By contrast, in the UK, the idea of a sex offender's register had been circulating in the social work and police circle for many years, many police forces kept their own unofficial register of sex offenders. However, it was, only during the 1990s following growing public and political concerns about sex offenders that legislation introduced the sex offenders register under the 1997 Sex Offenders Act (Jones & Newburn, 2002, p. 190). After strong criticism of the register in terms of the loopholes that undermined effective public protection, the act was first amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Service act 2000 before being completely replaced by a much broader regulatory framework contained in part 2 of the sexual offences act 2003 (Thomas, 2010, p. 66). The Home Office allows information to be shared by the police in a controlled fashion to other professional and occasionally members of the public. Decisions about the controlled disclosure of information, to member of the public are made by the police on a case-by-case basis (Thomas, 2005, p. 157).
The issue of community notification/disclosure about the presence of a sex offender within a community remains controversial in the UK and it is nowhere near as widespread as it is in the USA (McAlinden, 2006, p. 203). State laws in the USA provide that law enforcement agencies provide communities with access to detailed descriptions of offenders; this often includes a detailed description of the offender, photographs of the offender, the offenders address and car vehicle registration, and their previous convictions (Levenson & Cotter, 2005, p. 52).
Communities are notified about the presence of a sex offender in their local area through direct community notification or through online registries (Levenson & Cotter, 2005, p. 52). Direct community notification strategies, according to Levenson & Cotter (2005, p. 52) include, door to door warnings by police, press releases, and the distribution of flyers. However, this method could be problematic as Levenson & Cotter (2005, p. 61) explain, when law enforcement officials choose to place flyers around a particular area there is nothing to stop the locals then copying the original or even downloading their own notification flyer template which are available from websites such as offenderwatch, and distributing them as they see fit. This may very well go beyond what is necessary for the protection of the community and cross a line into harassment and violation of the offender's privacy (Levenson & Cotter, 2005, p. 61).
Since the introduction of a federal requirement that all states post sex offender information online McAlinden (2010 p. 383) argues that the internet now appears to be the primary source of information about convicted sex offenders. McAlinden (2010, p. 383) goes on to explain that each state hosts it own online registry providing details of sex offenders within in that state which the general public can access. Most state laws give no guidance as to the extent of the data that is offered on these websites, for example some states , like Connecticut, provide very little information whilst others, like Utah, provide very detailed information with an interactive map where the public can track offenders (Thomas, 2010, p. 64). The Department of Justice brings together all of these local registries into one place on the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public website (Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website , N.D). It is offered free of charge to the public and provides advanced search tools that allow the public to obtain sex offender information and a list of local registries by state. However, the information obtained from this site may still be limited because it relies on only the information provided on local registries (Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website , N.D). The only information that is uniformly given on every website is a warning against the misuse of the information.
One of the problems associated with websites providing limited information comes into focus when the police release information about the crime an offender has been convicted of without providing crucial information about the actual threat that the offender poses to the community (Greek, 2010, p. 299). For example, when a 21-year-old man has consensual sex with a girl who is just under the legal minimum age requirement the law would label him a rapist. The police may then notify the community that he is a rapist but the lack of specifity means that the community is not alerted to the actual level of risk he poses, i.e. a statutory rapist as in this case may well pose significantly less risk than a predatory rapist. This in turn could lead to unfounded unrest within the community or even vigilantism (Meloy, Saleh, & Wolff, 2007, p. 438).
Thomas (2010, p. 72) points out that whilst the USA provides public access to sex offenders information the UK chooses instead to restrict access to offender information. A number of developments have heighted both media and public support for more widespread disclosure of information. The most notable, according to Thomas (2010, p. 72) was the campaign for Sarah's law which was initiated after the abduction and murder of 8 year old Sarah Payne in 2000. It was argued that the murder of Sarah highlighted the need for community notification as an answer to the failings of the sex offenders register. Roy Whiting, the man who abducted and murdered Sarah was on the register when he reoffended, being required to register had no effect on Whiting's propensity to reoffend, however if the community was aware of his presence more could have been done to protect Sarah (Thomas, 2010, p. 72).
Despite this justification for full community notification/disclosure, it was once again ruled out as a policy for the UK. The government remained steadfast in the believe that full public disclosure or community notification is not appropriate for the UK, citing that although lessons can be learned from the USA our culture, law, police service and other criminal justice agencies are different from those in the USA (Thomas, 2005, p. 179). The Association of Chief Police Officers (cited by Thomas, 2005, p. 179) also let it be known that in their opinion wide scale public notification would be fraught with danger and just force offenders underground.
However, the campaign did bring about some changes to policy with 'discretionary disclosure' being introduced. Discretionary disclosure, the so called 'Sarah's Law' went live on April 4th 2011 (DeVries, 2011, p. 4). It sets out a formal process for members of the public to request information about another person who has contact with children. There is a specific timescale and procedure for requests to be dealt with by the police. Initially, police officers create a report on the Merlin database, a face to face interview is then conducted with the person requesting information. This ensures the legitimacy of the request and details the penalties if the information is used for vigilantism. If the checks show that the subject of the request has a record for child sex offences, the information can then be passed to the member of the public if it is decided that the information is relevant, necessary and proportionate in order to protect the child. Final disclosure decisions rest with the Detective Inspector of the borough (DeVries, 2011, p. 4).
This process is beneficial in two ways, firstly it provides specific individuals with information about potential threats to children, and secondly it can provide the police with information about contact between an offender and a child that they may have previously been unaware of. The police can then perform a full risk assessment of the situation allowing them to work with the parent, career, or guardian to protect the child. (DeVries, 2011, p. 4).
Sex offender public notification/disclosure is one of the core regulatory measures for managing sex offenders in the community enacted over the past few decades (McAlinden, 2010, p. 384). The legislation is designed to minimise the chances that children will meet the same fate as Megan Kanka and Sarah Payne. It has been suggested that these measures compliment the investigation and punishment of sex offenders and do so in order improve public safety, if the public are aware of the presence in their community of a convicted sex offender they will be better able to protect their children (Greek, 2010, p. 302). However, critics of the notification laws have made reference to their departure from the traditional belief that once an individual serves a criminal sentence they have paid their debt to society and should be allowed to re enter society without significant restrictions on privacy or liberty (McAlinden, 2006, p. 202). Furthermore, the overriding limitation of such measures is that they are by their nature aimed at those offenders who have already committed some form of offence and therefore have no impact on confronting or managing the risks posed to the community by unknown sex offenders (McAlinden, 2003, p. 204). As Salter (2003, cited by (McAlinden, 2003, p. 204) points out this is highly significant since recent research suggests that fewer than 5% of sex offenders are ever apprehended.
Meloy et al (2007, p. 438) highlight that one of the main areas of criticisms regarding public notification/disclosure programmes relates to the effects of public shaming of sex offenders, which may hinder their social reintegration. In the USA it is reported that stigma associated with community notification/disclosure may inadvertently increase the likelihood of recidivism among some sex offenders, particularly those who are low risk, by making it more difficult for them to achieve meaningful stability in important areas of their lives and facilitate positive relationships (Meloy, Saleh, & Wolff, 2007, p. 438). Further more the threat of public harassment as a result of notification laws can indeed have the reverse effect than that which was intended. Sex offenders may fear retaliation from the public against their presence in their community; this fear may cause registrants to leave their neighbourhoods, which isolates them, essentially making them more dangerous because they lose communication with their family, friends, and official agencies (Meloy, Saleh, & Wolff, 2007, p. 438).
Critics also challenge the effectiveness of notification laws, one study conducted by Prescott & Rockoff (2011, p. 198) examined data from 15 states in the USA over more than 10 years. They was discovered that requiring sex offenders to register with police without public notification reduces reported sex crime substantially, more than likely due to the better police monitoring and effective arrest of recidivists. However, when public notification was added to registration laws most states saw slightly higher levels of reported sex crimes. Prescott and Rockoff (2011, p. 199) claim that whilst the threat of being subjected to public notification may deter some first time offenders it appears to have the opposite effect on released offenders. Prescott and Rockoff (2011, p. 199) argue their findings suggest that the reason why sex offenders are more likely to reoffend if their information is made public is that the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make a crime free life relatively less desirable.
In conclusion, public notification/disclosure programmes can be traced to the USA where sex offender registers began in California as far back as the 1940s. It was not until the 1990s however, that increased public and media awareness of sexual offending ultimately led to the public access to information of those on the register (Thomas, 2005, p. 153). Views on sex offender public notification/disclosure programmes differ between the USA and the UK with the USA being at one end of the spectrum, revealing details of sex offenders to the public on searchable websites. The UK however, whilst not at this stage, does appear to be moving in that direction (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2000, p. 508), with the launch of 'discretionary disclosure' or Sarah's Law.
Word Count 2624
References
DeVries, S. (2011). 'Sarah's Law' rolls out across the met from April. The Job , 4.
Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW). (N.D). Retrieved April 14, 2012, from United States Department of Justice: http://www.nsopw.gov
Greek, T. B. (2010). Sex offender notification: policy imperatives, effectives and consequences in the USA. In M. Nash, & A. Williams, The handbook of public protection. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Policy convergence and crime control in the USA and the UK : Streams of influence and levels of impact. Criminology and Criminal Justice , 2 (2), 173 - 203.
Jung, T., & Nutely, S. M. (2008). Evidence and policy networks: the UK debate about sex offender community notification. Evidence & Policy , 4 (2), 187 - 207.
Kemshall, H., & Maguire, M. (2003). Sex Offenders, risk penality and the problem of disclosure to the community. In A. Matravers, Sex Offenders in the Community (pp. 102 - 125). Devon: Willan Publishing.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 21 (1), 49 - 66.
McAlinden, A. M. (2006). Managing risk: From regulation to the reintegration of sexual offenders. Criminology and Criminal Justice , 6 (197), 197 - 216.
McAlinden, A. M. (2010). Punitive policies on sexual offending: from public shaming to public protection. In M. Nash, & A. Williams, The handbook of public protection. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Meloy, M., Saleh, Y., & Wolff, N. (2007). Sex Offender Laws in America: Can Panic Driven Legislation ever Create Safer Societies? Criminal Justice Studies , 20 (4), 423 - 443.
Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2000). Where Are They Now?: An Evaluation of Sex Offender Registration in England and Wales. . London: HMSO.
Plotnikoff, M., & Woolfson, R. (2007). The Exclusion Inclusion Spectrum in State and Community Response to Sex Offenders in Anglo-American and European Jurisdictions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 52, 499 - 519.
Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behaviour? Journal of Law and Economics , 54 (1), 161 - 206.
Thomas, T. (2005). Sex Crime Sex Offending and Society (2nd ed.). Devan: Willan Publishing.
Thomas, T. (2010). The sex offender register, community notification and some reflections on privacy. In K. Harrison, Managing High-Risk Sex Offenders in the Community : Risk Management, Treatment and Social Responsibility (pp. 61 - 78). Devan: Willan Publishing.