The second edition of The New Zealand Paedophile and Sex Offender Index went on sale yesterday, the same day that public submissions on a private member's bill promoted by its author, Deborah Coddington, closed. Of the Act MP's two strategies, the Sex Offenders Registry Bill is of more moment. It would establish a national register of sex offenders - and the prospect that when a sex crime occurred, police could easily locate known paedophiles or rapists living in the area. Such readily accessible information would, says Ms Coddington, prevent crimes and keep communities safe.
It appears a persuasive argument, particularly given a rash of such crimes in the past few years. Certainly, the shadow cast by the likes of Taffy Hotene and Jules Mikus persuaded all parties in Parliament to shepherd the bill to a select committee. They might also have been encouraged by the legislation's kinship with the so-called Christopher's law registry in the Canadian province of Ontario. That registry was established in 2001 on a coroner's recommendation after a convicted paedophile sexually assaulted and killed 11-year-old Christopher Stephenson.
However, experience with that register, and an examination of more general principles, should cause the select committee to ponder how far New Zealand wishes to travel along that road. Any such law must balance the rights of offenders who have served their sentences against the safety of the community. The Ontario law - and the Coddington bill - skew that balance.
In some cases, the public must obviously be placed first. Rehabilitation programmes do not always work and there will be a high chance of recidivism when some offenders leave prison. But what of the privacy rights of offenders who want only the chance to fit back into the community? Laws such as this do not differentiate case by case; every criminal is in the same boat. Ms Coddington's bill seeks to preserve offenders' rights to some degree by protecting information in the register from disclosure to the public. But this will count for nought when police cars pulls up outside the houses of innocent parties after a sex crime occurs in the area.
The problems do not end there. The bill dictates that sex offenders must register with the police within 14 days of leaving prison, and every time they move address. Failure to do so will, as in Ontario, mean a fine of $25,000 or imprisonment for up to a year. Despite that stick, it is fair to assume that many sex offenders will simply not bother to register, or to keep their address up to date. Such registers are also essentially reactive. Knowing the whereabouts of a sex offender will not stop a crime; it merely makes it easier for the police to locate suspects. Any deterrent value will be limited. It would be folly to regard a register as a device that will fully protect children.
Such qualms explain, partly, why the Canadian Government was slow to follow Ontario's lead and establish a national registry for convicted sex offenders. Nonetheless, the police need to be able to keep track of offenders who are a risk to the community. Better monitoring is required. The system that is established must not, however, be so broad-brushed as to penalise offenders who have been rehabilitated and want to reintegrate into society.
The answer lies in the register being the product of case-by-case analysis. The police must be able to keep track of criminals guilty of serious sex offences and likely to reoffend. Such men should be identified by psychiatric assessment before their release from prison - and placed on a register. Others whose crimes are of a lesser nature and who are deemed to have been rehabilitated do not warrant such a potential millstone. They will not get it if the Sex Offenders Registry Bill tips the balance.
<i>Editorial:</i> Sex offender register plan unbalanced
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.