Sir, - Your recent editorial on the issue of registering convicted sex offenders raised some vital questions. Let no one have any illusions about how limited a response to the problem of sexual offences a register will be. The Department of Justice's decision to go ahead with its establishment - in advance of the consultation process - may result in the right "answer" to the wrong question. There are many things we do not know about Irish sex offenders. However, some things are clear. Firstly, most offenders are well known to their victims. Around 70 per cent are family members. The "stranger-danger" scenario is a rarity. This largely accounts for the low prosecution rate of around 10 per cent. In many of cases of incest, for example, no complaint is made to the Garda and, therefore, no prosecution can take place. A register of convicted child sexual abusers will, therefore, automatically exclude 90 per cent of the target population.
Furthermore, a register is highly unlikely to operate retrospectively, thus excluding the currently known sex offender population. Of those registered, little or nothing will be done to assess their level of dangerousness. Merely putting someone's name on a list does not, in itself, change anything. The degree of risk is the key issue yet it is usually not addressed.
There are some offenders who are so dangerous that they should never be released from prison. Such men are not treatable and compulsory therapy is a complete waste of time. Likewise, any sex offender determined enough will have little trouble evading it. On the other hand, there are many sex offenders - particularly the younger ones - who are amenable to help and can be made much "safer", if not "safe". The results of a research project on teenage sex offenders, with which I was associated, shows that treatment for young offenders is both effective and cost efficient. When this is coupled with the fact that one third of all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by teenagers, the advantages of early intervention in preventing future victimisation become clear.
Regrettably, policy formulation in this area is rarely based on what works but rather on what appeals to the more primitive instincts of the electorate. Discussions are often ill-informed and dominated by issues of policing. Reasoned, non-emotive argument tends to be an unwelcome guest at many debates about sexual crime. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that a great deal of time and energy will be put into establishing a sex offender register which will produce little, if any, positive change in offender behaviour. Ironically, professionals actually involved in bringing about such change - by providing therapy for offenders - are often described as being "soft on perverts" because of their unenthusiastic attitude to a largely irrelevant register. A register may help people to sleep easier in their beds at night, in the mistaken conviction that "someone is keeping an eye of the paedophiles". This type of belief is the sort that a high-ranking Garda officer was once heard to say defined "successful" policing: It didn't matter whether it made society safer or not, merely that people believed that it did. Like political leadership, it was "all about perception". The proposed register may very well fall into this category: a safety valve for adult anxiety, rather than a safety measure for children. - Yours, etc.,
Editor, Irish Social Worker, Pearse Street, Dublin 2.