Time for Sarah's law?

Liberals should not reject out of hand calls for greater public access to information on sex offenders

Should the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders be public knowledge? The debate in the UK about ‘Sarah’s law’ is hopelessly polarised: the tabloids versus the criminal justice establishment. I suspect most people reading this instinctively regard the issue as a no-brainer. Surely no responsible legislator would support such a measure?

The dangers seem obvious. Paedophiles could be driven underground; community notification requirements might deter children from disclosing intra-familial abuse; child abusers could use public information sources to network. There’s the risk of vigilante attacks against sex offenders or those mistaken for them, like the paediatrician mistaken for a paedophile. When John Reid questions whether information should always be the exclusive preserve of officialdom, it seems transparent to the thinking classes that he is just pandering to the mob.

In fact, the issues are much more complex; and just because the News of the World is in favour of something doesn’t make it wrong. There are numerous different versions of Megan’s law (Sarah’s US counterpart) at state and local level across the US; different in terms of notification, in terms of access, and in terms of penalties for misuse of information. Some states mandate active community notification of the presence of sex offenders. Others operate passive notification; the information can accessed if you want it, but the police don’t knock on your door to tell you.

Sarah’s law is different again: it would provide for controlled access to information. Parents and carers would have to formally request information; the police would have to be satisfied that those asking have a genuine need for it. There may be particular categories of people, for instance vulnerable single mothers, whose requests might be treated more sympathetically. There would be severe penalties for anyone who misused the information. Sarah’s Law is therefore a very different creature to its US cousins.

Rather than a knee-jerk Guardianista rejection of any public access to information, we should do the New Labour thing: pilot some ideas and choose what works. Research evidence on Megan’s law to date is limited and inconclusive. One 2001 study concluded that there is little evidence to substantiate claims that community notification enhances child safety. But it also found little evidence that notification drives offenders underground. Interestingly, it found broad agreement amongst professionals that notification had enhanced the tracking and monitoring of sex offenders.

With the disclosure by the Probation Inspectorate that 40 per cent of violent and dangerous criminals are not properly monitored after release, we ought to look at anything which might improve that situation. Certainly, there appears to be little evidence of vigilante activity against paedophiles in the US despite Megan’s law. The riots in the UK can hardly be blamed on Sarah’s law; no such law is in force and the burning of a paediatrician’s home sounds to me like a good argument for ensuring that whatever information is released to the public is accurate, and that the public understand the penalties attached to its misuse.

But it’s impossible to generalise about the pros and cons of public access to information, because Megan’s law is not one law but many different ones, each providing slightly different gradations of notification, access and control. What’s missing from this debate is an appreciation of the subtleties of the different versions, and what might be beneficial or unhelpful in each of them.

People also forget that in the UK some details of sex offenders are already provided to the public: convictions are publicised at the time of sentencing, and the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 makes provision for release of information to victims of sexual or violent crimes upon the release or transfer of offenders. The question is not whether to release information publicly– we already do – the question is in what form, to whom, and with what penalties attached to misuse. As John Reid has recognised, we need some pilot schemes and, in due course, an evidence-based debate; not a hysterical knee jerk rejection of greater openness.

richard.scorer@pannone.co.uk

Richard Scorer is a solicitor

04 May 2007 00:00

 

Comments

• Posted by Howard Bramwell on 08 May 2007, 12:32:55 PM Richard comments on "what works" and "evidence" being the New Labour way of doing things. Is this why New Labour have taken ten years to protect us from secondary smoking? Also,even though there is ample evidence that hand held mobile phone use costs lives,punishment for this offence is risible. The problem with Sarah's Law is that it distorts the core issue i.e. risk and dangerousness ACROSS THE SPECTRUM regarding children. If we have a register for paedophiles,we should have one for driving offenders,as they kill more children than paedophiles
• Posted by Hugh Joseph on 11 May 2007, 2:20:29 PM Would Vicky Pollard constitute a vulnerable person,and could she be trusted not to divulge a convicted paedophile's whereabouts,and would she be deterred by any penalties for wrongful disclosure?It's just a thought!
• Posted by Jim browne on 11 May 2007, 8:05:24 PM I thing what Richard says is correct. We would end up with innocent people being beaten up for crimes they have not committed. I think we should have something that can warn people of paedophile's living in your area, but that will be very hard. In the job that I do, I get asked many times if an abuser has ever abused anyone else in the area, this is very hard to answer as we have no way of getting that information. In some cases, a client may want to take the abuser to court for a offence that took place many years ago, but the CPS will not allow this as its only one mans/womans against another. If companies like mine who are registered could maybe have access to the like of the Sexual offences register,(If there is such a thing) then maybe this could help the situation of 'Well its your word against his/hers'. This is a very hard debate to discuss, as we need to protect the innocent, but at the same time protect our children from paedophile's. The other thing is that a lot of paedophile's are within the family, again a very hard thing to look at. Well done Richard on another very good article and kep up the good work.
• Posted by Pauline Shelley on 14 May 2007, 11:10:55 AM I find Richard's article really helpful. This is such an emotive subject that it is impossible to have a rational debate and we badly need one. I think that piloting some ideas is the only sensible way forward. I hope the New Home Secretary takes heed.
• Posted by Malcolm Johnson on 16 May 2007, 3:29:12 PM What Richard says is quite right, he gets to the point quite succinctly and addresses both the pros and the cons. In my opinion the release of a paedophile's information should be carefully considered. If and when we do we should be very careful about who the information is going to and if it is neccessary. What we don't want is a another mistake like the paediatrician mistaken for a paedophile.
• Posted by janet white on 10 June 2007, 7:40:01 AM Good morning... Why is it all of a sudden they want to get rid of this law!!!!! What is it that they are trying to hide.......
• Posted by Stefan on 13 June 2007, 5:09:53 PM I consider it an illusion, to think "Sarah's Law" will save any children from child molesters. The only result will be cruelties like this: 'Paedophile' taunt gang convicted -------------------------------------- Three members of a gang have been jailed for life for murdering a Hampshire man after one of them falsely accused him of being a paedophile. Brian Kitching, 68, from Portsmouth, suffered brain damage in the attack in a rock garden on Southsea seafront in September 2005. Mr Kitching never recovered and died in a nursing home six months later. The gang included two teenage girls, one of whom was pregnant at the time of the attack. Paul Dewar, 27, of no fixed address but originally from Taunton, Somerset, Amie Bartholomew, 20, and 17-year-old Melissa Healy (nee Conran), both from Portsmouth, had denied murder. But they were convicted at Winchester Crown Court and the judge lifted reporting restrictions that had prevented the identification of Healy because of her age. Another member of the gang, Lewis Hoare, 19, from Portsmouth, had earlier pleaded guilty to murder. During the trial, the jury heard Bartholomew, then 18 and pregnant, started the attack when she shouted to Mr Kitching that he was a "dirty paedophile" and punched him. Mr Kitching was not known to the group and there was no evidence at all he was a paedophile, the court was told. He suffered brain damage, fractured eye sockets, a punctured lung and fractured ribs and died in March 2006 because his brain damage meant he could not cough and he suffocated in his own vomit. Some of the group, who had been drinking heavily, had attacked two other people during the day the court was told. After attacking Mr Kitching all four washed their clothing in the sea but witnesses recognised some of them and they were arrested shortly afterwards. A jury of six men and six women took nine hours to find the trio guilty of murder. Sentencing them, Mrs Justice Dobbs said Mr Kitching was subject to "an unprovoked and brutal attack". Lewis Hoare Hoare will be sentenced at a later date after admitting murder She added: "It is clear that this was a sustained violent attack committed by a group of drunken youths on a defenceless man of advancing years." She said Mr Kitching was "curled up with his hands over his head" while being attacked and added: "Nobody did anything to help Mr Kitching when it was obvious he was in a bad way." Dewar will serve a minimum of 16 years, minus the 277 days already spent in custody; Bartholomew will serve a minimum of 15 years; and Healy was told she would serve a minimum of 10 years. Hoare will be sentenced at a later date. source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6624237.stm