Sex offender risk assessment and management in Ireland

This research examined sex offender risk assessment and management in Ireland. It focused on the statutory agencies with primary responsibility (Garda Síochána and the Probation Service). The goal was to document the historical, contextual and current systems, in addition to identifying areas of concern/improvements. The research was a mixed-methods approach. Eight studies were conducted. This incorporated documentary reviews of four Commission to Inquire Reports, qualitative interviews/focus groups with Garda staff, Probation Service staff, statutory agencies, community stakeholders, various Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and sex offenders. Quantitative questionnaires were also administered to Garda staff. In all over 70 interviews were conducted and questionnaires were forwarded to 270 Garda members. The overall findings are: •Sex offender management in Ireland has become formal only since 2001. Knowledge, skills and expertise is in its infancy and is still evolving. •Mixed reviews and questions regarding fitness for purpose of currently used risk assessments tools were noted. •The Sex Offender Act 2001 requires additional elements to ensure safe sex offender monitoring and public protection. A judicial review of the Sex Offender Act 2001 was recommended by many respondents. •Interagency working under SORAM was hugely welcomed. The sharing of information has been welcomed by managing agencies as the key benefit to improving sex offender management. •Respondents reported that in practice, sex offender management in Ireland is fragmented and unevenly implemented. The research concluded that an independent National Sex Offender Authority should be established as an oversight and regulatory body for policy, strategy and direction in sex offender management. Further areas of research were also highlighted: ongoing evaluation and audits of the joint agency process and systems in place; recidivism studies tracking the risk assessment ratings and subsequent offending; and an evaluation of the current status of sex offender housing in Ireland.

The role of the community service order and the suspended sentence in Ireland: a judicial perspective

Imprisonment is the most severe penalty utilised by the criminal courts in Ireland. In recent decades the prison population has grown significantly despite expressions both official and public to reduce the use of the sanction. Two other sanctions are available to the Irish sentencer which may be used as a direct and comparable sentence in lieu of a term of imprisonment namely, the community service order and the suspended sentence. The community service order remains under-utilised as an alternative to the custodial sentence. The suspended sentence is used quite liberally but its function may be more closely related to the aim of deterrence rather than avoiding the use of the custodial sentence. Thus the aim of decarceration may not be optimal in practice when either sanction is utilised. The decarcerative effect of either sanction is largely dependent upon the specific purpose which judges invest in the sanction. Judges may also be inhibited in the use of either sanction if they lack confidence that the sentence will be appropriately monitored and executed. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the role of the community service order and the suspended sentence in Irish sentencing practice. Although community service and the suspended sentence present primarily as alternatives to the custodial sentence, the manner in which the judges utilise or fail to utilise the sanctions may differ significantly from this primary manifestation. Therefore the study proceeds to examine the judges' cognitions and expectations of both sanctions to explore their underlying purposes and to reveal the manner in which the judges use the sanctions in practice. To access this previously undisclosed information a number of methodologies were deployed. An extensive literature review was conducted to delineate the purpose and functionality of both sanctions. Quantitative data was gathered by way of sampling for the suspended sentence and the part-suspended sentence where deficiencies were apparent to show the actual frequency in use of that sanction. Qualitative methodologies were used by way of focus groups and semi-structured interviews of judges at all jurisdictional levels to elucidate the purposes of both sanctions. These methods allowed a deeper investigation of the factors which may promote or inhibit such usage. The relative under-utilisation of the community service order as an alternative to the custodial sentence may in part be explained by a reluctance by some judges to equate it with a real custodial sentence. For most judges who use the sanction, particularly at summary level, community service serves a decarcerative function. The suspended sentence continues to be used extensively. It operates partly as a decarcerative penalty but the purpose of deterrence may in practice overtake its theoretical purpose namely the avoidance of custody. Despite ongoing criticism of executive agencies such as the Probation Service and the Prosecution in the supervision of such penalties both sanctions continue to be used. Engagement between the Criminal Justice actors may facilitate better outcomes in the use of either sanction. The purposes for which both sanctions are deployed find their meaning essentially in the practices of the judges themselves as opposed to any statutory or theoretical claims upon their use or purpose.