The Case against Naming Sex Fiends

By Michael Holcroft
Herald Sun
March 1, 2012

www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/the-case-against-naming-sex-fiends/story-fn6bn88w-1226285561134

Naming sex offenders could result in vigilant behaviour, argues Michael Holcroft. Supplied

THE Law Institute of Victoria strongly opposes the "name and shame" push with respect to serious sex offenders.

The LIV is concerned that our children and communities are protected from serious sexual predators, but "name and shame" is not the way to achieve this.

Being identified as a sexual predator removes an offender's motivation to rehabilitate.

Being publicly linked to a crime that is so stigmatised makes it difficult for an offender to obtain employment or accommodation.

Social ties are broken.

They are driven underground and are more likely to reoffend.

Naming and shaming could lead to public vigilante behaviour.

Leave judges with discretion to order suppression.

Suppression will sometimes be ordered to protect identification of victims - some of whom may not come forward if they thought that humiliating and devastating crimes inflicted upon them would become known.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

If victims do not come forward, offenders may not be punished in the first place.

Mandatory registration on the sex offenders' register and the removal of suppression orders - like other removals of judicial discretion - result in bad outcomes.

The LIV does support the sex offenders' register - but only for serious offenders, and with appropriate consideration.

In June 2011, there were 3933 offenders on the register. With 50 additions a month, there will be 5000 offenders on the register by the end of 2012 and about 6500 by the end of 2014.

I believe there are currently only 21 staff managing the sex offenders' register.

The register is awash with people who pose no risk to society - who are not serious sex offenders.

These people make it impossible to properly track the real sex offender threats.

There is a clear argument for the removal of all but serious sex offenders from the register.

Get the sexters and "Romeo and Juliet" lovers off the register.

Currently, these types of offenders are mandatorily included on the register for a minimum of eight years.

It serves no purpose, results in injustice and ruins young people's lives.

The LIV says: leave the register, remove those who pose no real threat and then provide resources to manage and monitor those who pose a serious risk to the community.

These twin initiatives would be a far more effective way of protecting children from sex offenders - now and in the future.