TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: We need a version of ‘Sarah’s Law’ to help protect children

Irish parents must be given access to controlled information on sex offenders in their area, writes independent TD Denis Naughten.

Denis Naughten

IN THE DAYS following the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne, self-styled vigilantes mounted angry protests outside the homes of suspected sex offenders; innocent men were attacked because they bore a resemblance to the photographs of alleged paedophiles printed in a newspaper; and the home of a paediatrician was vandalised due to the apparent confusing of her professional title with the word “paedophile”.

With these events in mind it is understandable that some decried the introduction of Sarah’s Law in the UK as an incitement to vigilante violence. But, despite such fears, nothing of the sort came about; in fact the main consequence of Sarah’s Law has been the protection of over 200 children from potential harm.

In its first year the British scheme received 1,600 enquiries and 900 formal applications for information. Of these, only 160 lead to disclosures relating to child sex offences with a further 58 relating to other crimes; none of which resulted in the predicted vigilante violence. Disclosure schemes like Sarah’s Law, and the one proposed in the Bill I introduced to the Dáil last month, are not about punishing sex offenders or stoking public outrage, they are about giving parents the power to protect their children.

I readily admit that the disclosure of information on sex offenders is far from a child protection panacea. As opponents of such measures often state the majority of abuse takes place in the home. I have no cause to argue against this sad reality, in fact I introduced legislation to change the archaic law that protected female sex offenders from full prosecution for incest in response to a case of horrendous sexual abuse within a family in Roscommon.

Confidential information

However, I would still pose the question; what of the abuse that does not occur in the home? Are we to be any less appalled by it merely because it is less frequent? If a mother or father notices an adult regularly spending time near the school gate, seemingly without reason, why should the gardaí not be in the position to provide that parent with relevant information on a confidential basis?

At present, a large body of Garda intelligence and other important information concerning individuals sits passively on the Garda information systems. The Child Sex Offenders (Information and Monitoring Bill) 2012 aims to put such information to good use in an intelligent and proportional way. At present, the gardaí are not specifically statutorily empowered to share such information with parents, guardians, and other carers of children for the purpose of enabling them to take steps to safeguard those in their charge from a recognisable risk.

If enacted the Bill would establish the Information on Child Sex Offenders scheme (ICSO scheme) which would enable parents and guardians to enquire whether a person coming into contact with their child or vulnerable adult has been convicted of a sexual offence or is otherwise likely to pose a serious danger to children. The sad fact is almost 20 per cent of sex offenders will be imprisoned within three years of release, but given the amount of abuse which goes unreported the real rate of recidivism probably far higher. A disclosure scheme such as this aims to protect children from such repeat offenders.

Failing system

While post-release monitoring is also crucial to achieve this goal, the current monitoring regime in Ireland is not fit for purpose. At best it is lax, at worst it is negligent. Currently, all sex offenders are required to notify An Garda Síochána within seven days of their release from prison that they have been convicted of a sex offence, and provide their name and address. They must also notify any change in address or name and must give notice if they intend to leave the State.

The duration of the post-release notification requirement varies, depending on the sentence received; it ranges from a five-year period for non-custodial sentences to an indefinite period for sentences of over two years. However, this system is just not working. In 2008, the CSO records indicate that 16 sex offenders breached their notification requirements; this figure rose to 24 in 2009, more than doubled in 2010, and last year a shocking 61 breaches were recorded. Clearly the current system is failing, and as a result children are being put at risk.

While my Bill aims to strengthen the current monitoring regime, I do not believe that monitoring in and of itself is enough. The fact of the matter is the reduction in Garda manpower and resources have severely curtailed the force’s ability to monitor sex offenders. Thus, the limited and controlled release of information about a sex offender living or loitering in the vicinity of a school, playground or other community facility for children would assist in the resourcing of such protective measures. By equipping parents and schools with the facts, they will be best placed to take preventative measures to safeguard children in their care.

Denis Naughten is an independent TD for Roscommon/South Leitrim.

Read next:

Comments (34 Comments)

  • While it’s an interesting discussion, the vast VAST majority of child abusers are friends and family, not strangers on the street. It seems like a very incomplete solution to focus solely on strangers.

    Reply
  • I’ll say it again…

    Vigilante justice, a child will make an accusation that’s false when pressured by parents charges with Fox news style paranoia (It’s happened before). Someone housewife with a lot of time on her hands will find ‘john smith’s’ on a list anonymously published on the internet by other overly concerned parents given confidential information. Someone’s who isn’t even the right john smith, will have their photo and details taken from facebook and be circulated round the neighborhood.

    This is what we have law enforcement and the gardai for

    Reply
    • Anyone who abuses children in any manner should not be given a second chance end of. There is no such thing as rehabilitation, you cant rehabilitate nasty thoughts! And as my job is to protect my children, then I have the right to know when and where these people are to avoid. Sarahs law works well in England and they always seem to be 10 steps ahead of us. Not enough being done here to protect our kids :(

      Reply
    • @ Tania – thoughts cannot be policed, nor should they. What goes on inside your head is yours and yours alone. It is only what happens in the world we share that can and should be policed. Thinking nasty thoughts is not a crime.
      As for rehabilitation, I refuse to believe that rehabilitation and re-introduction into society is always impossible. Have you never chosen to be a better person? Everyone has a right to a normal life, if they accept to do what is necessary to have that.

      Reply
    • Precisely, look at when Larry Murphy was released, there was near hysteria and gangs on the street looking for him. And that was without anyone knowing where he was relocated to. These kinds of ideas will drive released Sex Offenders underground and off the Radar. As the author says, Gardaí are already under resourced to go looking for these “individuals”, it’d be a lot harder with a lot more of them.

      Reply
  • This country makes a mess of many plans and intentions. I think there should be more safety procedures, but having a system open to vigilantes is not the way to go.

    Reply
  • @ Chris Lynch Garda vetting is usually required when working with children and vulnerable adults. However that system is obviously in chaos as well as it takes so long for the process to be completed that an offender could be involved with children for months on end before anyone was made aware there was a problem with the background of said person.
    I regularly work with children and young adults and while I had been vetted in the UK I needed to have the same thing done here, no problem you say, My completed forms were returned last October and I have yet to receive back any approval notice. As a parent it concerns me that the whole system is so slow. I also know people who went through vetting processes while involved in community work such as feile and didn’t get their approvals back until nearly a year after the said event had finished. It’s disgraceful that this issue alone is not being dealt with in a prompt and efficient way.

    Reply
  • I have a strange feeling of deja vu.

    Didn’t we debate this twice already:
    http://www.thejournal.ie/law-parents-access-information-sex-offenders-530278-Jul2012/
    http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-parents-be-given-access-to-details-of-sex-offenders-in-their-area-531268-Jul2012/

    Didn’t we come to the inescapable conclusion that this is populist law making and the fines associated withit are largely unworkable?

    Mr Naughten says here that the current system of reporting to the Guards is not fit for purpose … so fix it. Don’t bring in a new and largely unworkable system to augment and complicate it.

    One obvious point from yesterday’s debate on antisocial behaviour was that people really don’t the Guards are up to much, in my dealings with them I have to disagree, but isn’t it better to improve them and give them the means to properly do their jobs before asking the public to do their jobs for them?

    Reply
  • The numbers are skewed.

    Sarah’s law was written based on ONE occasion of ONE offender who went on to commit ONE horrible crime. All the people who make one mistake, are punished for it, and upon release from prison are able to behave in a civilised manner for the rest of their lives do not make the news.

    In the USA, such laws are known as “Megan’s Law” and has been shown in one study to be essentially ineffective from the point of view of the protection of children. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=247350). The fact that almost no children are molested by strangers should have made it obvious from the start.

    Clearly the purpose of such a law is to satisfy the enmity felt by self-righteous members of society towards sex offenders. It has nothing to do with the actual protection of children.

    In fact, it can be self-defeating. I remember reading (although I can’t remember where) about a sex offender in the USA who had to put a sign on his front yard warning children to stay away from the house by order of the sheriff. Obviously ringing his doorbell became the favourite dare of all the neighbourhood kids – which caused everyone a lot of headaches as he had to keep calling the cops to chase them off his lawn!

    Reply
  • Call me cynical but I think Denis just wants to look tough to his electorate he no more cares about kids than Ratzinger

    Reply
  • We live in a society where everyone is afforded basic human rights. When we decide to strip a person of some of those human rights permanently, as is being suggest here by this article and by many commenters, we start down a dangerous slope. First sexual abusers, then, who next? Rapists? Drug dealers? Drug users? Political Agitators? It’s a line that is arbitrary. Anyone who preaches a “High ‘Em High” philosophy should pray they Never find themselves on the wring side of the law.
    We should be judged not only on how we treat those that we love, but also on how we treat those that we hate.

    Reply
  • An individual commits a horrible act of sexual abuse against a child. That individual is charged, convicted and sentenced to prison. The individual serves their sentence, is evaluated, and is deemed fit to return to society. What you’re proposing is that there can be no rehabilitation or redemption, that this individual deserves to be punished until their death, and that vigilante justice is equal to the justice of the courts. The majority of abuse is committed by a person already known to the child, not a stranger, so the cons of naming and shaming far outweigh the pros. It is a populist proposal and would lead to mob rule.

    Reply
    • This is a very naive and simplistic view of child abusers. They will reoffend when the opportunity presents itself. The murphy report is just one example of that evidence

      Reply
    • It is not the role of the untrained general public to police and monitor sexual offenders. This is the job of trained specialists. What you have said above is opinion, not fact. Feel free to provide objective information to back up your opinion, but simply referencing a report without saying what the report contains is not valid justification. Society is obliged to serve it’s people; all of its people. Witch hunts would only be a step backwards for us.

      Reply
    • I do take your point, and the examples of vigilantism explained in paragraph 1 are terrible, however, are inmates properly evaluated and deemed fit to return to society? As well as that, our sentences seem too lenient (Anthony Lyons), and treatment isn’t often availed of (Larry Murphy). It is not the role if an untrained member of public to monitor sex offenders, but everyone has a duty of care to protect children.

      Reply
    • If they’re going to reoffend, they shouldn’t be released – end of story. What Naughten is proposing is that we abandon the principles on which our legal system is founded, and return to Salem.

      Reply
    • @ Linda – these are important issues, and they need to be addressed. The time and place for them to be addressed is before the sexual abuser is released back into society, not after.

      Reply
    • Linda, anyone being released from prison after serving a sentence for sex offences has to be assessed by a trained psychologist. They will give an assessment as to what threat level they may pose to society but con not extend the term of their sentence beyond the term imposed by the courts.

      Reply
    • We have people released from prison in this country everyday who are guareenteed to reoffend but I don’t suppose you agree with locking them up indefinitely either. And don’t be so naive to think that the courts administer justice

      Reply
  • As much as I am against mob rules, I want to know who my kids are coming into contact with. End of.
    They have a right to be allowed to re-integrate into society but I want to make sure there not helping out with the local football team or scouts brigade.

    Reply
    • I would think that to help out with local football teams, scouts etc you would need to be vetted by the Garda at least.. I might be wrong on this but you should be if not.

      Reply
    • I want to make sure there[sic] not helping out with the local football team or scouts brigade.

      Doesn’t your local football team or scouts brigade already insist on a Garda background check before taking anyone on?

      Reply
  • It is pretty hypocritical for someone from Roscommon to lecture the rest of us on child protection, given that county’s appalling record.
    http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18114
    “First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

    and Sara’s Law would not have made a blind bit of difference in this case.

    Reply
    • It would be pretty hypocritical of the people involved in this article to lecture people about child protection bit of a sweeping statement to tar all the people from a county based on the actions of a couple

      Reply
  • Just a quick point. The bloke who murdered Sarah Payne, Roy Whiting had served time in prison before for the abduction and sexual assault of an 8 year old child. He refused any treatment or rehabilitation and served an extra 5 months in prison because of this. Then he was released and went on to abduct assssult and murder an innocent child. My point being. He served his time in prison. And went on to do an even worse crime. Once a pedophile always a pedophile and they should never EVER be allowed out of prison to mix in normal society. Or as parents we damm right have a right to know of one is living on our doorstep.

    Reply
    • Do your neighbours have a right to know about any part of your past that you’d rather leave buried?

      Reply
    • @Nikolas, when it involves the sexual assault of a child and your likeliness to reoffend, then yes.

      Reply
    • My likeliness to offend? I’ll give your the benefit of the doubt and say that the “your” was a typo. “Likeliness to reoffend” is the issue here. I’m not saying the current system is perfect. I’m not even saying that the current system is acceptable. So reform the system. Use more stringent evaluation techniques. Under no circumstances try to reintegrate an offender back into society if there is any real possibility of a “likeliness to reoffend”. But it’s an assumption too far to say the rehabilitation never works or that the offender has no possibility at all of living a normal life. Finally, and most importantly, this evaluation should be begun before the offender is released, and the offender should be monitored regularly once they are released. This evaluation and monitoring should be done only by trained professionals, and it should be confidential at all times. I don’t believe in the concept of evil, so I must view the offender as being broken or ill. If my car is broken I bring it to a trained specialist. If I have cancer I get treatment from a trained professional. In neither case do I rely on my neighbors’ opinion.

      Reply
  • Not just a couple but all those who saw something was wrong but did intervene.

    Reply

Add New Comment