The Sex Offenders' Register Achieves More Than Public Assurance - Research Paper Example

The Sex Offenders' Register Achieves More Than Public Assurance In the UK, there is no actual sex offender register that is centrally held. Instead, the sex offender register is a term used in the description of a notification system, in which sex offenders are required to register an array of details with the police. This system of notification collects important details about individuals cautioned, convicted, or recently incarcerated for offences of a sexual nature. Figures released by the media in late 2012 showed that there were at least 50,000 registered sex offenders (Brown & Walklate, 2012). Sex offenders must register with their local police station in person within seventy-two hours of their caution or conviction, during which time they give their home address, date of birth, name, and national insurance number, where applicable. It is also within the powers of the police to place people convicted of committing sexual offences on this register, while they may also require the offender to notify them if he/she wants to travel overseas. If they do not register as required, they are liable to a jail sentence or a fine (Brown & Walklate, 2012). Various factors are considered during the establishment of a notification or registration scheme for sex offenders. These factors concerning registration are related definitional issues, retrospectivity, and the coverage and scope of the information to be collected, while with regard to notification, they are content, form, and scope of notification, as well as degree of notification (Brown & Walklate, 2012). The knowledge that police officers are aware of sex offenders in the locality has been highly valued by the public, especially as it makes them feel safer and more assured of their safety. The major justification that proponents of keeping sex offenders’ names on the register give is that it protects the public. This paper will seek to investigate whether sex offender registers effectively serve this role, or only act to assure the public without increasing its safety. Sex offender registers could be plausibly effective in two ways. One of them is that the register will imply increase in penalties for the offender and deter recidivists and new offenders not yet registered (Brown & Walklate, 2012). Secondly, registration could also reduce recidivism rates among those offenders on the registry through increased monitoring by police and keeping potential targets informed. Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registries According to Blyth, Solomon, and Baker (2007), it is important for any debate on the efficacy of maintaining sex offender registries to consider the uniquely unrelenting and severe toll that sex offenders exact on the community and, specifically, on their victims. Sexual violence is one of the most prevalent crimes against children and women in the western hemisphere, most likely because it is targeted at society’s most vulnerable populations. Indeed, women and children of all backgrounds, ethnicity, race, age, family structure, and socio-economic status are at risk of sexual offenses, which makes the matter one for the entire society to tackle. At least 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 3 girls are potentially sexually abused prior to reaching the age of majority, of which at least 90% is not reported to the police (Blyth et al., 2007). In addition, 1 in 6 women in the UK were reported to have been victims of sexual violence or attempted offenses during their lifetime. Of these cases involving sexual violence against women, it was also reported that the police were not notified in 65% of the cases (Blyth et al., 2007). Just as important, sexual offenders portend a lifelong, devastating impact on the victim and their family members who are not offenders. Thomas (2011) reported heightened rates of suicidal ideation, sexual problems, interpersonal dysfunction, dissociative disorders, substance abuse, anxiety, and depression among men and women who are survivors of sexual offenses. For children, sexual violence distorts their concept of self, as well as their affective capabilities and orientation of their environment and the world, while it also makes them more likely to fall victim to sex crimes in the future. Adolescents who are victimized sexually are also more likely to be involved in risky sexual behaviour. In addition, the mental and health costs that are related to sexual offenses and victimization are substantial with the US Department of Justice in 1996 stating that sexual abuse and rape of vulnerable groups costs $23 billion a year for the victims and $1.5 billion in medical costs (Thomas, 2011). Converted to the current economy, the total cost could be ~$33.5 billion a year with over $2billion in medical expenses. Registration and notification schemes for sexual offenders has been identified and implemented in several countries, including the UK, as a way to counter the obvious menace. The rationale behind the requirement for convicted or cautioned sex offenders is because, after release from custody, they pose a high risk of offending again (Thomas, 2011). In addition, the public believes that one of the government’s primary interests should be protecting vulnerable citizens from sex offenders and that the privacy rights of the offender are inferior to the government’s public safety interests. Moreover, ensuring that government agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies, have specific information on sex offenders that they can use to make potential victims aware of their risk will assist government and public efforts at public safety. One stated benefit to maintaining sex offenders on the offenders’ register is related to the public’s right to be made aware about the presence of an offender in the community. This will enable the potential victims and their families to take precautionary measures (Thomas, 2011). While the register is not open to public scrutiny in the UK, access to the register by authorised government agencies and release of important information will assist the public in taking precautionary measures. Brown and Pratt (2000) identified the potential use of sex offender registers in future as a law enforcement instrument for police to track down possible offenders, especially where compulsory DNA profiling is incorporated. In this case, sex offenses committed without the identification of suspect could be solved using the register to identify potential sex offender suspect with a similar pattern of sex crimes or who live in the vicinity. The use of registers could also be used as a deterring effect in that the offender is aware that police is monitoring his actions, thus discouraging the chances of re-offending. In addition, registers could also deter potential first-time offenders. By maintaining the names and details of offenders on a register, it will be possible to detect behaviour patterns, thus aiding in later convictions where evidence against an offender is not sufficient to secure a conviction because of stringent requirements by the system for convictions. Finally, registration of sex offenders offers increased opportunity for intervention if a sex offender does not comply with notification requirements, which would most likely indicate high-risk re-offending behaviour (Brown & Pratt, 2000). Thus, the sex offender register plays a role in preventing sexual offenses, as police are able to intervene prior to commission of crimes. However, these arguments as to whether sex offender registers are the best government tool for tackling sexual offenses has not been without criticism. To begin with, Nash and Williams (2010) believed that registration and notification are usually the result of political pressure. Still, most of these criticisms are mainly aimed at registration requirements, rather than the registration concept. For example, Prescott, Rockoff, and the National Bureau of Economic Research (2008) argued that maintaining names and intimate details of all sexual offenders are not consistent with societal goals to protect civil liberties, and that registration imposes a unique double punishment that is not consistent with other horrific crimes. Moreover, while registration may assure the public that something is being done about convicted offenders, it also send a message to the sex offenders that society does not trust them, which hinders rehabilitation and encourages anti-social tendencies (Prescott et al., 2008). Indeed, the offender could even use their registration status to rationalise crimes committed in the future, while some offenders could go underground to evade monitoring and scrutiny, putting them out of the reach of law enforcement and psychologists/counsellors. The registration’s very objective could also be threatened by the offender not cooperating, by either giving false details or refusing to register. Registration could also be simply a false sense of security if the public is too reliant on the system, while not being aware that most offenders do not comply with registration and notification requirements (Nash & Williams, 2010). The potential for registers to encourage vigilante mentality in the public is an ever-present threat, which could harm the offender’s innocent family. Possibly one of the most serious but unintended consequence of registration is that the names of victims could be revealed where the offense was intra-familial, compounding the victim’s trauma. The costs of maintaining an updated sex offender registry has also been questioned in relation to its actual efficacy, compared to using the funds to rehabilitate sex offenders. Another criticism of registration requirements is that poor harmonization of laws across countries encourages offenders to move to less stringent destinations (Nash & Williams, 2010). Finally, the fear of consequences, if the offender is discovered during the initial event, could result in the offender taking drastic actions to ensure lack of evidence, including murder. In spite of these obviously weighty criticisms, Nash and Williams (2008) were quick to identify that the symbolic effects of registering sex offenders are actually necessary, stating that even where registration policy does not have any tangible instrumental effect on the behaviour of offenders, they reassure the public that law enforcement is monitoring the behaviour of known offenders. However, they are also quick to question whether a tipping point exists at which resources used to maintain a symbolic register and the human and financial costs are too high. In response, Critcher (2003) argued that the purpose of maintaining names and details of sex offenders on the register is to make parents aware of possible potential risks in the community. This would mean that the registration of sexual offenders is not to stop offenders from wandering to other jurisdictions or re-offending, but to forewarn parents of potential threats. As a result, it is possible that the efficacy of sex offender registration is mainly pegged on the sense of security it gives potential vulnerable victims and their families. However, Nash (2006) was adamant that registration and notification requirements for sex offenders do reduce rates of repeat and first-time sexual offending; arguing that it is critical to note that these systems were put in place to tackle what was a national epidemic. The very premise of maintaining names and details of sexual offenders on the register in the US was that it provided communities with the capability to determine risk levels for sexual offending, while also providing police with tools for investigating sexual crimes using the registry. Using results from the ‘Parent’s for Megan’s Law’ support group, it was shown that the average notification/registration law has resulted in a statistically substantial reduction of 10% in rates of sexual offending (Nash, 2006). In a decision by the Supreme Court in the United Sates that upheld the registration of sex offenders, the Court stated that the principal effect and very purpose of the register was not humiliation of the offender, but for the public to be informed about their safety. The Court also added that the registration of sex offender details was not a humiliation of the offenders, but collateral for what was a valid regulation (Nash, 2006). Cobley (1997) noted that the alleged lack of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of maintaining names and details of sex offenders in a register has obvious weaknesses, especially the fact that it is near impossible to statistically prove prevention of sexual offenses by registries because victimisation failed to occur. Such opponents, as a result, would be dismissing the “common sense” argument for maintaining registries. For instance, responsible parents would prevent their children from spending time with registered offenders alone. As a result, it is impossible to collect evidence of registry efficacy because there is no longer a chance for the offender to commit the sexual offence where the parent responsibly uses the register. Cobley (1997) also pointed out that research into the efficacy of registration and notification is mainly focused on the effects of the register on offenders. This makes empirical evidence on the overall effectiveness of the registry difficult to evaluate. The intent of keeping registries, in the first place, was to prevent potential offences from taking place by keeping law enforcement and the public knowledgeable of known offenders. Because it is not possible to prove that a sexual offence failed to take place because the offender was registered (Cobley, 1997), research should focus on the fact that registries motivate responsible parents and potential victims to take required precautions to prevent occurrence of a crime. In order for registration and notification of sex offenders to become an effective tool in the promotion of public safety, as well as to deter repeat sex offenders, these registries must contain accurate and full information and details, which must also be regularly maintained and verified (Cobley, 1997). Therefore, the argument as to whether sex registries are effective or merely symbolic needs to take into consideration whether the registries are out-of-date since, according to this evidence, the maintenance of sex offender names and details in registers will only be valuable as a tool for sex crime prevention if they are up-to-date. With regars to recidivism rates by sex offenders after being cautioned or convicted, the Division of Criminal Justice Services in the State of New York found that rapists will re-offend at least 23% of the time, while girl-child molesters have a recidivism rate of 16% and boy-child molesters have a recidivism rate of 35% (Harrison, 2011). Overall, offenders previously cautioned or convicted of a sexual offense have a recidivism rate of 37%. The same agency in NY found that sex offenders who do not register tend to have a higher rate of recidivism, in comparison to offenders who comply with registration and notification requirements. While reporting on results from a similar study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, it was also found that convicted sex offenders who failed to register tended to pose increased recidivism risk compared to offenders without conviction who did not register. In addition, sex offenders who failed to register had an increased chance of conviction for other felony sex violations compared to those who register, while 68% had a higher chance of conviction for other felonies compared to those who registered (Harrison, 2011). However, Matravers (2003) warned that communities should not get a false sense of assurance or security because the whereabouts of known sex offenders is known, nor should law enforcement and government believe that increasing stringency of requirements for maintaining names and details of offenders in the register is the way to go due to collateral humiliation of “small-time offenders”. The behaviour of sex offenders, like that of the average human, is not predictable even using the most advanced assessments. Thus, arguing that any system is totally perfect in the prevention recidivism for sex offenders is not likely to be successful. It is known, however, is that the sex offender targets society’s most vulnerable population with devastating effects on victims, while reported recidivism rates grossly underestimate re-offending potential as unresolved and unreported crimes are not accounted for (Matravers, 2003). This is because sex offenders often do not tell the truth about prior convictions due to stigma surrounding the crime. Therefore, rather than argue against the effectiveness or lack of efficacy of retaining names and details of sex offenders in the registry, initiatives should turn to verifying registration information to ensure accuracy and relevancy (Matravers, 2003). Ellis and Savage (2012) failed to find any evidence that the threat of maintaining an up-to-date and accurate register alone can act as an effective deterrence from engaging in sex offences, reporting that the approximated impact of new registries on sex crime frequency is actually positive. However, these findings are done on registries that are too imprecisely measured and too small for the results to be reliable. In fact, there seems to be stronger evidence that registration and notification requirements reduces rates of recidivism due, presumably, to increased monitoring by law enforcement, increasing likelihood of further punishment faced by potential re-offenders. Indeed, data from the report seems to show that additional registration of sex offenders for every 10,000 people reduced sex crimes by 0.098 on average (Ellis & Savage, 2012). This supports the idea that law enforcement supervision after registration can actually combat recidivism among sex offenders. With respect to notifications laws and requirements that are prevalent in the UK, however, there seems to be a completely different pattern to that seen in fully-fledged sex offender registers. Threats faced by sex offenders involving being subjected to a regime of notification, as well as collateral consequences and the shame accompanying public identification as sex offenders, seem to significantly deter recidivism, i.e. it causes a reduction in non-registrant offenses (Kemshall, 2008). For instance, data suggests that, on average, notification requirements deter 1.2 crimes for every 10,000 people, which is ~12.8% of all sex-related crimes. However, a closer reading of this data also seems to indicate that the frequency of sex crimes tend to increase relative to the number of offenders recording their details. It would seem that the punitive consequences of notification regimes for sex offenders also portend perverse consequences not intended. Holding all other factors constant, revealing criminal history and identity of sex offenders increases the likelihood of recidivism (Kemshall, 2008). However, the operative terms here are all factors held constant. Using registration alongside notification would make the results alluding to increased recidivism due to notification regimes less statistically significant. In addition, it is also implied that large registries, albeit without notification, makes offenses against ‘near’ and ‘close’ victims less likely or, otherwise, more difficult. The effect on victims who are violated sexually by ‘near’ offenders is shown to be highly statistically significant, while estimates for sex crime victims of ‘close’ offenders are shown not to be as statistically significant conventionally (Furedi, 2005). However, estimates for sex crime victims of offenses from ‘strangers’ are positive, although the data is statistically inexact and relatively small. Thus, it can be concluded that maintaining names and details of sex offenders in a registry precludes crimes from “nearby” offenders, although it is not of much consequence to offenses from “strangers”, meaning that registration neither increases the likelihood of victimization, nor does it protect the potential victims from sex offenders. Additionally, it is also reported that the deterrent ability of notification regimes are similar across all types of victims (Furedi, 2005). From this finding, it can be surmised that imposed penalties from the notification regime for convicted sex offenders is manly invariant to the involved type of victim, i.e. ‘near’, ‘close’, or ‘stranger’. Still, Hebenton, and Thomas (1996) cautioned against generalising results from studies conducted in one locality to other localities, specifically because registration and notification laws and requirements differ across various jurisdictions, while implementation may not be uniform. Reporting on a study conducted in South Africa about the effects of similar requirements for maintenance of a sex offender register, Hebenton and Thomas (1996) found that notification used with little emphasis on registration actually enhanced recidivism. In fact, it was also reported that notification regimes that seek to make the targeting of local potential victims by registered offenders more difficult would be expected to reduce rates of ‘near’ victim offences, while little change will be recorded for offences against strangers. An alternative view would be that where the notification laws make post-convict life more difficult for sex offenders, while laws governing notification do not increase costs of re-offending, crime rates would increase evenly across all victim types. Data would seem to support the latter scenario as, despite notification deterring sex offenders from engaging in sex offences, informing the potential victims to prepare and protect themselves in the presence of registered offenders could eventually backfire (Hebenton & Thomas, 1996). The review of evidence thus far is indicative of the fact that, on top of increasing public assurance that the authorities are monitoring known sex offenders, requiring the registration of names and details for known sexual offenders has a significant statistical impact on reported sex offence frequency. Janus (2006) argued that there may be significant social advantages to maintaining names and details of known sex offenders in a registry by local authorities. The argument here is that local registries, compared to national registries, are more effective in reducing recidivism in sex offenders. Average-sized sex offender registers were found to reduce sex crimes by at least 1.21 offences annually for every 10,000 people, which benefits local victims, such as acquaintances and neighbours, friends, family members, and significant others (Janus, 2006). However, there is no evidence in the reporting that maintaining registers for sex offenders affects the rate of stranger-related sex offenses. Howitt (1995), however, took a unique look into the efficacy of maintaining sex offender registers, claiming that notification regimes have a significant impact on the frequency of subsequent sex offences, but not in the manner that policy makers and legislators would have intended. Indeed, it is found that, whereas notification and registration reduce sex offence frequency if the registry is average-sized, i.e. is more localised, the benefits become less significant as the authorities increase the size of the registry and more offenders are subjected to the notification regime. The inference from this finding is that, while notification and registration deters individuals not on the register, it encourages registered offenders to re-offend, possibly due to the financial, social, and psychological harms after their criminal details become public knowledge. Such a conclusion, i.e. that notification and registration increases the rates of recidivism in some cases, seems counterintuitive in a way. After all, actively identifying sex offenders using registries open to relevant government agencies and/or the public is meant to increase the awareness of potential victims of a nearby threat posed by a recently released convicted sex offender (Howitt, 1995). For community notification and registration regimes to reduce recidivism levels for sex offenders successfully, J. Ireland, C. Ireland, and Birch (2009) identified two nontrivial and separate conditions that have to be satisfied. The first is that identification of sex offenders to law enforcement and the public must ensure increased difficulty for convicted or cautioned sex offenders to re-offend. In turn, this condition must also be qualified by a set of factors. One, a significant population of potential victims must be kept updated of the register’s status through the functions of notification law, while these potential victims should be in a position to reduce exposure to the offender’s victimization on average. In addition, the offender must also find it increasingly costly to identify alternative uninformed potential victims who do not know of the offender’s status (Ireland et al., 2009). However, as demonstrated by some of the research findings discussed above, victims and offenders are rarely strangers. Thus, if the target for the offender is a stranger, the victim will find it difficult to determine the status of the offender to reduce exposure in a timely manner. Even where such a potential victim has ample opportunity and time to reduce exposure to registered offenders, the released offender still has numerous unsuspecting potential victims, increasing the risk of recidivism. Thus, localized registries seem the most successful forms of reducing recidivism. Another condition required for notification and registration of sex offenders to be successful, according to Ireland et al. (2009), is that the process must not aggravate risk factors that substantially heighten the likelihood of an offender falling into recidivism. In fact, failure to this, notifications and registration regimes, while making it harder for convicted offenders to re-offend, there will still be a risk of recidivism. Difficulty in committing sex offences is just but one factor that influences likelihood of the offender going into recidivism. Registration of sex offenders, on top of imposing significant constraints on the offender, such as frequent reporting requirements and residency restrictions, impacts on other drivers of criminality by changing the future prospects and daily life of the offender, In addition, it also imposes financial and psychological burdens on the offender. Whereas laws that restrain activities of released offenders could reduce rates of recidivism as discussed if they mitigate risk factors and make commission of the offence more difficult, it must ensure that it does not worsen the circumstances of the offender, especially by making it more difficult to gain employment or housing (Ireland et al., 2009). Thomas and Thompson (2012) offered compelling evidence from the US State of Washington, arguing that sex offender registers are effective, especially where they involve multiple agencies that can track offenders through various phases of the juvenile or criminal justice process. Thus, on top of offering assurance to the public that the known sex offenders are being monitored, coordination and collaboration among government agencies and community supervision organizations will make the sex register more effective in deterring recidivism. These ties with the issue of updating sex offender register to make them more accurate discussed above. Strong working relationships between these agencies will ensure the complete collection of registry data, while enhancing the capacity for ongoing verification and initial registration (Thomas & Thompson, 2012). As a result, the police who are tasked with registering sex offenders and maintaining the registry can work in concert with supervision officers tasked with monitoring offenders placed under their supervision. In addition, where registration of sex offenders occurs as a result of collaborations between corrections agencies and law enforcement, for example, he chances of sex offenders not registering or registering false information will be decreased (Socia, 2012). The supervision officers would then be tasked with verifying the information given by the sex offenders because they have field contact and do home visits with the convicted sex offenders. Additionally, through partnerships with community volunteer programs, the police can get administrative assistance concerning the filing and organisation of paperwork related to registration and the updating of sex offender registries, verifying addresses, and distributing material to notify the public. However, in order to make such collaboration work in other jurisdictions in order to increase the efficacy of sex offender registers, there is need for inter-agency collaborations to be addressed at policy level (Socia, 2012). Conclusion Essentially, maintaining sex offender registers is intended to incapacitate the sex offender from sexually victimising women and children following a caution or conviction. It creates a barrier between the sex offender and the public, which is meant to protect potential victims by increasing their awareness of sex offenders in the vicinity. While there are various salient arguments contending that the registration of sex offenders is not effective, the results of this critical review indicate that most of these concerns are related to implementation of these registers, rather than the registers themselves. From the arguments for maintaining the details and names of sex offenders in registers, it is clear that they have had significant success despite uneven implementation of notification requirements across jurisdictions. Thus, the factors that make sex offender registers ineffective in some cases must be handled at policy level. Overall, there is ample evidence that the registration of sex offenders increases public assurance. On top of this, it is also clearly that significant gains have been made in reducing recidivism and first-time offenders. References Blyth, M., Solomon, E., Baker, K. (2007). Young people and 'risk'. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Brown, M., & Pratt, J. (2000). Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order. London: Routledge. Brown, J., & Walklate, S. (2012). Handbook on sexual violence. London: Routledge. Cobley, C. (1997). Keeping Track of Sex Offenders – Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. Modern Law Review, 60(5), 690–699. Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Buckingham: Open University Press. Ellis, T., & Savage, S. P. (2011). Debates in criminal justice. London: Routledge. Ellis, T., & Savage, S. P. (2011). Debates in criminal justice: Key themes and issues. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. Furedi, F. (2005). Culture of fear: Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Continuum. Harrison, K. (2011). Dangerousness, risk and the governance of serious sexual and violent offenders. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Hebenton, B., & Thomas, T. (1996). 'Tracking' sex offenders. The Howard Journal of Justice, 35(2), 97–112. Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. Chichester: Wiley. Ireland, J. L., Ireland, C. A., & Birch, P. (2009). Violent and sexual offenders: Assessment, treatment, and management. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Pub. Janus, E. S. (2006). Failure to protect: America's sexual predator laws and the rise of the preventive state. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kemshall, H. (2008). Understanding the community management of high risk offenders. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Matravers, A. (2003). Sex offenders in the community: Managing and reducing the risks. Cullompton: Willan. Nash, M. (2006). Public protection and the criminal justice process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, M., & Williams, A. (2008). The anatomy of serious further offending. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, M., & Williams, A. (2010). Handbook of public protection. Abingdon: Willan. Prescott, J. J., Rockoff, J. E., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (2008). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behaviour? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Socia, K. M. (2012). The Efficacy of county-level sex offender residence restrictions in New York. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4), 612–642. Thomas, T. (2011). The registration and monitoring of sex offenders: A comparative study. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Thomas, T., & Thompson, D. (2012). Applications to come off the UK Sex Offender Register: The position after F and Thompson v. Home Office 2010. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51(3), 274–285. Read More