Sir - Your Editorial of February 22nd rightly points out that the creation of a register for sex offenders is anything but a simple matter. You put forward some of the dilemmas concerning adolescent offenders. I would like to add some further comments.
In November 1997 a report published by the Police Research Group in the UK on the workings of sex offender registers in the US made the following observations: "While the stated purpose of registration is to assist law enforcement to detect and prevent offending, there has been little substantive research which assesses how far this purpose is served by operating a register." In addition, "disclosure [of named individuals on the register to community groups, schools, etc.] is very resource intensive [of police time] and is often allocated to experienced officers from sexual assault or child protection units. Educating the community is considered by most police as essential to preventing undue community alarm and vigilantism - and to preventing a false sense of security."
Given that there is often public outcry about the lack of gardai on the beat, one must ask whether we want to allocate even more Garda time to the creation of a sex offender register, when there is no evidence that it helps to detect and prevent offences. This is just one of the many dilemmas involved in this situation. We know that treating sex offenders using a comprehensive approach can reduce the risk of reoffending for those who complete treatment. There are numerous studies supporting this thesis. The much smaller number of studies which questioned the efficacy of treatment in the past were generally conducted on incarcerated, mentally insane offenders or were based on treatments that were most unsophisticated and are now obsolete. These studies, however, are often quoted in the press to demonstrate that we cannot successfully treat sex offenders. This is simply not true.
Why does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his Government colleagues not urgently provide treatment for the sex offenders in our prisons when we know that by treating these men we can prevent many potential victims from the pain and agony of rape and sexual abuse? Why does the Minister not allow prisoners to arrange their own therapy in prison, where none is provided, at no cost to the State? Why are all requests for such provisions refused? Why are none of our Opposition parties concerned about this situation and pressing the Government for answers? Why are rape crises centres operating on shoestring budgets when they are doing such powerful work for victims and survivors of sexual abuse? Why have we no State-funded, community-based treatment programmes for low-risk sex offenders and for sex offenders on release from prison? We know there are no votes to be gained by treating sex offenders. We know that it takes courage to take a humane position in relation to men whose behaviour has often tested the very meaning of humanity. Yet simply locking these men up will not lead to a safer society in the long term. Given that fewer than 10 per cent of men who commit sexual assaults and abuse ever get before the courts, there are many many more sexually abusive men and women in the community than there are or ever will be in prison. Community treatment facilities are essential. I for one am tired of the deafening silence from Leinster House on these matters, save the odd bellow about zero tolerance and the commitment to build and fill even more prisons. - Yours, etc.,
Marie Keenan, Terenure, Dublin 6.