Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) Scheme in Operation

It's easy to forget about a story once it's dropped out of the headlines.  The introduction of 'Sarah's Law' (like Megan's Law in the USA) enables parents to seek disclosures on whether their new partner has a record of sex offending.  The theory is to make homes safer for children.

One regional newspaper highlighted this week that 53 people in Lancashire made applications about someone their child has close contact with under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) scheme since it came into force on April 1.  The information was provided under the Freedom of Information Act and it will be interesting to see whether they are representative of the national uptake, and whether over say three years, the figures reflect an initial 'surge' of demand or an ongoing level of demand for information.

What it does show is that the scheme is up and running and potentially making an impact on hundreds of families around the country.

Read the full story here.

Truth, Crime and the Hunt for Paedophiles

The Times carries a fascinating piece today revealing that lie detector tests are being used to help to decide whether to charge suspected criminals for the first time in British policing history.  The Times makes clear elsewhere that whilst the tests are 'reliable', they are not 'perfect'.  Check out the Independent take on the story if you don't have access to The Times.

A pilot was conducted by Herefordshire Police who tested 25 'low level' sex offenders.  According to The Times, 'many were exposed as being a higher risk to children than originally thought. A further 12-month trial has been approved to begin in April.'

A separate piece provides detailed exploration of the pilot through a case analysis of 'Michael'.   He was arrested on suspicion of loitering outside a school and following pupils in his car.  Acts which - the Police would surely argue - suggest the intention to commit an offence with those children.  A predator stalking his prey.  Michael denied the allegations but he did admit that he had accessed indecent images over two years and had used search engines to look for young girls.  However, he insisted he had no physical sexual interest in children.

Michael was, it seems, making a distinction between 'desire' and action, between possessing a fantasy and acting upon it.  Law traditionally focuses upon action rather than desire in sexual offences but paedophilia is something of a peculiarity for English criminal law.  For example, the law accepts a sixteen year old can have sex with a forty-nine year old.  Socially, it might be looked upon with disdain but it is legally tolerated.  However, if that 49yo takes a photograph on his phone or a makes a video of the encounter for subsequent sexual succour he has (thanks to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) become a paedophile.  Ta-dah!  In the curious scenario, the 'desire' is condemned more than the actual consensual act.  Go figure.

In the case of Michael, Detectives found 'low-level' images in his bedroom but a search of his computer and other storage media did not turn up anything on top of admissions that Michael, 56, had already made.  So, the Police strapped him to a polygraph in a bid to obtain further answers.  Arguably, the investigation would have ended there without the polygraph - although it's not entirely clear. Michael disclosed for the first time that he had communicated with children online for a sexual purpose. He said that he had seen young girls on webcam sites, and had asked them to perform sexual acts while he watched. Michael issued denials to a series of questions including whether he had engaged in physical sexual contact with children and whether he had tried to arrange a meeting with someone younger for a sexual purpose. He also denied taking any images of children for a sexual purpose or distributing indecent images of children. The polygraph detected strong deception in his answers to all of those questions. Consequently, Michael was deemed to be a higher risk than first thought and the investigation into his activities was prioritised. He was removed from the polygraph testing trial as it is for low-level offenders only.

What does this mean?  Michael's been deemed a higher risk in the absence of evidence and 'risk' is not an offence per se (although presumably from the material they found, they had enough to charge him anyway).  What subsequently happened to Michael is unknown insofar as it is not explained in the piece.

There is an assumption that having been regarded as a 'higher risk', he will - at the very least - be monitored more closely than he might otherwise be, but quite where that mandate comes from legally is questionable.  Even if one sets that aside, there is an assumption that resources for these support mechanisms are adequate when we know they're not.  Voluntary groups are few and far between as the general public are far more likely to dip their hand in their pocket to support another charity rescuing cuddly animals in a far away land than providing support mechanisms to support paedophiles in their community.  Vital groups such as Circles UK need more support, but volunteers are unlikely to be able to 'admit' to being involved to many employers for fear of raising eyebrows and questions about their own motivations.  It is impressive and encouraging that they do indeed attract volunteers enabling their vital work to continue.

So, we assume - wrongly - that Michael might now get further 'support' or 'monitoring' dependent upon your linguistic spin.

The broader point is, as I touched upon above, the issue of desire.  An attraction to children is a social and legal taboo.  Within gay culture, an attraction towards youth - and attributes we associate with it - smooth hairless bodies, androgynous bodies, smooth faces, boyish smiles, and 'fun' personalities come together in the twink identity.  A label celebrated within gay culture and pornography, and an identity to be found in many a gay club and bar this evening as towns and cities celebrate NYE.   Desiring these figures is acceptable.  Even the more muscular twink can be a symbol of acceptable attraction.  The diver Tom Daley is unusual in being a child that many gay men could openly admit to finding sexually arousing and not feel condemned as a paedophile.  A fascinating development in itself.

Upon turning 16, even more men appeared to admit to a 'long-standing' attraction - which suggests attraction whilst still a child.  At 17, those fantasying men -assuming Daley is mutually attracted - could now have legal sex with Daley.  However, should Daley be photographed in less than his famously figure hugging trunks, his photographer would be in a spot of bother.  Expect a greater outpouring of Daley adoration during the Olympics next year (Daley will have just turned 18 so nude shots will be OK should he have a trunk malfunction at the Olympics).

In the case of Michael, it is this reluctant admittance of desire that seems to have landed him deeper in the crapola than he might have otherwise found himself.   The argument about child pornography is that it is a 'record' of a child being abused and thus to share that image is to create a market and encourage further abuse of children.  Thus if you wish to stop the market, you should stop the images.  You are therefore vicariously abusing a child.

Yet what of pseudo-photographs or cartoons? Bits of multiple images joined together to create a new sexual image, or using a computer or animation technology to create a pornographic image? Legally, this too is treated in the same way as a photograph.  Why?  The market argument is phony in these circumstances.  It is instead about the policing of desire.  From mental desire, to looking at an image is a step, a step to re-enforcing a mental pathway of desire.  Neurons making the connection between images of youth and sexual arousal. The forging of these pathways of desire is of itself a social concern within our society.

However, our criminalisation of such desire - nobody is being harmed - is on the basis that desire is an indicator of potential future risk.  It's like suggesting that viewing a knife-block in Argos denotes you as a future knife armed murderer.

The continued introduction of these polygraphs therefore is about a significant extension in the policing of desire.  Our society can not regard paedophiles as anything other than universally bad - despite our occasional admittance of widespread youthful desire, as in the case of Tom Daley - and thus the criminalisation of this desire is a logical extension that can not be argued without raised eyebrows and agendas questioned.  If a government proposed the mandatory badge wearing by convicted paedophiles would it be opposed?  If gas chambers for paedophiles were advocated, would they be opposed?

These are of course emotive and extreme examples but they serve to highlight the dangers of the road we are on.  In criminalising desire we make black and white assumptions about our own desires; are we really that sure of our own purity?

Sex Offenders: The Last Pariahs

The New York Times caries a really interesting op-ed piece today from Roger Lancaster on US sex offender laws. It's a powerful and engaging article, with a conclusion that will upset many:

Our sex offender laws are expansive, costly and ineffective — guided by panic, not reason. It is time to change the conversation: to promote child welfare based on sound data rather than statistically anomalous horror stories, and in some cases to revisit outdated laws that do little to protect children.

This reflects Lancaster's thinking in his book, Sex Panic and the Punitive State and he is one of few academics brave enough to make these remarks in print (I've met many academics who agree with this position, they just don't want anything written down). Given the UK has attempted to import ideas such as Megan's Law (Sarah's Law here), the ideas/critique offered in this piece are also applicable to English law and the English criminal justice system. The article once again underlines the need for an informed and reasoned discussion in an area too often, if understandably so, characterised by panic, fear and emotion.

Read the full article here.

Child Sexuality and the Limits of Consent

I came across this story the other week, and I've been mulling it over since, debating whether to post a link, and if I did, what comment, if any, to add.

The story refers to a case before the Brisbane Supreme Court, in which it was revealed that a 12-year-old boy - posing as an 18-year-old homosexual man - actively pursued and engaged in sexual encounters with a man he met via an Internet dating service. He'd used a 'mainstream' dating service called Oasis Active to set up the site.

The court was told that over the space of three months, the boy would sneak out his family home, in Brisbane's east, late at night and slip down the street to a nearby golf course to meet his online liaison who was at that time a 30-year-old lifesaving fundraiser.

The boy indicated that when he met males online - including Powell who went by the nickname "Johnny" - he would inform them he was 13-years-old, a year older than he actually was.

Recovered Internet chats found on Powell's laptop computer reveal he discussed having a weekend "sleepover" with the boy, a possible "threesome" with "another "guy".

They also included a request from the child that "this time your going to (expletive deleted) me."

During another online chat Powell asked the boy why he was at home on his computer during a school day.

"When the child responded that he was pretending to be sick and was home alone all day, he (Powell) suggested: 'Maybe I should come over'," the schedule says.

"When the child advised that another guy was coming over they discussed a possible threesome."

Read the full story here. I've tried in vane to find other reports or any court transcripts/judgment but if anyone does have such links, please post them as a comment.

So, here's a few thoughts/questions:

• Would our reaction be the same if rather than being 30, the convicted male had been 18? If so, why?
• Had the boy not revealed he was 13 subsequently (which was also a lie), and insisted he was 18 all along, would we react the same way?
• Had the boy posted a picture on his profile in which he appeared older than he was, would we take that into account in reaching a moral (as distinct from legal) view?

The killer question, can a 12 year old consent? Legally, no he can not. We can not make a judgment on these small exerts in a news story, but all the quotes from the child suggest a boy who is sexually aware, knows exactly what he doing, and is so determined to have homosexual sex with a male that he will lie to achieve that goal. In certain circumstances, the law accepts a child can consent. Has this child reached that level of consciousness?

Even if he has reached that level, is that outweighed by the obligation of an adult to refuse that boy's request? Yet, is that refusal based on the assumption of a harm being inflicted upon the boy? Should we simply encourage the boy to find a sexual act with someone nearer his age if sexual experimentation is what he's determined upon? If so, is it the age difference rather than a 12 year old having sex per se that concerns us? Ahh yes, age difference. If it is age difference, then it's not about consent at all, it's about something else. So, what exactly is and should be the guiding influence for law and the state in such cases.

I don't have the answers, just a whole bunch of questions.

Policing Priorities

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has launched a consultation on policing priorities. The committee states that given the financial constraints that police forces face, they would like to hear which areas of work the public think should be a lower priority for the police. Committee chair, Keith Vaz commented that:

"Far too often the views of the public are ignored in favour of the 'good and the great'. But it is the public who pay for this service so their views are paramount. This is a one of a kind opportunity for the public to directly influence Parliament.

We want the public to get involved with our inquiry and tell us what the police should be doing and what their top priorities should be. We hope as many people as possible will fill in the survey to help us create a people’s police service."

It's a fairly comprehensive list with three issues directly falling within the broad ambit of law and sexuality. These comprise of: monitoring sex offenders in the community, prostitution, and sexual assault - such as rape. It's a shame that there's no obvious scope to suggest that hanging around public sex environments should be less of a priority - although that could be caught under 'anti-social behaviour'.

The site shows polls based on responses thus far which make for very interesting reading. You can view them here.

Check out the consultation page here.

Rape Sentencing

The issue of rape was put squarely back into the arena of public debate last week, following the remarks of Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. I had a lot of sympathy for what Clarke said, although he did make something of a hash of things. Clare McGlynn at Durham wrote in the Guardian exploring the issue of sentencing in rape cases and it's also now been published on the Inherently Human blog. You can read it in full here.

Sex Offenders and Human Rights

The current media obsession with attacking human rights law appeared to receive a further boost this last week with the announcement by UK Home Secretary, Teresa May, that the government would be introducing the right to request a review as to whether one should remain on the sex offenders register. This followed a decision by the UK Supreme Court last year. Let's begin with May's statement which is worth reading in full:

'The sex offenders' register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes.

Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life - as they do now - has broad support from across this House.

However, the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review is a breach of their human rights – in particular, the right to a private or family life. These are rights, of course, that these offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruelest and most degrading manner possible.

The government is disappointed and appalled by this ruling – it places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending - but there is no possibility of further appeal.

This government is determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. And so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with this ruling.

I want to make clear that the Court's ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders’ register. The Court found only that they must be given the right to to seek a review.

The Scottish government has already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme.

Offenders can only apply for consideration of removal after waiting 15 years following release from custody – in England and Wales there will be no automatic appeals.

We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high as possible. Public protection must come first.

A robust review, led by the police and involving all relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.

The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, not the courts, as in Scotland – the police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime, and they will rightly put the public first.

There will be no right of appeal against the police’s decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final.

Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life, if necessary.

• Where we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will be shortly launching a targeted consultation aimed at closing down four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register
• We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. This will prevent offenders from being free to travel for up to three days as they are under the existing scheme
• We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18
• We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly as to where they can be found when they have no fixed abode
• And we will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their name by deed poll

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

I commend this statement to the House.'

May's announcement of the Bill of Rights Commission was probably an attempt to throw her own Tory backbenchers some red meat. The decision - which was infinitely sensible - followed the decision in Regina (F (A Child)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Regina (Thompson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 2 W.L.R. 992. It is worth re-stating the headnote of that case:

The claimant in the first case was convicted of a number of serious sexual offences, including two offences of rape, which he committed when aged 11 and he was sentenced to a period of 30 months' detention. The claimant in the second case, an adult, was convicted on, inter alia, two counts of indecent assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. By virtue of the nature of their offences and the length of their sentences the claimants became automatically subject for an indefinite period to the notification requirements in sections 82 to 86 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 1 . By those requirements an offender had to inform the police of certain personal details and by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004 2 , made pursuant to section 86 , an offender had to inform the police of the *993 details of foreign travel plans. The claimants sought judicial review by way of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the absence of any mechanism for review of the notification requirements in the 2003 Act was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 3 . The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division granted the declarations of incompatibility and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal of the Secretary of State, and held that the notification requirements in and under the 2003 Act were capable of causing significant interference with article 8 rights; that if some of those who were subject to lifetime notification requirements were able to demonstrate that they no longer posed any significant risk of committing further sexual offences there was no point in subjecting them to that interference with their article 8 rights and doing so could only impose an unnecessary and unproductive burden on the responsible authorities; that the degree of risk of sexual offenders re-offending had to be assessed in a number of situations and there had to be circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence could be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements was unjustified; that it was open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for such a review; and that, accordingly, the indefinite notification requirements constituted a disproportionate interference with article 8 rights because they made no provision for individual review of the requirements and the declarations of incompatibility made by the Divisional Court would stand.

No-one is ever going to become popular for defending the rights of sex offenders, especially convicted paedophiles. However, the right to request a review of being on the register is surely a sensible and civilised approach to take. It's also one that is in line with our stated human rights law commitments. It simply enables people to asks the Police to take a 'second look' at whether they should be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. It will be interesting to see how many convicted sex offenders will seek to take advantage of this new right, and how many will have their registration requirements changed as a result of a successful review.

Abuse by Under 18s

The Today Programme on Radio4 carried a fascinating little interview today. It featured an anonymous father and also a spokesman from Stop It Now. The interview comes in the wake of new evidence that shows about one-third of all sexual offences are committed by people under the age of 18.

The anonymous father found himself facing the issues that law and society present when his 12-year-old son was accused of touching inappropriately an eight-year-old girl at a party.

Well worth a listen.

A Circle of Support

Last week I found myself in the unusual position of watching the local news. I normally avoid this at all costs, un-inspired as I am by the sight of 75 year old Betty swimming 15 lengths butterfly in the local pool or other such stories which alas, cantankerous young git that I am, I fail to appreciate. However, Look North featured a fascinating piece last week on the charity Circles UK and offered a rather impartial overview of a charity that I suspect doesn't always get a fair hearing.

Circles UK describes itself in the following terms: 'Circles of Support and Accountability are an innovative and successful community contribution to reducing sex offending, working in close partnership with criminal justice agencies.

Circles UK is the national body supporting the development, quality, coordination and effectiveness of local Circles.'

The organisation is a group of Volunteers from a local community which forms a Circle around an offender. In Circles, the sex offender is referred to as the 'Core Member'. Each Circle consists of four to six Volunteers and a Core Member.

It aims to provide a supportive social network that also requires the Core Member to take responsibility (be ‘accountable’) for his/her ongoing risk management. The Circle can also provide support and practical guidance in such things as developing their social skills, finding suitable accommodation or helping the Core Member to find appropriate hobbies and interests.

Volunteers are fully informed of the Core Member's past pattern of offending, and whilst helping them to settle into the community the Volunteers also to assist them to recognise patterns of thought and behaviour that could lead to their re-offending. Within it, the Core Member can grow in self-esteem and develop healthy adult relationships, maximising his or her chances of successfully re-integrating into the community in a safe and fulfilling way.

The Core Member is involved from the beginning, is included in all decision making and, like all other members of the Circle, signs a contract committing him or herself to the Circle and its aims. Each Circle is unique, because it is individually designed around the needs of the Core Member.

Read more about the charity here. If you are interested in being a volunteer, you can do so here, and see info on local projects here.

The group also organised a conference back in October and brilliantly have posted the PowerPoint slides from the presentations here. One set of slides from the NSPCC includes a host of stats that are worth re-stating, and act as a reminder as to why we need charities like Circles UK.

• 60 children are sexually abused daily in England & Wales
• More than 21,000 sex offences against children recorded by Police Forces last year – equivalent to 60 a day
• 1 in 7 victims younger than 10 years
• Girls 6 times more likely to be victims than boys
• Offender was 4 times more likely to know the victim than to be a stranger
• 80% of offences take place in the home of Victim or Perpetrator
• Almost 30,000 on sex offender register
• Average of 58 per 100,000 population
• 70% of perpetrators had between 1 and 9 victims – up to 450 children in some cases
• Average = 3 victims per perpetrator
• Of 224 adult male victims only 26 (12%) went on to abuse in a long term study

Financially supporting, or volunteering for a group like Circles UK carries with it a social stigma - why do you want to volunteer to help a group like them? You must, the flawed reasoning goes, be a paedophile/sex offender if you want to help sex offenders.

In truth, what we do socially and legally with paedophiles is one of the great socio-legal challenges of our time. For those offenders post custody or who are never given a custodial sentence, we need these groups to provide support and limit the chances of re-offending behaviour.