Restorative Justice as a Response to Sexual Offending – Addressing the Failings of Current Punitive Approaches

This article explores the use of restorative justice as a response to sexual crime. The management of high risk sex offenders, particularly in the community post-release, has been a key focus of contemporary popular and political debates on sexual offending. Many offenders fail to come to the attention of the criminal justice system. For those that do, there is the almost blanket application of recent control in the community measures such as sex offender registries and community notification which have failed to prevent reoffending. The response by the media and the public to the presence of sex offenders in the community may also impede offender rehabilitation. The use of punishment alone via formal criminal justice is, therefore, an inadequate deterrent for sexual crimes. Although controversial, this article advocates the use of restorative practices with sexual crime as a proactive, holistic response to the problem and ultimately as a more effective means of reducing the incidence of sexual offences and sex offender recidivism.

Interviewing children with acquired brain injury (ABI).

Research into the lives of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often neglects to incorporate children as participants, preferring to obtain the opinions of the adult carer (e.g. McKinlay et al., 2002). There has been a concerted attempt to move away from this position by those working in children’s research with current etiquette highlighting the inclusion of children and the use of a child-friendly methodology (Chappell, 2000). Children with disabilities can represent a challenge to the qualitative researcher due to the combination of maintaining the child’s attention and the demands placed on them by their disability. The focus of this article is to discuss possible impediments to interviewing children with acquired brain injury (ABI) and provide an insight into how the qualitative researcher may address these.

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.

Sex Offender Registration: Implications and Difficulties for Ireland

The aim of this paper is to explore the implications and difficulties of a system of sex offender registration for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. From the orthodox perspective, registration appears justified. Sexual offending has increased and this is used by the media to generate a ‘moral panic’. However, sexual offenders in the community have also been socially constructed in Ireland, as a problem requiring specific action, through Blumer’s (1971) developmental perspective. It is this perspective which most adequately explains the formulation of the legislation. Arguments expounded in favour of registration include the supposedly high recidivism among sex offenders, the inadequacy of supervision provisions and the resulting need to ‘track’ the offender for public protection. Yet, in practice there are a plethora of obstacles such as cost and inadequate policing resources, not considered at the time the legislation was being formulated, which may impede its effectiveness in aiding law enforcement and reduce it to symbolic significance only. Given these difficulties, it is argued that registration is not an appropriate response to the problem of released sexual offenders in Ireland. Rather, from the social constructionist perspective, it is suggested that it is better to ‘treat’ the sex offender through less formal and stringent means in the community away from the criminal justice process.