Jury is out on merits of sex offender register as debate centres on civil rights issue

A man moves in nextdoor to your family

A man moves in nextdoor to your family. Something about him disturbs you, so you go to your nearest police station, where you can look him up on a computer. You can check if your new neighbour is a convicted sex offender from a database of names, aliases, photographs, physical descriptions (including marks, scars and tattoos) and lists of sex offences.

That is if you live in California, where this type of information is most freely available. Since 1995 information on sex offenders and their crimes has been public property in more than 40 other US states.

"The release of this information to the public is a means of assuring public protection," one Californian police department said this year. "The information may not be used to harass the offender or commit any crime against the offender."

When President Clinton announced the register would go national, he countered arguments about the erosion of offenders' civil rights by saying "there is no greater right than a parent's right to raise a child in safety and love".

READ MORE

The system is based on "Megan's Law", named after seven-year-old Megan Kanka, who was murdered by a neighbour, a convicted sex offender, in July 1994. Jesse Timmendaquas lured Megan into his house, opposite her home on a New Jersey street, where he raped her and strangled her with a belt. He had two prior convictions for sexually abusing a child.

Like the case of Belgian paedophile and child murderer, Marc Dutroux, the Megan Kanka murder resulted in a national shudder of horror and a clamour for a change in the law so it could never happen again. "Would their little Megan still be alive today if they had known a convicted child molester lived nearby?" the Californian Attorney General, Dan Lungren, asked when he published the state's CD-ROM of offenders.

In Belgium, the former justice minister who sanctioned Dutroux's early release from prison became a national hate figure and was blamed for the deaths of the first two victims found buried in Dutroux's garden.

Under Megan's Law police can also take it on themselves to notify the public. An officer on the beat who "may notice that an individual consistently sits across the street from a park and watches children play . . . can determine if he is a registered sex offender and, thanks to Megan's Law, can alert parents in the park."

The Californian CD-ROM has the names and details of 64,000 registered sex offenders. The majority are classified as "serious", with convictions ranging from rape, kidnap with intent to sexual assault and child abduction. Around 1,500 are classified "highrisk", those with multiple convictions.

What people do with the information has been controversial. The Californian system resulted in death threats, beatings, vigilante protests and false accusations. Civil rights organisations said the law had the potential to drive offenders underground, making them more of a danger to children.

In Australia the author of an index listing 640 paedophiles and sex offenders denied her book would encourage vigilante attacks. When a British version of the Australian book was considered, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) opposed it, warning: "Making a directory of convicted child sex offenders public would not necessarily protect children and could lead to attacks on offenders and their families."

The recent introduction in Britain of a police register of paedophiles was also inspired by a horrific child murder. Nine-yearold Daniel Handley was abducted near his home in east London in 1994 by two convicted paedophiles. The men sexually assaulted him, strangled him and buried him near a golf course.

On conviction, the judge told the men they must die in prison and anyone who ever thought of releasing them should be shown the case papers and a video confession.

Since September 1st all British offenders who have been convicted or cautioned for specific sex crimes must register with the police and inform them within 14 days of a change of address. If they do not register, offenders face a prison sentence of up to six months.

The information on the register is made available to Britain's 29 police forces and to statutory and voluntary agencies with responsibility for child welfare.

British police protested against a Megan's Law-style public register, saying it would result in vigilante attacks, with people venting their fury and fear. Last week the British Association of Chief Police Officers said that 12 per cent of people who should have been entered on the Sex Offenders' Register have not registered.

The British government has estimated that more than 4,000 offenders will appear on the register. Police statistics showed that 3,365 people had registered, with about 450 others "going to ground" to avoid the register.

However, the Probation Service has criticised the register and said the problem can be better solved with treatment and supervision. Even if the remaining 450 people are found, the register will only contain about 4 per cent of offenders known to be in the community, probation officers said.

Police powers to tell schools and members of the public that a sex offender is living in their area are only to be used in "exceptional circumstances", after an assessment of the risks.

In August a notorious paedophile, released after serving a sentence for manslaughter, came to Dublin after being run out of a Wiltshire housing estate by neighbours. Robert Oliver was contacted by the Garda and told his movements would be traced. The following day he took the ferry back to Liverpool.

The difference between the US and British systems is the public availability of information. The Garda i already keep an informal record of known sex offenders in individual stations. "They know who they are, where they live and what kind of car they drive," one Garda source said.

Many decisions will have to be taken about the extent of the register, the type of offender that should be included and the issue of who will have access to the information to ensure it is an effective way of safeguarding children.

Editorial comment: page 13