The Lisa Maria Foundation was the latest entity to call for the sex offender registration law to change in order to safeguard the interests of children and young people. They contend that the register is too cumbersome to be effective and want institutions that work with children to be given easier access to it.
Cases related to child sex abuse appear in the media every so often. Sex offenders are rarely named and shamed in the media. In most cases, this is done to protect the victim’s identity. We have had many sex offender-specific policies enacted by different administrations over the years, having as their primary goals the prevention of sexual violence and the reduction of sexual re-offending.
A ‘sex offender’ typically refers to anyone with one or more sex crime convictions. Specific sex crime offences are listed in the law and include contact and non-contact offences against children and minors.
The original aim of the registration law was to provide law enforcement with a database of information to help monitor known sex offenders and to aid in the investigation of new allegations. Requests from information from the register is the practice of releasing, on application, some registration information to any institution, establishment or organisation which provides or organises any service or activity which involves the education, care, custody, welfare or upbringing of minor citizens.
The reason for such a possibility is to arm those entities with information to protect themselves and children under their care and supervision from sexual predators. It was also anticipated that offenders subjected to this kind of scrutiny would be less likely to offend and that those who do would be apprehended more quickly due to community reports of suspicious activities.
Undoubtedly, the current system makes it too onerous, costly and cumbersome for most stakeholders to use the register when carrying out due diligence before hiring employees.
Could it be that the time has come to revisit Chapter 518, the Protection of Minors (Registration) Act? Should we emulate other states and amend the law to give more discretion to the courts in determining how long to require registration and choose which sex offenders would be subjected to a general publication notification and specify strategies for such notification?
Some countries, like South Korea and the Maldives, release to the public information about repeat offenders and offenders who have committed predatory sexual violence against strangers. Other states have implemented risk assessment procedures and opted to release information only about registered sex offenders deemed to pose a high risk to public safety. Some US states, such as South Carolina, publish information about all registered sex offenders regardless of their threat for future offending.
Sexual recidivism rates differ according to the presence of certain risk factors. For instance, a more extensive criminal history places a sex offender at an increased risk for recidivism, as also does younger age, a preference for male child victims and a history of victimising strangers. Yet, I suspect that many new sexual offences leading to arraignment are not committed by registered sex offenders but by first-time sex offenders.
Being publicly identified as an ‘offender’ carries many risks, including loss of respect and social standing- Mark Said
Fear of potential social consequences can equal or outweigh the fear of legal consequences, further increasing the likelihood of deterrence. Being publicly identified as an ‘offender’ carries many risks, including loss of respect and social standing as well as social sanctions such as loss of jobs, spouses and friends.
Ample evidence suggests that being publicly identified as a sex offender results in these and other serious social consequences for adult offenders and their families.
Calls for public access to information about convicted child sex offenders have been occurring often in Malta. It may seem like common sense that allowing the public to know the whereabouts of dangerous people should increase community safety. However, as in many areas of criminal justice, the real story is more complicated. Child sex offenders are required to keep the police informed of their address and other personal details for a period of time after they are released into the community. But these details are not available to the public.
Knowing who are the convicted sex offenders and where they live may allow people to believe they can organise their and their children’s lives to reduce the risk of harm. This may be attractive to politicians seeking to tap into people’s wish to protect their children. But in a small community like Malta, easing and simplifying access to the register may lead to a false sense of security and perpetuate myths about ‘stranger danger’ when most child sex offenders are known by and are often related to the victim.
It is easy to dismiss concerns about rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the community. But if one considers preventing crime to be the primary aim of criminal justice, then rehabilitation is important to protect the community. Sex offenders are the most stigmatised group of offenders, both in prison and after release. Exclusion and virtual exile on release from prison provide further barriers to rehabilitation.
While it is true that, on paper, any entity requesting and being duly authorised to access information held in the register is bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act, one cannot ignore the real possibility and dangerous risk of information so obtained being somehow unlawfully leaked, leading to violence from vigilantes and jeopardising the anonymity of victims.
The sexual abuse of children remains one of the most urgent and unremitting issues. Allowing easier access to the register of sex offenders highlights the dangers of public misunderstanding of how it works and, indeed, of where the risks for children are greatest. But the sex offender registry was not designed to punish offenders. It was not designed to punish them at all.
The register was conceptually designed for ‘sexual predators’ who repeatedly preyed on children. The purpose was supposed to be not punishment but prevention.