Sex offender policy is one of the most controversial areas of criminal justice policy. The popular hatred of sex offenders as a group is unparalled to any other kind of offender (Jung & Nutely, 2008, p. 191). Over the past few decades, in both the USA and the UK, there has been an unprecedented rise in public and media concern about sex offenders and in particular the risks posed by sex offenders on their release from custody (Kemshall & Maguire, 2003, p. 102). Managing those who are perceived as a danger to society has resulted in the introduction of legislation designed to regulate the behaviour of sex offenders. One of the most notable and widespread statutory reforms was the creation of sex offender registration and community notification laws (McAlinden, 2006, p. 193).
Thomas (2005, p. 154) explains that sex offender registration and community notification/disclosure laws require certain categories of sex offenders to notify their names and address, and any changes to these details to the police in the community where they wish to live, this provides the police with a list of previously convicted sex offenders and their crimes. This information is then presumed to be useful when a new crime is reported in that it could help identify suspects. Furthermore, it could be useful in preventing crime and might act as a deterrent (Thomas, 2005, p. 154). The conditions attached to notification and degree of public disclosure permitted to the local community varies depending on the assessed level of risk but public notification/disclosure programmes are useful in that they make it possible for potential victims, their families, and community institutions to protect themselves against known sexual threats (Thomas, 2005, p. 154).
Critically compare and contrast the public notification/disclosure programmes currently in operation in the UK and the USA.
Sex offender policy is one of the most controversial areas of criminal justice policy. The popular hatred of sex offenders as a group is unparalled to any other kind of offender (Jung & Nutely, 2008, p. 191). Over the past few decades, in both the USA and the UK, there has been an unprecedented rise in public and media concern about sex offenders and in particular the risks posed by sex offenders on their release from custody (Kemshall & Maguire, 2003, p. 102). Managing those who are perceived as a danger to society has resulted in the introduction of legislation designed to regulate the behaviour of sex offenders. One of the most notable and widespread statutory reforms was the creation of sex offender registration and community notification laws (McAlinden, 2006, p. 193).
Thomas (2005, p. 154) explains that sex offender registration and community notification/disclosure laws require certain categories of sex offenders to notify their names and address, and any changes to these details to the police in the community where they wish to live, this provides the police with a list of previously convicted sex offenders and their crimes. This information is then presumed to be useful when a new crime is reported in that it could help identify suspects. Furthermore, it could be useful in preventing crime and might act as a deterrent (Thomas, 2005, p. 154). The conditions attached to notification and degree of public disclosure permitted to the local community varies depending on the assessed level of risk but public notification/disclosure programmes are useful in that they make it possible for potential victims, their families, and community institutions to protect themselves against known sexual threats (Thomas, 2005, p. 154).
These measures, according to McAlinden (2010, p. 382), were founded on the basic notion that the most effective way to protect the public is through increased surveillance and monitoring of released sex offenders in the community. Plotnikoff & Woolfson (2000, p. 509) argue, that the central motivation for registration and notification laws is the assumption that sex offenders recidivate more than other offenders and this is why sex offenders are monitored instead of, say, murders or armed robbers. However, in one of the largest and most comprehensive studies ever done of prison recidivism by the US justice department in 2003 it was discovered that sex offenders were less likely to reoffend than other criminals were (Prescott & Rockoff, 2011, p. 179). Furthermore Marshall (1994, cited by Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2000, p. 24) points out that reconviction rates among imprisoned sexual offenders are low compared to rates for other types of offenders.
Plotnikoff & Woolfson (2000, p. 508) argue that the public will support such surveillance measures of those it believes poses a threat, in order to feel secure, especially in a society where anxiety is linked to perceptions of crime. However, measures such as registration and notification/disclosure policies and the media hype that has surrounded them, coupled with the popular yet inaccurate belief that there is high recidivism rates among sex offenders may actually serve to heighten the public's sense of fear and insecurity (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2007, p. 508).
The origins of sex offender registration and notification/disclosure programmes can be traced back to the USA where sex offender registration laws began in California in 1947, however, full-scale notification schemes in the USA date back to the late 1990s. The first public notification laws were passed in Washington state in the 1990s following a number of serious crimes involving sex offenders (Greek, 2010, p. 295) Jones & Newburn (2002, p. 190) note that the major turning point was the sexual assault and murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The discovery that the assailant, unbeknown to local residents, was sharing a house with two other sex offenders in the same street as Megan prompted an amendment to existing federal law making community notification mandatory in all states, this became widely known as Megan's law (Jones & Newburn, 2002, p. 190).
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).
[...]
- Arbeit zitieren
- Toryill Deacon (Autor:in), 2012, Critically compare and contrast the public notification/disclosure programmes currently in operation in the UK and the USA., München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/197809
-
-
-
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen.