The Sex Offender Register

Politics, Policy and Public Opinion

Terry Thomas, Daniel J. Marshall

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000374957
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Civil Rights in Law
• Index: Law

The Sex Offender Register examines the origins, history, structure and legalities of the UK sex offender register, and explores how political and public opinion has influenced the direction the policy of registration has taken.

Delving into the origins of the UK sex offender register and how the registration policy has evolved, this book provides an understanding of the register and its contribution to public protection while attempting to see the register as a policy that has grown and developed and as having an organic life of its own. The sex offender register is designed as a form of public protection rather than a punishment, requiring offenders to notify the police of their circumstances and to accept a degree of offender management from the police.

The book:

• puts the development of the register in its political, social and ethical context

• considers the position of children and young people as offenders

• outlines the movement of registered offenders across international borders

• analyses how offenders can be removed from the register

• explores how other countries in the UK manage sex offenders through registers

• asks questions about the efficacy of the register and what contribution it makes to public protection

• looks at specific aspects of registration including the management of information

• delves into the experience of life on the register

• examines the influence of public opinion

• discusses the role of the police as custodians of the register and as offender managers.

Exploring the different pressures brought to bear on the register, this book provides an authoritative starting point for police officers, social workers, probation officers, magistrates, students of Criminology, Criminal Justice and Policing, and the general reader wanting to understand where the UK sex offender register originated from and how it operates today.

1 Introduction

On 1 September 1997 the UK introduced its new legal arrangements that required all people convicted or cautioned for a designated sexual offence to notify the police each time their personal circumstances changed. In this way the police database of ‘known’ sex offenders would be more accurate and up to date and the police better able to track sex offenders and know where they were in case of future reoffending. This tracking would continue for given periods of time depending on the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the sentence handed down; some people would be required to notify the police for a lifetime. Although the law never used the terminology, these arrangements became known as the sex offender register.

Since September 1997 the list of designated sexual offences has lengthened, and various changes have been made to the registration requirements. Risk assessment and risk management has become an additional feature for all those on the register. Risk assessment is the initial assessment made to try to determine the future behaviour of a convicted sex offender. In the past practitioners such as probation officers or police officers tried to determine future levels of dangerousness, and now we are more specific in trying to assess the likelihood of someone causing future sexual harm or future sexual offending. To assist these risk assessments various instruments have been introduced to assist the practitioner. At present the people on the sex offender register are assessed as:

• very high risk
• high risk
• medium risk
• low risk.

As we shall see, most of the offenders fall into the low risk group.

Risk management is the devising of a plan of intervention to prevent or reduce the possibility of the subject causing future sexual harm or further sexual offending. Such plans are devised by probation or police officers acting as offender managers. Sometime the intervention is accompanied by civil orders from the courts prohibiting the subject of the order from engaging in certain activities that have been identified in his or her assessment as being precursors to inappropriate sexual behaviour. The subject of risk assessment and risk management will be returned to.

The numbers that are required to notify the police have inevitably increased over the years. By 28 February 1999 some 8,161 individuals had notified the police of their details (Hansard House of Commons 12 May 1999 col.159) and by 31 March 2019 this figure had risen to 60,294 registered sex offenders living in the community in England and Wales (MoJ 2019a: 5). The vast majority of these people complied fully with their requirements to notify the police; one study at the time put it at 94% (Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2000: 6). Failure to comply was an offence in itself. This book looks at the background to the sex offender registration requirements and the history of this policy as a part of the public protection agenda.

The purpose of any sentence has been outlined in law as being an amalgam of retributive and utilitarian justifications of punishment. The appropriate sentence in the UK is decided upon in terms of a custodial sentence, a community sentence or a financial penalty. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that a court in making a sentence ‘must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing’:

1. the punishment of offenders
2. the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
3. the reform and rehabilitation of offenders
4. the protection of the public
5. the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

(CJA 2003 s142(1))

The protection of the public at section 142(1) (d) usually invokes the aim of custodial sentences when someone may pose a risk of further harm or offending if they are not imprisoned. The sex offender register is an administrative form of public protection, and not a part of the punishment. The punishment is decided upon at the point of sentencing; the public protection element is then automatically added on in the form of registration. The seriousness of the punishment dictates the length of registration required.

Public protection is a form of intervention to prevent recidivism that used to be solely provided by probation officers who originally held social work qualifications and were sometimes referred to as ‘social workers to the court’. More recently probation officers have moved towards their own forms of qualification and a more managerial approach. The police have brought in their own form of offender management in the interests of public protection for those on the register. The new National Offenders Management Service was introduced in 2004 using more targeted and rigorous sentences driven by information on what works to reduce reoffending; today it has been renamed as HM Prison and Probation Services. Private and voluntary providers have also been turned to in the interests of effectiveness and value for money crime prevention and public protection (Carter Report 2003).

From the outset it has always been government policy that the details of sex offenders on the register are kept locally and, in that sense, there is no actual national register:

There is no central register as such; individual sex offenders currently notify their details to the local police and are identified on the Police National Computer. This enables police across the country to know who is a ‘registered’ sex offender and to check their details with the local police force if required.

(Home Office 2002a: para.18)

To that extent the ‘register’ is a misnomer and references to offenders being asked to ‘sign the sex offenders’ register’ are slightly wide of the mark. There is no large book on to which is inscribed the names of sex offenders. A computer database called ViSOR has been developed to hold personal information on a national scale of those required to notify the police.

For ease of expression the use of the word ‘register’ will be adopted in this book. Offenders are required to notify changes in their circumstances (to register) to designated or ‘prescribed’ police stations. Offender managers will assess the risk posed by those on the register and devise ways to manage that risk. The register was not retrospective and only applied to new cases, or to those offenders already in the criminal justice system for sexual offences on 1 September 1997.

Criminal justice is delivered under the umbrella ‘criminal justice system’, which indicates a system of closely linked parts working together efficiently with a clear input at one end and output at the other. Those linked parts include the police, probation service, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), magistrates, judiciary, lawyers, prison service, Children’s Departments, mental health agencies and voluntary agencies. The perceived linear and unified nature of this system masks the complex nature of sexual offending and responses to this offending.

Registered sex offenders are a disparate group of all sorts of people. Too often they are lumped together as one monolithic group bound only by the registered sex offender label that has been applied to them. In terms of possible reoffending, some are assessed as ‘high risk’ while far more are assessed as ‘low risk’. Some are referred to as ‘paedophiles’ where their victim has been a child. In journalistic and parliamentary discussions, the word paedophile has been used freely in talk about the register which in the early days, was often referred to as a ‘paedophile register’.

The word ‘paedophile’ has a medical background and is not a term recognised in UK law where the term ‘child sex offender’ is preferred. The term ‘paedophile’ was first used by medical professionals in the late nineteenth century and has become a widely used term in contemporary life beyond that of the medical world. Today it is indiscriminately applied to any person who has committed a sexual offence against a child (Thomas 2016); in common currency ‘paedophile’ refers to adults who are sexually attracted to children of any age. The term has no status as a specific offence in UK law, where, as noted above, the term ‘child sexual offender’ is used.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) terms paedophilia as a ‘Paedophilic Disorder’ which is ‘recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviours involving sexual activities with a prepubescent child or children (generally aged 13 years or younger)’ (APA 2013: 302.2 (F65.4)). The individual must be at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children and have acted on these sexual urges or the sexual urges have caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines paedophilia as ‘a sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal – as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours – involving pre-pubertal children’ (WHO 2019).

Despite these distinctions in UK law and medical classification, nonsensical references are used in the media, such as the ‘convicted paedophile’: ‘Convicted paedophile who dressed as Santa and offered to pose for pictures with children is sent back to jail’ (Giordano 2019); ‘Convicted paedophile, 34, travelled 500 miles to abuse schoolgirl, 14, he met in online self-harm support group after seven transport police officers failed to stop him’ (Riley 2019). ‘Paedophilia’ and ‘paedophile’ are expressions which are widely recognisable, and have ‘popular, cultural currency in the media and more generally’ (Jewkes and Wykes 2012: 948).

In the 1960s and 1970s child sex offenders or ‘molesters’ used to have the image of the simple old man in the grubby raincoat standing on street corners near schools. Today child sex offenders are viewed as highly intelligent in their methods to gain children’s trust through forms of electronic communication and such behaviour as grooming. They are often referred to as predatory. The nature and rationale of such a movement in imagery could be the subject of a study in itself. The use of the term ‘predatory’ is problematic as it suggests that individuals who commit child sex offences are not executing agency and portrays wild animals rather than human beings, essentially dehumanising the suspects and encouraging hate and violence toward them.

It is also worth noting that the terminology of the professionals and practitioners engaged in childcare has changed and expanded since the 1960s. In those early days the term ‘battered babies’ was used in the USA and came over to be used in the UK. During the early 1970s the terminology changed to that of children suffering ‘non-accidental injury’, or NAI, and by the early 1980s had changed again to that of ‘child abuse’. The term ‘child abuse’ notified a potential expansion in the definition of the children falling under concern, and that it might not be just physical injuries but psychological and emotional injuries. Child sex offenders were inevitably drawn into the definitions of child abuse and by the end of the 1980s the terms ‘child protection’ and ‘safeguarding’ were being used (Parton 2006: 29–35).

The Children Act 1989 was the origin of the terms ‘child protection’ and ‘safeguarding’ but they were also indicative of a change of focus away from the condition of the child and more towards the activities of those working with them. It was these practitioners and professionals now charged with intervening on behalf of the child that became the centre of attention and not least when they got it wrong and failed to protect and safeguard.

By the end of the 1990s the focus had moved yet again towards those adults who had injured or abused children. This in turn brought us a wider view from child protection to the age of public protection and offender management.

Methodology

This study was based on the creation of the UK sex offender register over the 25–30 years since its inception to the present day. By taking a historical approach the authors have revisited the policy statements made on the register and the laws that were passed over this time period.

The aims of the study have been to focus on the register as an exercise in policy formulation, policy implementation and the reviews and research evaluations that have been produced on that formulation and implementation. The political context in which those statements and laws were made are further examined and the press and media comments that accompanied them. The press and media and the work of non-governmental organisation (NGO)s have been taken to represent a view of public opinion but sometimes that public opinion has been made more directly through bypassing the press and media.

Using primary and secondary sources the authors have:

• examined the evolution of an idea to enhance ‘public protection’ from known sex offenders living in the community
• examined the political debates on the formulation of laws to create the register
• examined the views of the practitioners and other stakeholders charged with implementing and carrying out the register arrangements
• looked at the experiences of the offenders who are required to notify the police (as custodians of the register) on any changes in their circumstances
• looked at the management of the personal information held on the register
• examined the particular arrangements for young sex offenders (under 18)
• identified the arrangements for ‘tracking’ the movements of sex offenders across international borders
• identified the arrangements for reviewing the continued status of offenders on the register
• looked at variations in register arrangements in different parts of the UK, the wider British Isles, and British Overseas Territories
• examined the evidence on the effectiveness of the register, the degree of compliance amongst offenders, and the degree of recidivism by those on the register.

Our key contentions are that policy development has been cautious and tentative and with only limited research evaluation. Political debate has sought to reflect public opinion in the creation of new laws and the amendment of these laws,戀ut this has been done without reference to what studies and more considered research evaluations have stated. The question of whether the register contributes to public protection or makes any difference remains a difficult question to answer.

Outline of chapters

This book tells the story of the UK sex offender register from its inception in the 1990s and its subsequent development to today’s arrangements. Chapter Two looks at the origins of the idea, the American experience and how policy began to be formulated. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 is examined in Chapter Three including the parliamentary discussion on the Bill, the appointment and role of the police as custodians of the register and the early implementation of the register.

Chapter Four examines the first five years of the register and the ‘teething problems’ of implementation in the early days. It looks at the need to take into account the requirements of risk assessment and risk management which had been missed out of the 1997 Act, the idea of police offender management and the construction of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) to form a ‘home’ for the register. The chapter ends by considering the first evaluations of the register by the Home Office. The new registration law in the form of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is considered in Chapter Five. The 2003 Act remains the legal foundation for today’s register with the 1997 Act having been repealed.

Chapters Six and Seven trace the history of the years 2003 to 2010 and 2010 to 2020 respectively. Offender management of those on the register becomes more embedded, rights of entry to the homes of those on the register is added and legal challenges are made against the registration laws. Chapter Seven effectively brings the story up to date with more amendments and changes made to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 adding new offences that will result in a convicted person’s name being placed on the register and adding new requirements in terms of information to be notified to the police. It looks at the continuing legal challenges still being made on the register including the right of review for people required to register indefinitely – a theme taken up more fully in Chapter Twelve.

Chapter Eight takes us through some of the existing research on the lives of those on the register and how registration affects them. Aspects of life including family activities, employment activities, leisure activities and travel activities are considered as well as the attitudes people on the register have to face from the police and other professionals, the public and the media.

Central to the idea of the register is that of managing the personal information on over 60,000 people required to notify their details to the police. Chapter Nine looks at how this is done with the aid of the ViSOR database and in terms of exchanging information between agencies that maintain our public protection arrangements and how that information might be made available to some members of the public through disclosure arrangements.

The special circumstances of the young sex offender are outlined in Chapter Ten. These are the offenders convicted or cautioned between the ages of 10 and 18 years of ag...