Queensland is creating a public child sex offender register. Will it keep people safer?
- Written by: Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia
The Queensland government will this week table legislation creating Australia’s first public child sex offender register[1].
The Queensland legislation, to be known as Daniel’s Law, was named in honour of Sunshine Coast teenager Daniel Morcombe, who was abducted and murdered by a sex offender more than two decades ago.
But will this new legislation actually work to make children (and the public) safer? Will it act as a deterrent for those contemplating offending or re-offending?
How will the Queensland laws work?
First, let’s look at the Queensland proposal.
Queenslanders will be able to access a searchable database[2] where images and details (names and ages) of offenders who have failed to comply with their reporting obligations (and whose whereabouts are unknown) will be available[3].
The government assures Queenslanders that safeguards will be put in place to prevent the misuse of information, including protections against vigilantism[4].
It’s understandable there might be public pressure to establish such a public database. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse[5] highlighted the tragic impact child sexual assault has on victims. Governments should be seeking to pursue policies that best prevent sex offending and curtail repeat offending.
Versions of this approach exist in other jurisdictions. There’s a Community Protection Disclosure Scheme[6] in Western Australia, where parents and guardians can make limited enquiries through the police. But there is no public database.
And all states and territories have non-public registries where convicted sex offenders are monitored by law enforcement agencies.
What does the research tell us?
There’s a lot of evidence about the effectiveness of registration and notification schemes from reviews conducted over the last 15 years, especially in the United States.
This evidence shows all forms of registries are highly unlikely to fulfil the outcomes sought by Daniel’s Law. Here are five reasons why.
Reason 1: lack of deterrence
There is clear evidence the introduction of a registration scheme makes no difference[7] to rates of sexual offending.
Research conducted in the US shows most sex offences are committed by those who have not previously been convicted of a sex offence[8].
And when perpetrators are caught, research studies consistently report the likelihood of reoffending is very low[9].
The Sex Offenders Registration scheme operated by Victoria Police (which isn’t public) was reviewed in 2011 by the Victorian Law Reform Commission[10]. The commissioners offered the following on the subject of deterrence:
the Sex Offenders Registration Act is based on the assumption that sex offenders are less likely to re-offend if they are required to comply with reporting obligations under a registration scheme. However, the existing limited research data is equivocal as to whether registration is an effective means of reducing re-offending.
Seven years later, researchers at the Australian Institute of Criminology[11] came to a similar conclusion. They reported that while public sex offender registries may have a small general deterrent effect on first-time offenders, they do not reduce re-offending.
Reason 2: false assumptions
Most sex offenders are known to their victims[12] before the offence. Typically they are family members or acquaintances.
That being the case, registration logically adds little to the ability of society to identify who is a risk to the general community.
And because registration laws are then based on these false assumptions[13] regarding offenders and offences, police attention could be wrongly diverted away from likely perpetrators, and towards those less likely to pose a danger.
Reason 3: abandoning rehabilitation
Any registration and notification scheme, especially targeting juvenile offenders[14], can have a negative impact[15] on the ability of people to turn their lives around and become productive members of society.
Perpetrators are unlikely to ever fit back into public life if they have been the targets of harassment, victimisation, exclusion and eviction.
These counterproductive exercises in shaming specific people can extend to their family members as well.
In this way, a cornerstone of sentencing – the one that focuses on redemption[17] – will be largely abandoned.
Reason 4: unintended consequences
It’s possible those not intended for such a register, such as young people caught sexting[18], will be drawn into the registration web once convicted.
Spare a thought, too, for people with very common names, where the chance of mistaken identity is heightened.
Finally, the potential for vigilantism[19] should not go unnoticed.
The Queensland government has identified this risk, proposing lengthy jail terms[20] for people who misuse information from the registry.
But vigilantes are not known for checking on the accuracy of their information before deploying their highly questionable and usually illegal[21] tactics.
Reason 5: wrongheaded resourcing
Finally, any law that implements ineffective solutions to serious problems distracts policymakers from searching for more effective ways to reduce victimisation[22].
A public sex offender registration and notification strategy requires substantial resources. Every dollar spent on an ineffective registration scheme is a dollar that cannot be spent on the intensive supervision of those who are most likely to offend or to re-offend.
Where to from here?
If this legislation passes, police must retain a discretionary power[23] to decide which individuals are placed on the registry.
For example, people who are particularly compliant, cooperative with counsellors and considered to have a low risk of re-offending should be exempt.
So should those whose names will allow innocent family members to be easily identified. Indeed, that could apply to the majority of offenders.
All things considered, while sexual offending is a matter of significant community concern, and governments must do all in their power to lessen its incidence and impact, this policy is unlikely to be effective.
In this case, it appears political pragmatism has prevailed over evidence-based policy imperatives.
References
- ^ child sex offender register (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ access a searchable database (www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au)
- ^ will be available (statements.qld.gov.au)
- ^ protections against vigilantism (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
- ^ Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (www.royalcommission.gov.au)
- ^ Community Protection Disclosure Scheme (www.communityprotection.wa.gov.au)
- ^ makes no difference (journals.sagepub.com)
- ^ not previously been convicted of a sex offence (psycnet.apa.org)
- ^ the likelihood of reoffending is very low (www.ojp.gov)
- ^ Victorian Law Reform Commission (www.lawreform.vic.gov.au)
- ^ Australian Institute of Criminology (www.aic.gov.au)
- ^ are known to their victims (www.aic.gov.au)
- ^ false assumptions (psycnet.apa.org)
- ^ juvenile offenders (psycnet.apa.org)
- ^ have a negative impact (psycnet.apa.org)
- ^ AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ focuses on redemption (theconversation.com)
- ^ young people caught sexting (www.legalaid.qld.gov.au)
- ^ vigilantism (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
- ^ lengthy jail terms (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
- ^ usually illegal (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ effective ways to reduce victimisation (theconversation.com)
- ^ police must retain a discretionary power (www.researchgate.net)
Authors: Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia
