Hi All

I have just submitted my 12 page response to the so called "consultation" and can only agree with previous comments about this farcical exercise!

The Impact Assessment contains so little factual evidence that it questions whether any law or change is brought about because it makes things better!

They even admit they don't have statistics and facts - which any good system should collect and collate as a matter of routine to provide support for staff, cost and organisational effectiveness and assessment.

After admitting they haven't got many facts there is a further admission that they have used "anecdotal evidence" and "assumptions". Since when has "anecdote" been accepted as evidence" and the "assumptions" don't stand up long enough under scruntiny before they fall down of their own accord.

Any wonder we are peeved?

Still, let's be positive. I wonder how much certain news gathering organisations would pay for the full SOR?

The allegations that police officers have sold Royal Family private telephone numbers is a huge worry to those of us who could face a real physical risk for that sort of disclosure even though we are trying to accept our past and make amends by rebuilding our lives.

It would certainly be more than just a few lines of exposure in a newspaper, that's for sure!

Onward and upward. The truth is out there somewhere............

Chris

Dear Menace

Thanks for uploading your brilliant submission.

You've prompted me to attach my response to the Consultation which I submitted a couple of weeks ago.

Apart from our differences in style there's not much more than a ha'peth of difference in our considerations and conclusions. Perhaps those who read our submissions will realise that the "stereotype" that is being promoted by the CJS as the root and branch reasoning for these proposals for change might, itself, be questionable?

Enjoy the read.

 

Chris

 

 

Fascinating and really interesting to a "Systems Mechanic" like me, although I am of the Checkland Methodolgy School of Interation when it comes to testing hypotheseses. But that as you rightly say is all about collecting and comparing data which really seems to be the root of the problem in the case of the efficacy of the current SOR system.

We all have our personal experiences which shape our views and opinions and as I for one have come to realise as I've grown older, there are few "simple" answers and compromise is the norm. My reading of the results of theory testing and studies across a wide range if issues simply go to confirm my view.

However, in the case of the SOR, it seems that there is a populist hegemony at work - promulgated by those involved in the management of the system (who of course have their own vested interests), politicians and the media which all acts on public perception and opinion. If you have followed the current debate on Twitter (nearly forgot - and the Mail on Sunday) regarding support for an e-petition to reintroduce capital punishment you might be led to believe that there is huge support. However, a quick look at the Government's e-petition site shows that e-petitions in opposition to reintroduction is currently well ahead - 64% to 36% - but the supporters campaign has become newsworthy and controversial so has been given airtime by the media.

In relation to the SOR I have no doubt that a measured calm debate where the facts are researched and considered openly without prejudice or storms being whipped up by an ill informed or circulation (money) driven media might well allow us all to examine cause, effect and management issues.

It all comes down to your final sentence "At least that way we'd have some reliable evidence on whether spending loads of money monitoring 35,000 people for years on end is worthwhile" and that is about the only thing that the current political orthodoxy of cutting the size of the state and its spending and debt that will engage them in such research.

Finally, thanks for the excellent mental workout.

Chris

I wonder what the maximum sentence is for breaching the plain English laws!! In fairness I did provide references for places where people could find out more about the terms that I used, and I tried to explain them.
'Durkheim days'?!! How old are you Ian? Poor old Emile died in 1917, I'm sure you can't have been one of his contemporaries!!!

My theory is that it isn't know what the effect is on re-offending of introducing registers because no-one has bothered to find out from a comprehensive review of the available evidence. They might be incredibly successful, or have no effect at all, or even make the situation worse. I don't know - and the problem is that people have formulated the policy of having one just because it seemed like a good idea at the time and the News of the World liked it.

Taking the approach of 'prove the registers and restrictions aren't needed' is a bit of a back-to-front approach in my view, because you can't prove a negative. It's a bit like Bertrand Russell's approach to his atheism - he couldn't prove that God doesn't exist, but then, he claimed, that religious leaders couldn't prove that there wasn't a celestial teapot orbiting the Earth. But just because you can't disprove it, doesn't make it right or true. I take your point that public opinion is completely stacked against any change to the current system, but strong uninformed opinions dictating public policy in the absence of evidence is a dangerous thing.

Really the emphasis should be on the police and policy-makers to prove that their registers work (although again there isn't any widespread desire to change matters so they are under no pressure to do so). It's very easy to prove the registers work - particularly if you only look for evidence that proves your point and don't conduct any research that might disprove your theory. Every year we have reports from individual police forces telling us how many 'sex offenders' they have monitored and how few have re-offended - and then they congratulate themselves that what they are doing is working and go and have another doughnut. Now you can't research this by removing the registers (that wouldn't be allowed because some Daily Mail readers might explode and that would make an awful mess) - but you can compare 'before' and 'after' re-conviction rates in countries that have introduced registers. That is what I was proposing and therefore you don't really need to include countries that have never bothered (although it would be interesting to see what their re-conviction levels were just as a blunt comparison).



I don't think it would - even if the re-offending rate in our hypothetical country was really high, that wouldn't prove that an intervention such as a register would make any difference if introduced. The existence of high levels of re-offending would not be, by itself, proof that registers work. But a massive drop in recidivism after introducing a register might do - only problem is, no-one has really looked at this, they have only looked at rates of re-offending in any depth once the register has already been introduced. What you need to do is look at, for example, the UK and see if sexual recidivism dropped significantly after 1997 when the register was introduced. And then do the same in the USA after about 1994... and so on. And then compare the effect-sizes across all the different countries and see what happened to recidivism.

To look at this another way, high-rates of scurvy are not evidence that Vitamin C helps to eliminate it. A comparison of levels of scurvy both before and after Vitamin C consumption has been increased, however...

On medicine: you have double-blind trials for this sort of thing where you compare medication against a placebo, but the measurement of 'pain' is still subjective and individual patients rate it on a scale and they all have different levels of tolerance. All you can do is ensure that you perform large-scale controlled studies so that the subjectivity of your measure has less impact on the overall effect-size.

Post Edited (AndyH) : 08/08/2011 16:23:47 (GMT+1)

Definitely agree that the Moors Murders were a turning point, perhaps the reporting of them even more so than the actual events!
However the ECHR wasn't preceded by this, it was set up after WWII.



If ever we needed that situation it was now. Problem is you now can accept and serve a punishment, and not be allowed to move on!

Hi Menace,

Quite, quite brilliant!
Why is such rationality never applied by the goons at the Home Office when they draft this rubbish? My suspicion is that the Minister says, "I want to bring in this legislation, go and write the evidence base that supports it" rather than what is the sensible thing - see what the actual evidence suggests, and then draft the policy in relation to the evidence.

FC - that's great as at least it shows they are considering the perspective of people affected.

I'd email them back though just to check that they aren't going to 'cherry-pick' one bit out of your submission that supports what they want to do and then ignore the rest of it!

Makes me think of the adage: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

In the UK people don't seem to be rioting because of any overt political cause (although the causes of this behaviour are probably linked indirectly to politics and inequality - not too many kids from Eton and Westminster College rioting!) However, the government are lining up to throw scorn on them and their awful behaviour (and let's not be coy about it - it is awful). But I bet there was looting in Tahrir Square and in Libya that wasn't in protest at the regime, but which the same politicians praised as part of a wider movement of people rising up to demand freedom and democracy!

I think you are right Ian that this is not a riot of the working class. It is largely riot of the underclass - those with little stake in society and who simply don't care any more. That doesn't justify anything of course, but government's have simply accepted mass unemployment and sticking people on benefits for years. This has left them at the very margins of society and if they don't have economic capital, they can't contribute. So is it any wonder when eventually they stop playing by the same rules as everyone else? I am becoming curious as to how many of the people involved have 'previous' and have been locked out of employment partly as a consequence of their criminal records!

Not sure how you can pin this on immigration though? Do you mean that the population is simply too big to be sustained by the number of jobs in the economy?

Post Edited (AndyH) : 11/08/2011 09:55:04 (GMT+1)

Inspired by both of you I've decided to have a look at this myself. Is it just me... or is most of what we've come up with between us really, really obvious to anyone with a capacity for logic and rational thought? I have real concerns with regards the quality of people that the Home Office employs to produce this stuff.

Have dealt with foreign travel first - I'll add what I can think of for the other proposals later:


Having read the consultation document and impact assessment provided by the Home Office I have concerns not only as to the extent of planning that has been made in relation to the proposed legislative changes but also questions as to the quality of evidence presented proposing that the changes are necessary. I therefore doubt whether the proposed changes would have any efficacy in reducing sexual offending overseas.

The ECPAT UK report which is cited within the consultation document and the impact assessment includes a number of what are optimistically described as ‘case studies’. These are not, as one might expect, instances of primary research conducted by ECPAT UK, but are in fact, media reports of cases where British citizens have been convicted for child sexual abuse overseas. These are as follows:

Case study 1   A BBC news report of two British men convicted of abusing children in an Albanian orphanage. However, there was no report of these men being registered sexual offenders prior to their journey to Albania.

Case study 2   A report from the Bangkok Post of a British man paying for sex with children in Cambodia, in this instance the man is reported as having previous convictions for Internet sexual offences.

Case study 3   A report from the Daily Mail of a British man committing sexual offences against Latvian street children. There was no mention of the man having previous sexual convictions or of being a registered sexual offender.

Case study 4   A BBC report of a British man being sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a girl in Goa, India. Again there is no suggestion that the man was a registered sexual offender.

Case study 5   A report from the ‘This is Gloucestershire’ website (owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust) of another British man, alleged to have committed sexual offences against young boys in Goa, India. Once again, there is no suggestion that the man was already a registered sexual offender and the court proceedings against the man were actually dismissed meaning that the case against him is unproven and he remains not guilty of any offence.

Such a selection of information as ‘evidence’ in support of changes to the current system of notification for foreign travel are immediately evident as causing concern. Firstly, using tabloid newspaper reports as the factual basis for a change of Government policy is completely irresponsible and would extend a worrying trend for the development of policy in Home Affairs on the basis of media pressure. The previous Government made a number of changes to the notification requirements in 2003 and introduced the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in 2010 on the basis of campaigns run by the News of the World. A number of senior executives of this paper are now under investigation for alleged criminality over a number of years and there are suggestions that data from the police national computer in relation to former Labour MP Martin Salter was sold to the News of the World who targeted him because he refused to support their campaign for ‘Sarah’s Law’. The fact that the most high-profile 'lobbyist' for changes to the management of registered sexual offenders was allegedly prepared to use such coercive tactics against a democratically elected member of the legislature should be of grave concern.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the men in these case studies would have been prevented from committing the offences described (or in one case alleged offences) if a requirement to notify the police of all foreign travel was added to the notification requirements. It cannot be ascertained that most of these men were even subject to the notification requirements in the first place (as they were not registered sexual offenders).

The ECPAT UK report also cites (p13) that of 33 cases of child abuse committed in educational institutions highlighted by CEOP, 23 were identified as having previous convictions for offences against children. However, it does not state whether these were sexual offences committed or whether the previous convictions were sexual in nature. Also, there is no reference provided to the original source of this data, or any opportunity to assess the methods used or the purposes for which CEOP collected it. Was the data, for instance, collected by CEOP searching for registered sexual offenders who had disappeared overseas without notifying the police? Or was this abuse committed by people who had travelled overseas having given the police notification of their intention to travel? Or were these cases of people who had historic convictions for child abuse but who were not subject to the notification requirements? Without knowing the answers to these questions it is impossible to say whether or not the majority of child sexual offences involving British people overseas are committed by those with previous convictions and who are also subject to the notification requirements.

The report states at the outset that “Since the mid-1990s ECPAT UK has documented over 120 cases of British nationals accused of sexually exploiting children overseas” (p7). This means that on average less than 10 cases are documented each year by ECPAT UK and, whilst this is still too many, there is no suggestion that these cases are exclusively offences committed by individuals subject to the notification requirements. If these offences are, as is entirely plausible, committed by those with no previous convictions for sexual offending and who are therefore not registered sexual offenders, it is difficult to ascertain what impact changing the foreign travel notification requirements would have.

Based upon the current arrangements, there is scope for police to apply for a foreign travel order to block overseas travel in cases where a registered sexual offender is thought to pose a risk of committing sexual offences in their destination country. The Ministry of Justice, in the 2010 MAPPA annual reports cites the following number of FTOs being used over a 5-year period: 2005/6   (1), 2006/7 (3), 2007/8 (1), 2008/9 (12) and 2009/10 (15). Clearly there is not a large-scale problem of registered sexual offenders travelling overseas for more than 3 days to countries where the police have reasonable suspicion and credible evidence that they might sexually abuse children, otherwise the use of FTOs would be much greater than 32 over 5 years.

The proposal to require all foreign travel to be notified is based upon suggestions of a ‘loophole’ that allows registered sexual offenders to arrange trips of less than 3 days. The ECPAT UK report states that “the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) records that in 2008/9 approximately 56% of travelling sex offenders caught were apprehended in South East Asia” (p7). Given that travel to South East Asia takes at least a full day in each direction, not to mention the expense of return tickets and travel within the countries visited, that leaves one day in which the travelling sex offender can commit their offences. I would imagine that the number of registered sexual offenders who can afford to make such a trip and who chose to do so in less than 3 days is, in reality, negligible. The consultation document proposes that the ‘loophole’ is used for travel to Eastern European counties, quoting that: “CEOP records 20% of activity by travelling sex offenders as having taken place in European countries in 2008/9” (p11). However, once again this does not state what proportion of this 20% are registered sexual offenders and what proportion are sex offenders who have not yet been convicted of an offence and made subject to the notification requirements.

The Home Office, and other organisations, appear to have thought about the problem of British citizens travelling overseas to sexually abuse children as one that can be solved by restricting the travel of registered sexual offenders. It is, however, not only plausible but probable that the problem is actually with unregistered sexual offenders rather than with individuals already subject to notification requirements. Before proceeding with the proposed changes in relation to foreign travel notification, the Home Office should do the following:

•   Collect reliable and independent data on what proportion of sexual offences committed by British citizens overseas can be attributed to registered sexual offenders, and what proportion to individuals with no previous history of sexual offending or requirement to notify their foreign travel to the police.
•   Review whether the current process of applications for foreign travel orders is fully understood and utilised by the police.
•   Determine whether issues of overseas child sexual abuse can be tackled more appropriately through the work of the Department for International Development, in order to identify children ‘at risk’ (particularly in South East Asian countries) and make provisions in partnership with the respective Governments of these countries to remove them from situations where they might be exploited by travelling sex offenders.

Post Edited (AndyH) : 04/08/2011 17:17:44 (GMT+1)

In advance - apologies to everyone else for my turning this into a nerdy discussion about stats between me and Ian! For those that have no idea what we're talking about this gives a good synopsis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review



Doesn't that rather depend upon how you operationalize the variables involved? Even in medicine there are loads of confounding variables, but that's exactly why they do systematic reviews. Take things like studies of whether SSRIs work for treating the symptoms of depression. Sure you can do double-blinded trials against placebos, but how do you even go about measuring a concept like depression in the first place, or knee or back pain for that matter? There is still plenty of subjectivity in measuring things that are medical. Individual studies always have flaws, but if you compare lots of studies collectively you minimise the impact of these problems. I don't see any reason why Government's can't undertake a meta-analysis/systematic review on the effect of sex-offence registers, even with all the confounding variables... at least on a theoretical basis in our example here. Practically speaking, the main issue is getting hold of sex-offence re-conviction rate data from each of the countries but if you could do this there's no reason a meta-analysis couldn't be conducted. Most countries record this data routinely (unfortunately massive criminal record databases aren't exclusive to the UK!)

Remember that even with all the cultural and legal differences between countries you effectively still have a range of large-scale experimental studies. Into our meta-analysis we put all the countries that have introduced sex-offender registers - the UK, USA, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. Even though there are variations of laws in each country, what we effectively have is a series of 'effect-sizes' that can be measured. Let's say our consistent measure is the rate of re-conviction for those sentenced for sexual offences for a period of say 10 years. For each country we can compare re-conviction rates before and after introducing a register. The fact that each individual country is a different 'experiment' conducted under slightly different conditions isn't too much of an issue as we're not comparing their legal systems with each other, rather we are weaving together the effect-sizes from each country to create an overall measure of the impact of introducing a register for sex-offenders. Provided you weight your analysis based-upon sample sizes so that smaller studies (New Zealand) aren't allowed to have the same impact as the bigger ones (United States) you should get a pretty good idea of what impact registers have.

Nerd alert...
Your outcome is a blobbogram or forest-plot - I've uploaded an image of the Cochrane Collaboration logo which is of a blobbogram for people who still have no idea what I'm going on about (you might need to click on it to see it properly). In the picture, each of the horizontal lines represents the effect-size for a different study, the width of the line represents the 'confidence interval' for the data for that study (so if you're pretty certain your data is a reliable measure of your effect-size it's a narrow line, if you're less certain the line is wider). If any part of the line touches the vertical 'no effect' line then you have to assume that your intervention doesn't make any difference. In the diagram (completely random - nothing to do with sex-offender studies by the way), you can see that most of the individual studies touch the 'no-effect' line - BUT, you might notice a pattern - that they're all over to the left a bit. Which means that when you look at just one study, you might not find anything significant, but if you look at them all collectively, you see a pattern emerge. The little diamond is the overall effect-size for all the studies taken together, which shows a slight effect-size which we might not have noticed otherwise. This might not seem very interesting - but this slightly dull-sounding statistical method has probably saved millions of people's lives around the world - maybe even your own if you were born prematurely (I won't bore you further with why).

So how is this all relevant? What I'm suggesting is - wouldn't it be good to have a meta-analysis looking at the effect of introducing sex-offender registers on re-conviction rates by comparing all the countries where they've been introduced? At least that way we'd have some reliable evidence on whether spending loads of money monitoring 35,000 people for years on end is worthwhile.

Post Edited (AndyH) : 07/08/2011 23:37:30 (GMT+1)

There seems, as ever, to be slightly dubious thinking going on at the Home Office on this. Theresa May is entitled to her own opinions, but not to her own facts.

Firstly, I have yet to see evidence of lower rates of sexual-offence recidivism in countries that have some sort of 'register' when compared to those that don't. Obviously there are difficulties in finding comparable data given the differences in the archiving of criminal conviction information, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a 'ballpark' comparison figure - if only someone at the Home Office or Ministry of Justice could bother. Given this - where is the evidence base suggesting that increasing the scope of the notification requirements would result in fewer offences (other than just because CEOP or the police are asking for it which is not, in itself, evidence).

Secondly, I am in the process of doing some research on MAPPA statistics with a view to co-authoring an article. So far as I can see there is a massive downgrading of Category 1 (Registered Sexual Offenders) from Level 2 and 3 management down to Level 1 (the proportions at each Level have changed over the last 6 years and very significantly in the last 2). Curiously the MoJ figures differ from those provided by individual MAPPA reports when looked at collectively - I'm trying to figure out why this should be. But if more MAPPA teams are taking the view that they can manage a higher proportion of RSOs at Level 1 (lower risk) - why the need to collect more personal data on RSOs?

Thirdly, the presumption seems to be (still) that a massive reduction in sexual offending can be achieved by reducing recidivism. Whilst things like provision of SOTP courses seems to have some efficacy in this area (albeit mostly in those with a low/medium 'risk of reconviction), I'm not convinced that there is a huge problem of mass recidivism amongst those previously convicted of sexual offences. In fact, almost all of the evidence (including the official MoJ statistics) points to the contrary position - that convictions for sexual offences are overwhelmingly 'first timers' (i.e. people without previous in this category of offending, or as is often the case, any previous convictions). There might well be more sexual offences being discovered, prosecuted and convicted, but that is not the same thing as more sexual recidivism. This being the case, there is no reason to think that making the SOR more stringent in its requirements would lead to a fall in the rate of sexual offending since most of the offences are committed by people not previously known to the police. MAPPA reports that the rate of 'serious further offences' is actually very low - so why the need to gather yet more data?

On a related point, I am also curious as to whether the published rate of sexual offending (and sex offence recidivism) includes people convicted or cautioned for breaching the notification requirements or a SOPO (which are offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003). If so, what would be the effect on the statistics of excluding these 'technical' offences (i.e. if a person fails to notify the police of a change of address is that counted as a 'sexual offence' in the statistics?)

I think Newton makes an interesting suggestion - why isn't the level of information required linked to the risk-management level of the individual rather than 'blanket'? Having said that, I'm not convinced that the processes involved in risk-management decisions are sufficiently robust and are more guess work than scientific.

Post Edited (AndyH) : 05/07/2011 12:31:50 (GMT+1)

Okay, the second one really annoyed me. I know I'm a liberal-Lefty Guardian reader but...


ii)   notify weekly where they are registered as having 'no fixed abode' (where a registered sex offender has no sole or main residence and instead must notify the police of the place where they can regularly be found)

It is a sad indictment of the failings of our criminal justice system that people who have passed through it should end up having ‘no fixed abode’ – are taxpayers getting good value for money when people who have committed sexual offences and then come into contact with our prison and probation services are allowed to end up on the streets rather than being adequately supported towards secure accommodation and employment upon their release from custody.

It is perhaps of even greater concern that the Home Office sees the main problem here being that homeless people with previous convictions for sexual offences might not comply with the notification requirements so that the police can monitor them. The problem surely is that people are ending up homeless after their sentence and our processes of rehabilitation and social reintegration are so poor that they come to be seen only in terms of the potential risk they might pose to the public rather than as human beings who have served their sentence and need somewhere to live.

Given than stable employment is known to be the single biggest factor in reducing the risk of re-offending, with secure accommodation not far behind, might it not be better for the government to devise a better way of reintegrating these people into society rather than letting them become homeless and considered only in terms of whether or not they have notified the police of “where they can be regularly found”?

In relation to the third proposal...


In order to consider whether this change is necessary, or likely to have any positive effect on rates of sexual offending against children, it might be helpful to know the answers to the following questions:

a)   What number of children under 18 are victims of sexual offences committed by people subject to the notification requirements with whom they live?

b)    What number of children under 18 are victims of sexual offences committed by people with whom they live and who are NOT subject to the notification requirements and who do not have previous convictions for sexual offences?

c)   What the difference is between the two figures above and whether imposing the additional proposed notification requirement would make any significant difference in reducing the number of children who are abused by people with whom they live?

Again the Home Office seems to have formed the conclusion that a reduction in the number of sexual offences against children can be achieved by extending the notification requirements. However, the Ministry of Justice MAPPA annual report for the year 2009/10 (p13) states that 104 ‘serious further offences’ were charged to Category 1 cases under MAPPA (registered sexual offenders). I would imagine that of these offences a negligible number are committed against children under 18 with whom the offender is living. Indeed it is not even explicitly stated that these 104 serious further offences are all sexual. Given this situation, what reason is there to believe that extending the notification requirements against ALL 34,939 registered sexual offenders (MAPPA report, p8) would significantly reduce child sexual abuse?

I note that there is no suggestion to restrict the additional requirement to those convicted of offences against victims aged under 18 or to those who are managed at higher risk MAPPA levels 2 and 3 - rather this is being seen as a blanket policy covering all those subject to notification.

Post Edited (AndyH) : 05/08/2011 09:26:16 (GMT+1)

Okay, I've done a bit more work on this and will submit the document attached. I have to say that it is very concerning that these proposals are only open for an 8-week consultation period - is this the bare minimum that the Home Office is required to consult for I wonder? The fact that these proposals are being put forwards without any substantive evidence suggests that the Government feel that they can do whatever they like in relation to sex-offenders because no-one will notice or, indeed, care.

Just discovered something that I find rather odd about all of this and have emailed the Home Office to ask about it...

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my last email and submission of my responses, I have a specific enquiry about the length of this consultation.
It is stated on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/notification-sex-offenders/) that the consultation lasts from 14th June 2011 to 8th August 2011 – a period of 8 weeks
However, the HM Government Code of Practice for Consultation states (as Criterion 2 on page 8) that: “Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.” (www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf)

Can I please enquire as to who made the decision to have a shorter length consultation on these issues and why was this decision made?

Yours faithfully.....

I've just noticed that the 12 week minimum is suggested in the consultation document itself on page 19. So why does the same document on page 5 only allow for an 8 week consultation? Anyone would think that they were just doing all this as a paper exercise!!!

Post Edited (AndyH) : 05/08/2011 14:45:15 (GMT+1)

Interesting stuff. I think you may be right that this could be an unanswerable question though, there must by a myriad of different reasons why people offend.

I tend to see this in terms of whether the restrictions have any efficacy in reducing the overall number of sexual offences (i.e. does any of this work?). This is, after all, what really matters and is the stated purpose of the restrictions. Ultimately we all want less victims of crime.
Ironically, quite a big emphasis is still put on rehabilitation for sexual offending. 'Sex offenders' account for about 1% of crime, make up about 10% of the prison population, but account for about 80% of expenditure on offending-behaviour interventions (I'll try and find some references to evidence to back this up!) I say ironically, because this is the group of offenders who are then subject to the most stringent restrictions. So you have to ask why spend money on 'treatment' if you don't believe the treatment works and then choose to focus on control and restrictions?

My suspicion is that this comes down to one thing - fear. Cold, unreasoning fear. People in authority are terrified at the prospect of someone 'doing it again' and being held accountable, so they are throwing billions of pounds of taxpayers money into trying to make sure that doesn't happen. We have a 'sex offenders register', sex-offender treatment programmes, indeterminate prison sentences, multi-agency public protection arrangements, child sex offender disclosure schemes, the Criminal Record Bureau, the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre... and probably 101 other things I haven't thought about. All with a common purpose - to stop 'known' sex offenders from re-offending.

However, in my opinion, they have all been set up with scant regard to the actual evidence - that for some reason, and I don't know why, most people who have been convicted of a sexual offence, don't tend to go on and get convicted of another sexual offence. And also, most of the people who do get convicted, don't tend to have previous convictions for sexual offences. Now it is often said that this is because of poor rates of detection, but I'm sure that the rates of detection are equally poor for other offences so I'm unconvinced that this argument holds any water.

So the outcome is that we end up with an ever-expanding number of people on the 'sex offenders register', but (according to the British Crime Survey) an increasing number of people being convicted of sexual offences (so maybe detection isn't that bad after all!?) This leads me to a question? If we are 'registering' more people in order to reduce re-offending, then why is the rate of convictions increasing? Surely these extra offences can't be committed by people already registered, because if that was the case the number of people on the register wouldn't be increasing. So you have to ask yourself, how big does the number of people on the register have to be before we realise that it has no impact on reducing the number of sexual offences or the number of victims? It's currently at about 35,000. What if it hits 50,000 and the number of sexual convictions keeps going up? What about 100,000? How about 500,000 or even a million?

This brings us back to Ian's very pertinent question about addressing why people have committed their offences. Perhaps, if we invested a bit more energy and investment into researching the 'pathology' of offending, and into raising more awareness (not hysteria) about risk factors for sexual offending then we might actually achieve something constructive. Why don't we have a 'case-controlled study' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-control_study) whereby we compare interventions in different countries on the success with which they minimise rates of sexual offending? Lets find out which country has the best model for dealing with this issue and copy it. Or is that too obvious?

Post Edited (AndyH) : 06/08/2011 10:17:33 (GMT+1)