Adelaide (Australia), Aug 27 (The Conversation)—This week, the Queensland government is set to introduce landmark legislation establishing Australia's first public child sex offender registry, named Daniel’s Law in memory of Daniel Morcombe, a Sunshine Coast teenager tragically abducted and murdered by a sex offender over two decades ago.
While the intention is to enhance public safety and act as a deterrent for potential offenders, questions remain about its efficacy. What does this legislation entail?
Queenslanders will gain access to a searchable database featuring images and details, such as names and ages, of offenders who have violated reporting obligations and are not locatable. The government emphasizes that safeguards will be implemented to prevent misuse, including deterrents against vigilantism.
The public demand for such a database is understandable, especially in light of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which underscored the devastating impact of child sexual assault on victims. It is crucial for governments to enact policies that effectively prevent and curtail sex offending.
There are similar mechanisms in place in other regions, like the Community Protection Disclosure Scheme in Western Australia, which allows limited inquiries through the police, but lacks a public database. Additionally, all Australian states and territories maintain non-public registries monitored by law enforcement.
The research landscape offers substantial evidence, especially from the last 15 years in the United States, regarding the impact of registration and notification schemes. Here are five reasons why these registries may not achieve the desired outcomes of Daniel’s Law.
1. Lack of Deterrence—Research indicates that registration schemes do not significantly alter rates of sexual offenses. Most such offenses are committed by those without prior convictions, and those who are apprehended are found to have a low likelihood of reoffending. Similar sentiments were echoed by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Institute of Criminology, underscoring the limited deterrent effect of public sex offender registries on re-offending.
2. False Assumptions—Most offenders are known to their victims, often being family or acquaintances. Therefore, public registration may add little value in identifying risks to the community and could misdirect police efforts towards less likely offenders.
3. Abandoning Rehabilitation—These schemes might impede offenders’ ability to reintegrate into society, as they can become targets of harassment and discrimination, affecting themselves and their families. Such stigmatization undermines rehabilitative efforts central to sentencing practices.
4. Unintended Consequences—Young individuals, such as those involved in sexting, might unintentionally find themselves on the registry. Mistaken identity issues may also arise, particularly for those with common names, and the potential for vigilantism looms despite proposed penalties for misuse of the registry.
5. Misallocation of Resources—Allocating resources to an ineffective registration strategy detracts from more beneficial interventions. Public registries require significant investment, potentially at the expense of focusing on those most likely to offend again.
Future Considerations—If passed, it is imperative that the legislation allows police discretion in determining registry placements. Offenders demonstrating low re-offending risk and compliance, or whose identification might compromise family privacy, should be considered for exemption. Ultimately, while addressing sexual offending is imperative, this policy may lack the effectiveness needed. Political motives appear to have taken precedence over evidence-based policy approaches. (The Conversation)
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)