I endorse that access to databases about convicted pedophiles shall be provided to relevant employers, such as school principals or kindergarten leaders, to avoid the return of pedophiles to jobs with children. Public disclosure goes too far because you would segregate pedophiles from the entire society.

Safety obviously but then again - what do you mean by safety with regard to the nature of the offence - as they are huge time gaps from when the offense occurs to incarceration and is safety to protect others but this won't given the nature of the offense 

Safety around protecting others won't be fully possible given the pathology around grooming behavior 

Of course Dr J-F. I am interested in privacy and human rights of offenders who paid their dues to society and are said to start a new clean chapter. To what extent society can infringe on their privacy and rights because of our fears? 

I think you raise an important question - but if we look at the pathology of behavior it is provides another level of concern. For example how is desistance and recidivism confirmed in and with regard to pedophilia and further how is incarceration serve as either rehabilitation or paying a due. Would having information about a person or agency available publicly hinder or obstruct or facilitate both safety and upholding of privacy. So perhaps you are asking for a balance in how best to hold these but this varies subject to legislation and severity of the offence and victim profile and media attention and further social service mandates by lobby groups 

In the UK there seems to be no barrier to publishing information, whether true, false or misleading, about pedophiles.  For example, at present as soon as someone makes an allegation about underage sexual activity against a well known person, even if this was consensual, that person's name is plastered all over the media, the innocent along with the guilty.  I don't see how innocent persons can defend themselves against this tsunami.  It is not possible to have a rational debate in the UK media about this.

The other question we must explore is - what is the best way to protect our children - by putting a name out or publicising it - when we publicise a name arnt we doing to inform other adults i.e., parents more than children. It is important to understand the pathology of the behaviour rather than trying to shift the focus away from it. For example UK media is a great example to showcase that the innocent and the guilty pay the price - but there is no questions of children safety in that media coverage - when we talk about safety with regard to children we are talking about something far more serious than merely protecting them against a bad person out there - the pathology of the behaviour is far more serious than this as offending happens behind and in the closed community and families - so we need to re-think what publicising a name would do in its truest application over and above Police and community knowing where someone is at a particular time. The questions is how do you we make children safe should also be revisited.

For me the problem is not pubic disclosure, but rather police intelligence. I believe that American sex offender notification laws are designed to make everyone "feel good" about the level of protection provided by registration laws.  However, when you look at the registration laws in effect the information police are required to obtain is little more than that needed to get a pet groomers or hot dog vendors licenses.  For me the real value from registration is missed when the police fail to gather all the behavioral information available.  There are a few parents who will monitor the sex offender sites, but not as many as you may think.  With that in mind, if the police fail to obtain knowledge about the offending behaviors of those living in their communities the system is not working to protect anyone.

I understand that possibility as a logical social demand. But I am afraid that is difficult to fit in a modern legal system of guarantees.

They are philosophical difference in and with regard to Protective Services and Corrective Services and social demand - we need to come back to the basic idea of what it means to protect children in line with and in terms of pathology of the behavior 

I don't understand what context a researcher would feel the need to reveal this information. To whom and for what purpose?

In USA reasons for revealing information was more of a social and political reasons than any other - again the question is not so much what a researcher would feel the need to reveal information but more interestingly what kind of information will be released - other than simple biographical (age/gender) and location and/or index offence - even then it wont serve any purpose as seen in USA - if you look at any current databases they merely present information with regard to index offence and location but this in itself has always been always to police and community groups - so I am not sure why a researcher would want to publish information that is already available through several sources and outlets

Do you mean sex offender?  Pedophile is psychological diagnosis for those who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. They may or may not act on their thoughts. The diagnosis of pedophilia would certainly not be included on registries, as it would be unethical and against HIPAA regulations.

 The justifications for such Registration laws are community protection.  However, research to date has not supported that they do anything to increase community protection by preventing further victimization. 

Thank you. This is about convicted sex offenders involving children

Is this about research? What is the research question? If you are trying to recruit convicted sex offenders for a study presumably you would need to approach it in the same way as any other recruitment. If you intend to disclose their whereabouts publically you would need to make this clear in the research information, but then you probably won't recruit very many. The standard of reporting to the authorities where a risk of harm is disclosed in the course of the study should probably apply. This could be made clear in the recuitment information.

I am interested in privacy and human rights of offenders who paid their dues to society and are said to start a new clean chapter. To what extent society can infringe on their privacy and rights because of our fears?

I

But the fundamental question here is - what does it mean to say paid their dues? In what way is incarceration any indicator of 'dues'. Further having a name registered in terms of index one index offense does not suffice the complexity around the pathology of the behavior. Would the answer be different if the offense was 'drink driving' or stealing - for example at Gap and City Beach stores - they have pictures of people who tried to steal things publicly displayed behind the door - I think the complexity around the question is - what is privacy in relation to nature and severity of the offense - what is privacy and at whose cost and finally how information is made available - I think to argue 'rights' in terms of the nature of offense might not hold legislative weight given the horrific consequences for the victims - irrespective of the dues 

We know that there are several risk factors for offending against children and a prior offense is just one of these. I doubt that anyone would find it motivated to map individuals according to any of these other risk factors. So, if the argument is to inform the public about "risk" then one would need some additional argument to why this particular risk factor (prior offense) is more meaningful than any other. 

And, one has to remember, that all risk factors for offenses against children are unreliable, they lead to a lot of false positives as well and in such instances may increase public and personal distress for no reason whatsoever.  

I guess it is correct not to inform the public in general - but our media does a great job of this anyways. But the question that is being asked is perhaps is purely "context" based as information about offenders are and is published - and an average person might not know where to find - so I guess the other question to this is or the other side to the proposed question is - where do you want to publish it (given we agree that there is some sense in why and the purpose), how to you want to publish and what is the shelf life of this information - how do you want to update information, how do you verify the accuracy of offense and rehabilitation, and how do you take down information or when you take down the information  - who manages it? who owns it? Perhaps these are the questions that need to be addressed equally with regard to the pathology of the behaviour inline with safety of children - I think somehow one has to conceptualize and make a more direct link - between publishing information and safety of children - especially given the nature and the pathology around the behaviour.

The main justifications for publication are:

(1) To enable a politician or other public figure to score some publicity

(2) To enable vicious people to engage in vandalism, violence and theft while claiming they are acting as public guardians.  (The same people attack minority groups or anyone vulnerable, and claim robbing shops is a protest.)

(3) For the media to act with moral outrage and get publicity.  There is a good chance as well that they can provoke further newsworthy events to report on, so win-win.

For me, the important question is what impact this kind of community notification would have, on the public (e.g., do they feel safer or more anxious), children (are they at greater or lower risk) and the offender (does the notification increase or decrease his risk of offending again).

An assumption in some of the comments here and in the public debate is that knowing a convicted pedophilic sex offender (one cannot be convicted of pedophilia, the sexual interest, but of crimes committed because of that interest) lives in the neighborhood can somehow protect children. But this assumption is not supported by the limited evidence.

There has only recently been some discussion about the potential unintended consequences of community notification, for example, does it increase vigilantism, does it increase offender stress and ostracism and thereby reduce public safety by making reintegration more difficult, and what impact does notification have on the offender's spouse or family or others he might live with, who did not commit any offense yet still might experience the negative attention.

Thank you. What is more important, community interests or the impact on sex offenders?

I would say the community (more people affected) but that is also related to the impact on sex offenders. There is some research to support the idea that public notification is stressful for sex offenders returning to the community. What if that stress makes them MORE likely to offend?

The community might prefer the notification option, thinking it makes them more safe, but in fact it may make them less safe because there is more offending.

Again, I don't think one can justify the assumption that this kind of policy -- which is well intentioned , I realize -- will have the desired impact. We can only know if it is evaluated and the evidence supports it.

The sex offender area -- one I know well because of my research and work in this area -- is rife with well intended policies that may or may not achieve the desired effects. Community notification, registration, lifetime supervision etc. This is also true more broadly regarding some aspects of generalf criminal law and policy.

Thank you

Is it justified about convicted pedophiles return to the community?

I think this is the real question.

NO is my answer.

Do you, Rodrigo, hold this view particularly for convicted child abusers or do you extend this view to all types of criminal behaviour? 

Having worked with sex offenders in prison,, I believe there needs to be a clear definition of who is a sex offender, especially a pedophile.  Currently, a sex offender is one who has been convicted of a sex-related crime.  The circumstances are not considered.  An 18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old should not be in the same category as an individual who forced sexual behavior or with a young child.    Most sex offenses are committed by someone known to the victim(s).  Predatory sex offenders should definitely be public.  I believe the same notification for other crimes should prevail as with sex offenses.

Raphael,

Excellent subject! In writing my most recent paper, I found in the United States this is a delicate balance. Sex offenders are put into a sex offender registry, which allows anyone to view yet does not put the offender on public display. Not allowing "public display" is to protect the offenders privacy related to employment, housing, etc... I do agree with Michael C Seto in that research indicates that increases in stress variables lead to higher risk of offending. This research is documented in surveys from self-reported sex offenders and also in recidivism rates. I suggested an alternative prevention strategy of publishing photos of released sex offenders in newspapers, along with a statement regarding the time they served for specific crimes. This would be unbiased, as it reveals they did serve prison time for their crimes. Do you think this would serve as a deterrent to cyber-sex offenders that have yet to commit physical crimes? I welcome your thoughts!

I agree with you Karen that the terminology here is often confusing and misunderstood. A sex offender is someone who has been convicted of a sexual crime A child sex offender is someone who has been convicted of a sexual crime against a child (would not include adults or victims in their late teens). An individual with pedophilic inclinations (i.e., a pedophile) is someone who is sexually aroused by children. A child sex offender can have pedophilic inclinations, but most of them do not. This has been written about at length, but media (and some professionals) are too sloppy still.

I think the choice of whether or not an individual's prior offences should be made public is a question that needs to be adressed empirically. Does it help in reducing crime? And if so, then how much? Does it have too negative consequences for the reintegration of the offender? Are their better and more effective alternatives? And I see no reason for why sex offenders should be treated differently that violent offenders or white-collar offenders in this respect. Our public policy should be made to reduce crime, and the means we choose to achieve this goal should have empirical support and not be based on gut-feelings. 

I agree with you Jan.  Empirical evidence is essential when developing and implementing policy regarding public information on offenders, regardless of crime of conviction.  Research findings indicate sex offender registration does not prevent or reduce sexual defiant behavior.   It is a very expensive program and based on empirical evidence is not cost effective.  Crime is not reduced, but is actually increased as a direct result of this particular policy.  The practice continues because it makes the public feel good. 

Public sentiment appears to be a driving factor in a number of laws and policies, regardless of the the evidence.  The same is true regarding public notification.  The public desires and appears to demand the notification laws, understandably so.  Is it possible the public would accept changes in the notification process if presented with evidence the current process creates or hinders the success of the perp and may even lead to expanded criminal behavior? 

Often offenders were returned to prison for violating parole requirements, without committing another crime.  Is this practice productive?  Cost effective?  Will the practice reduce criminal behavior?  Are the parole requirements too restrictive for successful integration back into society? 

Dear Jan Antfolk, I think that crimes against children and kidnapping they deserve live in prision with forced work to pay expenses.

In my experiences with sex offenders they are not cured, they have to be controlled. So control points have to be put in place so they do not succumb to the urge as they say it. If the control means going public with there information so be it. That is why we have Megans Law. The only other means available is chemical castoration and this is voluntary. To keep are children safe myself I would use all of the above.

In Portugal, we have discussed this subject recently and our option was: we don't eliminate the crime from the personal registry and no one can teach or deal professionally with children unless they present the criminal certificate. This certificate must be presented every year.

You can see the law http here : //www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=1139&tabela=leis

If you need more information, please let me know.

The first difficulty as alluded to in previous answers is that the label 'sex offender' is very broad, subtlety and nuance are not a good fit for providing information to the community. This then leads to the question of what the public or sections of the public are expected to do with information once provided. It is likely to increase anxiety and potentially risk. There is likely to be anxiety for anyone living within proximity to a registered offender regardless of the actual risk they may present to them or their family. Secondly, it may raise risk since registered offenders are only those already identified and known to the authorities. It does not protect the public from those who have not yet come to notice. Child safety relies on teaching children self reliance and confidence together with appropriate adult supervision. It remains the case that most children suffer abuse within family settings and from those known to them. Public notification does nothing to decrease or minimise this form of abuse. The danger from strangers thankfully remains in the minority of offences against children. I have not even gone into the potential for vigilante action taken against individuals and in fact there have been tragic cases of murders including cases of mistaken identity. Safety should take primacy over privacy but in this case the evidence that it supports safety is just not made out.

This is a very brief summation of a very complex topic. I have had responsibility for managing offenders within the community and could draw on examples that would support either side of the debate.