Police are to be consulted in order to establish whether there will be a criminal investigation. Unlike UK and Australia whereby the Social Services can be the first line of support for child sexual exploitation victims, in South Africa the police are normally the first line of assistance to such victims. Their functions entail accepting the reported criminal complaints, arresting the alleged offenders, and investigating criminal complaint through gathering evidence. In addition, they are responsible for forwarding such cases to the prosecution to be issued with a decision on whether to prosecute or not. Additionally, the police are required to update the child victim on the development in the case. These provisions are provided under the Criminal Procedure Act 51, the South African National Policy Guidelines and the individual states Multi-disciplinary Child Protection and Treatment Protocol (South African Human Rights Commission, 2002, p. 18). The police in UK do not have such broader powers in child sexual abuse cases, and this is evident in the case study whereby they did not act on the information received earlier that Martin Jenkins had an inappropriate relationship with two young male children, even though the department of social services was aware of this. They just could not launch investigations or arrest him based on these allegations and which could have in turn prevented PV1 and PV2 from falling prey to Mr. Jenkins abuses. The major roles of the police in UK and Australia is to share information concerning the offenders, so as to pose of protect other children. Secondly, prosecute the offenders based on evidential standards, the wider public interest as well as ensuring that the best interest of the child concerned is achieved. The role of the police is also to support the concerned local authorities within civil or other related proceedings in safeguarding the children from such exploitations (Metropolitan Police, 2012). Across UK few victims of child sexual abuse decide to report their cases to professionals, and even a study by NSPCC revealed that less than 10 % of the victims reported their ordeal (Allnock, 2010, p. 9). Therefore, just like in the Martin Jenkins case it becomes difficult for the police to take considerable actions in investigating, especially when such victims like PV1 refuse to corroborate or maintain allegation. Mandatory reporting of such incidences is not followed by the commitment to least level of standards of service delivery by the police. Compared with South Africa not every child victim has access to police service, since discriminatory regulations of substantiation against child witnesses are mostly not in place. However, what comes out clearly in both countries is that children and young people are not knowledgeable concerning available services and what they need to do. But, UK police has done relatively well in providing adequate training when it comes to debriefing such victims or offering sufficient counselling and support services than South Africa. Furthermore, most of these services are not geographically remote to the victim than in South Africa According to a report by Eastwood, Patton and Stacy, in Australia many offenders find the interview process to be gruelling especially when they are being ignored or left in the dark by the investigating officer (1998, p. 44). The victim is put in an adversarial plus stressful state of affairs which tests their resilience. The report went on to provide evidence that the cross-examination conducted by the even makes the child to be traumatized by the procedure, since the police are not trained to offer developmental needs for the child (Eastwood, Patton, & Stacy, 1998, p 45). In all the three countries, only a small section of child sexual abuse is reported to the police. For instance, in South Africa one of the major reasons for under-reporting is due to the extensive social taboos concerning sex and sexual abuse leading to shame plus embarrassment. The fear of reprisal by the offender is also very high compared to UK and Australia, due to the patriarchal norms as children closely depend on close family members who are also related to the offender. This is evident in the National Youth Victimization report which showed that only 3 percent of child sexual abuse cases had been reported to the police (Reyneke & Kruger, 2006, p. 74). Moreover, during investigation the police and Welfare Department are required to work together with the child not allowed to make any public statement at the charge office. Trawling for complaints as a means of police investigation into child sexual abuse should not be used, since it can interfere with the integrity of child witness testimony. Trawling can easily result in the fabrication of the child victim statement , especially through questioning methods whereby there is the outlining and redrafting of victim statements to obtain evidence that seems authentic or matching with alleged claims (Reichel, 1994, 67). In any rational society, prosecution should not be based on claims which have been aggressively sought by the police, in state of affairs where substantial rewards is made offered to those who create false allegations (Webster, 1999). Even in the Martin Jenkins case trawling for complaints could not be admissible since it had to involve identifying and contacting potential witnesses, and none of the children present could be regarded as reliable witnesses due to their past actions of denial or refusing to press complaints. Due to the sensitive and complex nature of child sexual exploitation investigations, there needs to be a strong case for establishing particular or further safeguards for the keeping out of prejudicial evidence and separation of various abuse charge by the police. Moreover, multiple allegations against an offender can have significance which derives from the improbability that an individual will be separately and falsely blamed of offences of a similar character, whether or not there is a meticulous level of similarity. Even as such accusations cannot ascertain that an occurrence is true, matters of collusion need to be well thought-out with awareness as they would when the threshold are noticeably similar. Hence, such evidence is certainly relevant to assessing the cogency of the child victim account (Pakes, 2004, p. 46). . The Children’s Rights Framework Australia, UK and South Africa have consented to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1995 as well as the Welfare of the Child convention or ACRWC. In South Africa the rights have been complemented by the Bill of Rights and affected by the Children’s Act. But certain provisions that are found in UK and Australia legislations miss, such as registration of sex offenders with the police inside a certain period after release from jail. Secondly, there are no provisions for the community safeguard orders that can ban child sex offenders from areas common with children, or even barring the offenders from contacting their victims (South African Parliamentary Task Group on Sexual Abuse Children, 2002, ch 47). However, despite the fact that UK has such provisions, the case of Martin Jenkins shows that such provisions are not effected as required and turn out not to be helpful. For instance, the child protection and sexual offences had previously documented allegations about him and he was never convicted due to lack of corroboration to the allegation even as the police intelligence reports on his activity were available. Moreover, Martin Jenkins came to reside in the county after being released from prison and the county concerned agencies were not aware about him until shortly after he had settled. Sex offender notification requirements in most of Australia jurisdictions are similar to those in UK, in particular the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (UK), whereby child sex offenders are kept on the register for around eight years to even life depending on nature of the offence (Legislation UK, 2012). However, notable differences do exist, for instance the UK Crime and Disorder Act 1998 enables the issuing of orders against child sex offenders by the Magistrate Court when they are convinced that it is necessary to defend other children from the general population from serious harm (Legislation UK, 2012). Even though every state and territory in Australia has laws against child sexual exploitation, the definition of sexual exploitation varies to a lesser extent from one territory or state to another. Therefore, the Commonwealth has instituted laws to tackle internet child sexual offences, pornography, and child sexual exploitation committed by Australians overseas. The Australian Sexual Offences Bill 2003 goes further than that and it has reorganize sex offender orders by recognizing three categories (Johns, 2003, p. 2). Moreover, the terms of evidence giving the Australian Evidence (Children) Act 1997 administers the procedures by which children providing evidence in court should be handled and it only applies to evidence provided by children under 16 years, except when a contrary intention is provided. Also, the Sexual Offences against Children Bill 2010 aim to protect children from every form of sexual exploitation or abuse, in addition to dealing with the production of distribution of child abuse material (Australian Government Comlaw, 2012). The Criminal Justice Process In most of the criminal procedures in Australia the prosecution needs to establish the alleged offender guilt via the oral evidence of the victim, which in most of this incidences is a single witness. As such, corroboration warnings are frequently considered redundant in light of elevated standard of proof or beyond reasonable doubt, together with standards of trying the evidence via cross-examination (Australian Government Comlaw, 2012). That is why arguments have arisen that the use of warning by judges in child sexual exploitation cases is an indication of systemic prejudice for the child victim. In particular girl-children have seemingly natural inclination to lie regarding sexual abuse and to fabricate the allegations (Taylor, 2004, p. 6). Most of the victims spent almost two years waiting after the case have been brought to trial with some facing harassment coming from their alleged offenders during the long waiting period (Taylor, 2004, p. 6). Moreover, the child sexual exploitation victims are not allowed to discuss their abuse with persons closest to them as prosecution fear the contamination of evidence. Therefore, even though the criminal justice system provides a fair judgment to these children, it exposes them to procedures that have b greater implications for the child psychological well (Maxwel, 2003, p. 3) South Africa can be ranked well for having the legislative plus policy framework supporting prosecution of child sex offenses. In dealing with child sexual abuse cases, the South Africa criminal justice process is facilitated by the Operational Units of the National Directorate for Public Prosecutions. The agency ensures that conviction rate is maximized for child sex offenders with minimal time taken to finalize cases, and that there is a decreased secondary victimization. The approach used is that of a victim-centred strategy under what is referred to as the Victims’ Charter. The Child Care Act gives the authorities power to remove the child from the sexual exploitative career. However, the shortcoming of that Act is that it rules out any other individual other than the parent or the guardian having knowledge of the sexual exploitation from being culpable of the offence (South African Parliamentary Task Group on Sexual Abuse Children, 2002, p. 44). Moreover, the nation Sexual Offences Act does not recognize child rape as it refers simply to women. In addition, it leaves out female child sexual perpetrators. However, unlike in UK the legislation is not changing adequately to guard every child victims across the criminal justice system, especially in relation to protecting measures in child testimony. The policy measure contains uncertain status about the child protection and is recurrently couched in language that escapes placing a solid compulsion on the state. In Australia, studies have shown that the criminal justice system waiting time is longer and this prevents many child offenders from moving on with their lives. It usually takes 6-18 months between the committals to the trial with most of them taking 12 months (Eastwood, Patton, & Stacy, 1998, p. 2). The child victims have to endure court process without being offered adequate support in court, when facing the offender with some of them undergoing two days of cross-examination repeating and recalling the abuses. Thus, the gruelling recurring questioning is momentous in impeaching the credibility of the child victim witness stand (Eastwood, Patton, & Stacy, 1998, p. 2). Most of the child Sex offenders in UK, Australia and South Africa do have nonsexual criminal convictions, such as drug related convictions and domestic violence convictions prior to being prosecuted for child sexual exploitation. When it comes to female child sex offenders, the UK National child protection policy does not have reference as the existing child protection registration data does not offer information concerning the gender of the person responsible for the abuses. Furthermore, there are no risk assessment tools when it comes to female sex offenders with variations in the way it is being handled under dissimilar Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements regions transversely England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, moderately diminutive numbers of females go into the criminal justice system for child sexual offences (Bunting, 2005, p. 20). List of References Allnock, D. (2010). Children And Young People Disclosing Sexual Abuse:An Introduction To The Research. London: Child Protection Research Department. Atkinson, M., & Ettal. (2002). Multi-Agency Working:A Detailed Study. National Foundation For Educational Research. Australian Government Comlaw. (2012). Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2012, From Http://Www.Comlaw.Gov.Au/Details/C2010a00042 Australian Government. (2012). Information Sharing. Retrieved April 19, 2012, From Http://Www.Alrc.Gov.Au/Publications/30.%20information%20sharing/Information-Sharing-Between-Agencies Bunting, L. (2005). Females Who Sexually Offend Against Children: Responses Of The Child Protection And Criminal Justice Systems. London: Nspcc Policy Practice Research. Department Of Families, Housing And Community Services. (2012). Victorian Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children (1896 - 1971) . Retrieved April 20, 2012, From Http://Www.Findandconnect.Gov.Au/Vic/Biogs/E000618b.Htm Department Of Human Services. (2009). Child Sexual Abuse. Melbourne: Office For Children, Victorian Government Department Of Human Services. Dewar, D. (1998). Protecting Children -A Shared Responsibility:Guidance On Inter-Agency Co-Operation. The Scottish Office. Eastwood, C., Patton, W., & Stacy, H. (1998). Child Sexual Abuse & The Criminal Justice System. Canberra: A Ustralian Institutee Off C Riminology. Jago, S., & Ettal. (2011). What’s Going On:To Safeguard Children And Young People From Sexual Exploitation? University Of Bedfordshire. Johns, R. (2003). Child Sexual Offences: An Update On Initiatives In The Criminal Justice System. Nsw Parliamentary Library Research Service. Lamont, A., & Bromfield, L. (2010). History Of Child Protection Services. Australian Institute Of Family Studies. Legislation Uk. (2012). Sex Offenders Act 1997. Retrieved April 19, 2012, From Http://Www.Legislation.Gov.Uk/Ukpga/1997/51/Contents Maxwel, A. (2003). Pre-Trial Therapy For Child Complainants Of Sexual Abuse In The Criminal Justice System: Forensic Implications. Adelaide: Australian Institute Of Criminology. Metropolitan Police. (2012). Specialist Crime: Child Abuse Investigation Command. Retrieved April 20, 2012, From Http://Www.Met.Police.Uk/Scd/Specialist_Units/Child_Abuse.Htm Morgan, D. (2007). Safeguarding Children And Young People From Sexual Exploitation. Retrieved April 20, 2012, From Http://Www.Manchesterscb.Org.Uk/Docs/Safeguarding%20cyp%20from%20sexual%20exploitation%20dcsf%202009.Pdf Munro, E. (2007). Confidentiality In A Preventive Child Welfare System. Ethics And Social Welfare , 1 (1), 41-55. National Council To Reduce Violence Against Women And Their Children. (2009). Time For Action: The National Council’s Plan For Australia To Reduce Violence Against Women And Their Children. Melbourne. Pakes, F. J. (2004). Comparative Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan. Reichel, P. (1994). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A Topical Approach:A Topical Approach. Upper Saddle River Nj: Prentice Hall . Reyneke, J. M., & Kruger, H. B. (2006). Npa Annual Report 2005: Sexual Offences Courts: Better Justice For Children? Journal For Juridical Science , 31 (2), 73-107. South African Human Rights Commission. (2002). Report On Sexual Offences Against Children: Does The Criminal Justice System Protect Children? South African Human Rights Commission. South African Parliamentary Task Group On Sexual Abuse Children. (2002). Report Of The Parliamentary Task Group On The Sexual Abuse Of Children. Parliamentary Task Group On Sexual Abuse Children. Taylor, S. C. (2004). Surviving The Legal System. Melbourne: Coulomb Communications. The Crown Prosecution Service. (2012). Investigation And Prosecution Of Child Abuse Cases. Retrieved April 19, 2012, From Http://Www.Cps.Gov.Uk/Publications/Agencies/Protocolletter.Html Webster, R. (1999). How The Police Trawl The Innocent. Retrieved April 20, 2012, From Http://Www.Richardwebster.Net/Howthepolicetrawltheinnocent.Html Read More