Sex register ‘is top priority’
Saturday 11th July 2009, 3:00PM BST.
Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand
TWENTY-FIVE high-risk sex offenders who require close monitoring are currently unsupervised in the Island.
Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has revealed the number of high-risk offenders currently living unsupervised in the Island – and has claimed that there are up to 250 people in
Jersey who should be on a sex offenders’ register.
Asked at a Scrutiny hearing this week when a register would be established in Jersey, the former Magistrate insisted that the matter was his top priority and that he was keen to take something to the States in the next few months.
It is estimated that 250 potential paedophiles should be on the list and that 25 of them are high-risk offenders. Currently, offenders can be monitored only if they agree that the police can watch them.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
How does anyone know how many people have sex-related convictions in Jersey – there are no police checks on immigrants from any location as far as I am aware.
Unless we have the work permits with police checks on people coming here how can this register operate properly?
Report abuse
For once I agree 100% with Ian Le Marquand. Having a ‘Sex Offenders Register’ in Jersey, should definately be a top priority. This should have been done years ago…..it should be easy enough for Jersey’s Law Draftsmen to copy legislation already on the law books in the U.K.
Report abuse
This was already TOP PRIORITY LAST YEAR. I can recall, that there were many many promises that the the register will be in place by the beginning of 2009! Nothing in place since.
Report abuse
We need to be careful of what we wish for. Internet registries are expanding to include other crime types. It could be you or me who is forced to register next by the government for “public safety.” Maybe they will force all they consider to be subversives to register. Copwatch.net is a private organization registering criminal cops. They have a list of over 15,000 criminal cops, and nearly 2,600 are sexually deviant, inclusing paedophiles. Does this mean that we should make all cops register for our safety? As I said, be careful of what you wish for.
Report abuse
This will only affect those who the AG allows to go through the criminal justice system. So it is an imperfect instrument.
A complete overhaul of the judiciary is what is needed as ‘a priority’
Report abuse
So, we have a notorious, lengthy and expensive sex abuse investigation going on interminably and two hundred and fifty sex offenders on the loose.
That’s just great publicity for an island whose reputation is already tarnished.
Just name and shame.
Why do we ever think it’s alright to “protect” dangerous criminals when it is our children who need protecting and informing everyone of just who these people are would be a totally free way of ensuring it.No cost needed, just the list in the JEP.
It is high time the law protected the innocent and stopped sheltering the dangerous.
What will happen then?
Will the information make criminals of parents who seek their own “solutions” ? Please, give the ordinary person the credit to protect without seeking to offend themselves.
If those with perverted interests in children knew they were known, those with enough of a mind to know what they did was wrong would maybe think twice, but the rest should be locked up for good.
Politicians, stop wasting public money on so many projects we don’t want and build another secure wing on La Moye and throw away the key.
Report abuse
“….take something to the States in the next few months.”? Are they kidding us? Do you think the people of Jersey are stupid?
A law to keep track on sex offenders and paedophiles was already officially proposed to the States in 2008. http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/12/05/new-move-to-set-up-a-sex-offenders-register/
In April 2009, the politicians then announced that the register “could be approved before the summer”, but Jersey does not have the money for it. Poor Jersey! The “law could not be brought in until funds were found.” http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/04/09/sexoffenders-law-will-arrive-when-the-money-does/
The summer is heer and all e get is more proposals, which will take months (years) to fester. There is no need for new proposals. What is needed is the will to protect children. We have money for lots of undertakings of often dubious credentials, but the safety of children remains low priority and just talk!
Report abuse
I think this is about to join the long list of ‘things about which something will be done’.
I can think of States reform that has been moving from one back burner to another for several years and the depositors protection scheme that is gradually creeping towards a date in the distant future.
The most common States decision is to put off making a decision, after almost twelve years of wrangling the incinerator only got through because the old one was falling apart and there was a serious possibility that Bellozanne would disappear under the accumulated rubbish.
Report abuse
The draft law allows for people who have not been convicted (or even arrested) to be added to the list. Note the expression ‘potential paedophiles’ – so don’t worry, they can, and will, add whoever they wish.
No need for any offence to be committed.
The thought police are here, and watching what you might (or might not) be thinking.
Report abuse
To reduce the cost of bringing this legislation on to the Law Books in Jersey, all the Jersey Law Draftsmen have to do is mirror the U.K. legilsation…it is not rocket science.
Of course the States won’t be as pragmatic as that – things have to be done the Jersey way
Report abuse
Cathy 6 — I completely agree!! Why is it the safety of our children is not placed above the protection of the sick individuals!!
After all the media attention to HDG it should have been done immediately to prevent any sucj thing happeneing again!!
We heard only the other day that charges were being dropped against someof those from the case and someof them apparently STILL work in services with children!! Is jersey completely backward?
Do something about it and stop wasting time and money on rubbish we dont need!! No funding my backside!!!!
Report abuse
Unfortunately kids are still most at risk from someone within their own family (or close to it) despite high-profile cases being about strangers or educators. For teenagers, the biggest risk is fast becoming date rape (involving alcohol/drugs). The best way to protect your kid has to be education (for both of you) and to trust your motherly instincts!
The behaviour (and attire) of many teenage girls in Jersey puts them at high risk. That they are not in any way to blame for an attack on them does not change the fact that they can take sensible steps to minimise the risk. Are we honestly trusting a sex-offender to think sensibly about the way a girl is dressed? They wouldn’t be a sex offender if they reasoned like you and I.
I agree with a register but it HAS to be for those found guilty in a court of law, anything else would be be detrimental (never mind appalling) to the cause of catching and punishing sex offenders.
Report abuse
Cathy
If you look through past copies of the JEP they already have been named and shamed. Anyone convicted in Jersey has their case reported in the JEP so if you want your own Register just keep a scrapbook.
But bear this in mind for the open access to a Register.
There has been considerable debate over the effectiveness of Megan’s Law and therefore, by implication, Sarah’s Law. Issues raised have included:
The increased stereotyping of those on the sex offenders register. This may lead to a reduction in the ability of offenders to find housing and employment, thus leading to their being ostracised and therefore being more likely to reoffend.
The lack of “finesse” of definitions of “sex offender”. This has led those being convicted of urinating in a public place (which is classified as “indecent exposure”) as sex offenders, and being placed on the register with those convicted of more serious offences such as rape.
The increased risk of sex offenders avoiding registration with Probation services. In the USA, this figure stands at around 80%, compared with 97% in the UK. it has been suggested that the risk of harm mentioned above deters offenders from registering.
There is little access to the Register in the UK hence the higher rate of offenders willing to work with the authorities.
The nature of offending is seriously mis-represented by “Sarah’s Law”. Research suggests that reoffending rates over a six year period run at around 8.5%. Thus, it may be suggested that reoffending is not the problem that is suggested by some commentators.
Relationships of offenders to victims. In terms of rape, 83% of attackers are known to their victims and 54% are partners or former partners. These statistics suggest that “stranger danger” has been exaggerated
So yes the Register is needed but to make it open to the public will only make offenders go underground where they are not supervised and therefore more likely to re-offend. If this is what you want then be it on your head (or should I say your children’s). Leave the monitoring to the professionals.
One more point; there is no time constraints on the new law so if you committed a sexual offence, say 25 years ago as a drunken teenager you exposed yourself you can be put on the Register and your employer notified. That is the difference between the proposed Jersey Law and the UK!!!
Report abuse
Some of these comments that suggest that to save a bit of time we place responsibility for the inclusion of names on a Sex Offenders register in the hands of some anonymous grey suited Civil servant with only an arbitrary definition of the criteria for such inclusion makes very scary reading, especially when one considers the deep distrust many of these same commentators appear to have of such oligarchic figures. The draft law does not limit inclusion on the register to those convicted but includes those likely to commit an offence which is open to wide interpretation and abuse. Who is likely to commit an offence? Statics show that that those persons who have suffered abuse are more likely to abuse so it would be logical to record the name of the victim in the same category as the perpetrator. Also in many cases those who shout the loudest shout to mask their own involvement. Should we include those blowing whistles in the Royal Square last week? Of course this is nonsense but if the proposed law allowed such abuse then it is right that it has been withdrawn as clearly it would have caused much more harm than good. Instead of criticising Senator Le Marquand for delaying a bad Law we should be supporting him in bringing a workable and useful piece of legislation with the proper checks and balances to prevent the current “trial by blog” culture favoured by some. The correct question should be “who was responsible the failure to bring a workable law to the States?”
Report abuse
This is Jersey!
You’d have thought after HDG that this would have been priority…….but then 11 more cases have been thrown out because the powers that be are blind to what is actually going on in this island. Surely Jersey doesn’t have any sex-offenders !!!!
What I think is amazingly stupid is the comment in the article above “Currently, offenders can be monitored only if they agree that the police can watch them”.
Since when do the offenders get to choose whether or not they get monitored !!!!
Report abuse
I have a better idea. Why don’t we acknowledge that sex offenders are almost invariably unpleasant men that we don’t much want to be around and give them a choice of chemical castration (which is the case in France) or else permanent exile from Jersey.
That would seem to solve the problem at much less cost. If you have a register, the next thing will be a paedo on the register committing an offence and then half a dozen suits and coppers on paid leave for 18 months while some independent body carries out an investigation into how such a predictable failure could have happened, against the wishes of at least one States Senator who will say that the inspection is a sham and the establishment is trying to cover something up. No, stuff that. Castration or exile. Much simpler.
Report abuse
A sex offenders register, yes.
A register of “potential paedophiles”… what does that even mean? Can the police tell by the way you walk? Seriously, what would be enough to justify “potential”? – an unfounded reckless allegation made against a teacher for example? That sort of thing must happen all the time.
Report abuse
Mad Foetus, there has been much debate over whether or not chemical castration is very effective, indeed some sex offenders who have had it done have then asked to be physically castrated to help stop them reoffending. Human rights laws seem to deem that the latter is not an option!
Even with a register we will still have offenders that just haven’t been caught yet (or have only just committed their first offence). Education will go much further to preventing attacks and will prevent people wrongly found guilty becoming targets for vigilantes.
Report abuse
Leah I agree with you and for those interested in education rather than retribution checkout stopitnow.org.uk website
(stopitnow dot org dot uk)
Report abuse
Mad Foetus, you say.. “I have a better idea. Why don’t we acknowledge that sex offenders are almost invariably unpleasant men that we don’t much want to be around and give them a choice of chemical castration (which is the case in France) or else permanent exile from Jersey.”
So if I decide that in my opinion you are an unpleasant man and I don’t particularly want to be around you (and with remarks such as what you have made above, this is not a distant reality) I can arrange to have you castrated or exiled?
Report abuse
Michael,
Your post makes no sense. I have said that sex offenders are almost invariably unpleasant men that should be punished. They are unpleasant because committing a sex crime is, in itself, most unpleasant. And I don’t think anyone argues with the men bit.
I have not said that unpleasant men are invariably sex offenders or that unpleasant men should be punished. Nor have I said that sex crimes are the only form of unpleasantness that exists.
But let’s be frank – most experts would say that sex offenders suffer from a mental problem. There is to my knowledge no evidence that they can be cured. So, you either take away their ability to commit the crime (incarceration or castration) or you get rid of them (death penalty or exile). But release and monitor them? Disaster waiting to happen.
I bet most paedos didn’t want to be paedos in the first place: why would having to check in with a civil servant once a fortnight give them powers of self-control that they otherwise haven’t got?
Report abuse
But, Mad Foetus, according to this article “Currently, offenders can be monitored only if they agree that the police can watch them”.
What perverts who (probably) will re-commit would agree to be monitored?
And how, by whom, at whose expense will they be monitored?
Report abuse
A paedophile is also a sex offender but the reverse is not necessarily true. I wish to correct Mad Foetus’s statement about sex offenders and mental illness to prevent the mentally ill being stigmatise more than they already are.
Paedophilia is classified by many diagnostic manuals as a mental illness. You could be diagnosed as a paedophile without ever committing an offence, some paedophiles never do act on their desires. Sex offenders, on the other hand, are no more likely to suffer from a mental illness than the rest of the general population.
Sex offences are about power and (save for drink, drugs and ego) most such offenders know all too well that what they are doing is wrong. Behavioural modification can be successful in preventing reoffending.
Paedophiles cannot distinguish between children and adults like we do. They can learn to state that there is a difference but it goes against their instinct. There is no cure although physical castration is very effective in preventing reoffending.
Any register would have to be very careful to distinguish between the two and would also have to understand the many different types of sex offences and look at each sex offender, their chance of re-offending, and their response to treatment, on a case by case basis.
Report abuse
#22 BS Deluxe, in answer to your question, monitoring is an option probably more likely to be taken up by paedophiles than by other types of sex offenders. The former is more willing to accept that they are likely to reoffend.
Report abuse
The idea in principle of monitoring offenders has more to do with common sense than anything else particularly when it comes to convicted child abusers who tend to have a higher repeat offending rate given their very nature as Leah mentions above.
However, this is something that can be accomplished within the Police force using their own records. The tragedy of any such list is that not only will people be added to it who have been tried and convicted by such crimes but also suspects, even if said person has not been arrested.
A short while ago while working in Jersey I was accused of a crime I did not commit, however the accusation alone was enough for the Police to ask me to attend interview, what guarantee would other innocent people have that they would not be added to such a list if it existed?
As “PC” points out, if any member of the public wishes to know the identity of any offenders in the island, they need look no further than their daily copy of the JEP, the desire for a list shows to me the desire for legally inadmissible evidence (or even speculation and rumour) to be recorded and used against people.
Every time I object to this someone points out that while the above may be true, it’s all in the name of a good cause, it’s better to be safe than sorry and other such charming epithets which reminds me why we have the expression “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
China oppresses freedom of expression and right to protest in the name of national security. Pioneering trade unionists in Victorian England were arrested and placed on trial for disrupting industry, earl suffragettes were accused of subverting democracy; this is the thin end of a very long wedge and I for one would prefer us to put more resources behind crime detection and prevention, than live in a country where a mere accusation can destroy an innocent man’s reputation and leave him in fear of genital mutilation. Call me old fashioned…
Report abuse
Frank, I totally agree with you.
There are ways to protect ourselves and our children, not foolproof but the attack statistics would be cut if people took note of them. As regards preventative measures a register would certainly not be the most effective method, it does however have the potential to become a tool for vigilante justice.
Report abuse
Anyone who has to work with children will know the great pains which are gone to by the institutions in question to obtain an “Enhanced Disclosure” from the Criminal Records Bureau prior to employment, which may include non conviction related information at the discretion of the Chief Officer.
For example, if someone were arrested and charged with a count of child molestation but the case never came to trial or they were acquitted, such information may be recorded on the CRB disclosure.
Given that in the above example the person would be legally innocent I believe that the above process is sufficiently Orwellian without adding a public register into the bargain. At the very least it is confidential between employer and prospective employee.
Ultimately however there is no skirting around this issue. It may be true that publicly castrating all those convicted of this type of crime may reduce the same and deter potential offenders more strongly than existing methods.
This is however a moot point, given that in order to do so, we must first detect the crime and obtain sufficient evidence to establish the person’s guilt. A person thus caught and closely monitored is no longer a significant threat to children.
Second, such a move would be a public admission of the inability of the Police to apprehend offenders in this category, as such the effect could actually be to encourage would be abusers to act with impunity.
Call me old fashioned once again but actually I think I prefer our justice system the way it is; with standards of evidence, emphasis on crime prevention and detection and most importantly, no-one making unilateral decisions no matter how well intentioned.
Report abuse
From Saturday’s headline about underage binge drinking and teenagers found drunk without clothing it appears that many teenagers and their parents are putting these younsters at risk by letting them drink. Having an 11 year old out, drunk at any time of day or night is asking for trouble. Where are the parents, they should be charged with child abuse.
Report abuse
Overpopulated… I’m so glad you said it. No-one seems to want to say it publicly but this serious form of neglect IS abuse.
If these kids had come to any real harm then I would consider the parents to be as much to blame as the attacker. I understand the phrase ‘don’t kick a dog when it’s down’ but children’s lives are at risk and this is far more important than the need to be sensitive of the parents’ feelings, they need a major wake-up call and I approve of whatever it takes to do that.
Report abuse