The Use of 'Shame' with Sexual Offenders

This article explores the use of shaming mechanisms with sexual offenders, particularly those who offend against children. Shaming, a central concept in the broader theory of restorative justice, may be of two varieties. The first, ‘disintegrative shaming’, characterises the traditional retributive framework of justice and is evident in recent state led and popular responses to the risk posed by released sexual offenders. Far from ensuring offender integration, the net result is often labelling, stigmatisation, ostracism and a return to offending behaviour. The second, ‘reintegrative shaming’, affirms the offender’s membership within law abiding society. This has been used in several jurisdictions as the basis of restorative support and treatment networks for sexual offenders where the community works in partnership with state and voluntary agencies. Contrary to arguments put forward by critics of restorative justice, this article argues that such cases may be particularly suitable for a restorative approach.

Mentally disordered offenders and the European Court of Human Rights

This article presents the findings from a study of cases taken to the European Court of Human Rights by mentally disordered offenders. The issues raised include the problems raised by indeterminate sentences, the use of detention for preventive purposes, and debates about treatment. The countries represented are Belgium, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Vetting Sexual Offenders: State Over-extension, the Punishment Deficit and the Failure to Manage Risk

This article examines the state regulation of sexual offenders in the particular context of pre-employment vetting. A successive range of statutory frameworks have been put in place, culminating in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, to prevent unsuitable individuals from working with the vulnerable, and children in particular. Contemporary legislative and policy developments are set against a backdrop of broader concerns in the area of crime and justice, namely risk regulation, preventative governance and ‘precautionary logic.’ Proponents of these approaches have largely ignored concerns over their feasibility. This article specifically addresses this fissure within the specific field of vetting. It is argued that ‘hyper innovation’ and state over-extension in this area are particularly problematic and have resulted in exceptionally uncertain and unsafe policies. These difficulties relate principally to unrealistic public expectations about the state’s ability to control crime; unintended and ambiguous policy effects; and ultimately the failure of the state to deliver on its self-imposed regulatory mandate to effectively manage risk.

Managing Risk: From Regulation to the Reintegration of Sexual Offenders

In the last number of years the management of the dangerous in the community, particularly sex offenders, has generated enormous concern. This concern has been reflected at a number of different levels - in media and popular responses to the risk posed by released sex offenders in the community and in official discourses where an abundance of legislation and policy reforms have been enacted within a relatively short period of time. This analysis seeks to critically evaluate these developments within the context of contemporary criminal justice policy and practice in relation to the management of sex offenders in the community. The article analyses the contemporary focus on risk management or preventative governance which underpins the current regulatory framework and has been reflected in both the sentencing options and in control in the community initiatives for sex offenders. In this respect, the article highlights the gap between policy and practice in terms of the effective risk management of sex offenders. Given the failure of the traditional justice system with respect to these types of offences, it will be argued that the retributive framework could usefully be supplemented by the theory and practice of reintegrative or restorative community justice, and public education in particular, in order to better manage the risk presented by sex offenders in the community.

Sex Offender Registration: Some Observations on ‘Megan’s Law’ and the Sex Offenders Act 1997

“Megan’s Law” in the United States and Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in the United Kingdom, make provision for the creation of a register which will record the names and addresses of all persons convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence. Arguments expounded in favour of the legislation include the supposedly high recidivism among sex offenders, the inadequacy of supervision provisions, and the resulting need to ‘track’ the dangerous offender for public protection. In practice, however, there are a plethora of obstacles, such as cost and inadequate policing resources, which may impede its effectiveness in aiding law enforcement and reduce it to symbolic significance only. In addition, there are an array of ethical objections to the legislation, such as it breaches civil liberties and constitutes ‘double jeopardy’, which may prevent meaningful imposition.