SEX OFFENCES are among the crimes that cause the greatest public revulsion and all the more so when the victims are children. Although such reactions are understandable, they are often accompanied by myths and misinformation about how to tackle the risk posed by the offenders involved. One such myth is that sex attackers are inextricably attached to their offending behaviour and are more likely to reoffend than those convicted of other crimes. In fact, the opposite is the case.
A recent study of Irish prisoners found that sex offenders were the group least likely to reoffend, with 18 per cent back in prison within three years compared with 45 per cent of those who committed violent or property crimes. Research in the US showed that of the sex offenders who returned to prison within three years, only 3.5 per cent were convicted of another sex offence. In Northern Ireland, which has a highly developed regime for dealing with sex offenders, only 5 per cent of the 913 in prison or under supervision have been assessed as at high risk of reoffending. More than half are regarded as low risk.
The public in general and vulnerable groups such as children and those with mental disabilities in particular deserve to be protected from those likely to commit invasive and sometimes violent sexual crimes against them. But it will be impossible to provide this protection if the authorities are not supported in targeting their efforts and resources at those who pose a serious threat.
There is a significant difference, for example, between a teenager who commits a minor sexual assault on a contemporary and a violent serial rapist or a fixated and violent paedophile. The former, if treated appropriately, is very unlikely to reoffend while the latter could require close supervision for many years after serving a sentence reflecting society’s abhorrence of their crime.
A discussion document from a Department of Justice working group on the management of sex offenders stresses the importance of evidence-based policy-making. Drawing on the experience of other jurisdictions, it has concluded that early and continuing risk assessment, flexible treatment programmes within and outside prison combined with policies which allow for the reintegration of the offender into the community, along with continued monitoring of those considered a high risk, are all key.
However repulsive the crimes, the department deserves support in implementing proposals which have been shown elsewhere to be both effective and humane.