Reckless and useless

Jamaica's sex-offender registry under fire

Leanne Levers, GUEST COLUMNIST

With the recent resurgence of concern in Jamaica regarding the prevalence of sexual violence, officials have attempted to address the warranted concerns of the public. Policymakers have chosen to implement a sex-offender registry as part of the 2009 Sexual Offences Act - an uninformed piece of legislation that imposes harsh but ineffective punishment for crimes that are defined inadequately.

Contrary to empirical evidence, officials insist that the sex-offender registry and its attached regulations will reduce instances of sexual violence. It is suggested that not only will the sex registry act as a deterrent to prospective offenders, but will also act as

a monitoring tool for convicted sex offenders.

In light of the lack of research conducted on sexual violence in Jamaica, the institutionalisation of sex registries must be guided by best practices and empirical research conducted in other jurisdictions. In implementing the sex registry in the manner that they have, government officials have acted counterintuitively by ignoring the research on sex registries that has emanated from other jurisdictions.

It is important to consider the research available within the context of the Jamaican attitudes towards sexual violence, since it will undoubtedly influence the success of the sex registry. However, much of the current legislation on the sex-offender registry is incongruent with best practice and can potentially increase the risk to the society.

Research indicates that sex-offender registries have limited positive effect as a deterrent to first-time offenders. Given this limited effectiveness, the question that arises is how valuable is this benefit when compared with the negative consequences of registries?

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

Evidence indicates that where sex-offender registries employ community notification (as in the case of Jamaica), any effect as a deterrent is dampened significantly. A 2010 study on the effect of public notification of sex registries on violence against women in South Carolina found that after six years, community notification had no effect on reducing sex offences against women. There was also no evidence that unregistered sex offenders were more likely to reoffend than registered ones.

In fact, evidence demonstrates that community notification actually increases the likelihood of reoffending. Legislation that empowers law-enforcement officials to publicise the details of convicted sex offenders serves to create adverse conditions that directly undermine the prevention of reoffending.

The publicising of sex registries has been shown to increase the prevalence of crime in general, and sexual offences in particular. For example, California experienced a significant increase in rape following the publication of sex-offender registries. In addition, a 2005 meta-analysis indicated that community notification could increase the risk posed to victims, since offenders are motivated to silence their victims permanently in order to avoid being caught. In addition, scholars postulate that the branding of sex offenders that arises from community notification can often result in feelings of alienation and bitterness, with the dangerous result of offenders wanting to reoffend.

Of course, it is essential that we consider how international practices will manifest in our own jurisdiction. Despite a lack of culturally specific evidence, there is some indication to suggest that the proposed registry will not monitor sex offenders effectively. This is attributed to the vast differences between the legislation of best-practice jurisdictions and the current Jamaican legislation. For instance, the problems regarding community notification may be exacerbated by the lack of awareness on sexual violence within the Jamaican society, as well as the widespread distrust of law enforcement.

ENDANGERED BY STIGMA

Currently, the regulations attached to the Jamaican 2009 Sexual Offences Act allow some members of the community to access the sex registry, including employers and heads of academic institutions.

Albeit a limited form of community notification, one must consider how the existing societal attitudes about sexual violence will manifest themselves when armed with this information. Evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that publicising registries results in serious consequences for sex offenders and their families. In 2009, a survey of 584 family members of registered US sex offenders revealed that they are impacted adversely by community notification. Family members experienced threats by neighbours. Children of registered sex offenders suffered stigmatisation by teachers and classmates.

Already, dangerous types of extreme vigilante behaviour against victims and relatives of sex offenders have been witnessed in Jamaica, without the aid of the proposed notification. In Kingston, a child who accused one of her teachers of abuse was greeted by an angry mob of adults who wished to have her expelled. In Trelawny, a man was killed and his daughter injured because they were related to an alleged sex offender. Therefore, if Jamaica wishes to implement an effective sex-offender registry, anecdotal evidence, coupled with existing research, show that community notification should be excluded.

One of the downfalls of the Jamaican legislation is that it is grounded in a false assumption that sexual offences can be handled similarly. Sex offenders commit crimes in different ways and for a variety of reasons. In order to be effective, it is essential that any legislation takes an individualised approach rather than having blanket requirements that do not address these differences.

Jamaican authorities have chosen to disregard the traditional structure of a registry, which embraces this individualised approach. Typically, a sex-offender registry uses tiers as an indication of the level of risk posed to the society. In order to determine the level of risk, sex offenders undergo an individualised assessment. This assessment is conducted by an independent body and considers their age, background, type of offence and results of a psychological evaluation.

Psychological evaluation is particularly important, since some sex offenders suffer from psychiatric problems and may require psychiatric treatment instead of being released into the community. As a result of this assessment, a recommendation should be made to the court to determine their placement on a sex registry and under what terms it would be most beneficial to the society, if at all.

BLANKET APPROACH WRONG

Moreover, best practice dictates that the restrictions imposed by a sex-offender registry should be specific to the crime. For instance, once placed on a register, a serial child molester would be subject to restrictions relevant to his attraction to children, such as being denied from working in schools and other child-friendly facilities. In addition, sex offenders would be placed in rehabilitation programmes which have proven to be effective in reducing reoffending.

Contrary to best practice, the Jamaican legislation imposes a blanket approach to handling sex offenders. Under this legislation, incest offenders and repeat offenders are placed on the registry automatically, without an individualised assessment. There are no specific requirements based on the type of sexual offence.

Without this individualised assessment, offenders are returned to the community without anyone knowing the level of risk they pose to the society. This will prevent law enforcement from monitoring sex offenders strategically. In addition, it sends a false message to the community that all sex offenders pose an equal level of risk to the community, which only reinforces the beliefs that validate vigilante behaviour.

Of particular concern is the possibility that juvenile offenders may be placed on the registry. Section 30 (3) (b) of the Sexual Offences Act states that a Supreme Court Judge determines if a child is placed on the register. This is in direct contradiction to research which indicates that rehabilitative methods are more effective in handling juvenile offenders than placement on a registry because of their age and the trauma experienced by many sex offenders, which in many cases contributes to their offending.

Between 40 per cent and 80 per cent of adolescent sex offenders in the United States are themselves victims of sexual abuse. Although we are unaware of the statistics relating to juvenile offenders in Jamaica, it is likely that alienating these young offenders (who are victims themselves) by branding them publicly may lead to recidivism.

PROBLEMS OF RE-INTEGRATION

If we are to implement a sex-offender registry, it is imperative that we consider the evidence regarding best practice, as well as our own societal context. Jurisdictions that benefit from the use of registries aim to reintroduce the offender to the community as a responsible individual without increasing risk to others. In addition, empirical evidence indicates that there is benefit gained by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders.

The true benefit of registries in Jamaica lies in the monitoring of mid-high risk offenders, since they are likely to have the most difficulty in controlling their urges and may require psychiatric care. The use of specified restrictions should be counterbalanced with research on the nature of Jamaican sex offenders, dissemination of factual information about the nature of sex offending, as well as a range of training activities for law enforcement officials and the judiciary.

These activities should endeavour to dispel the myths surrounding sex offenders as predators who are incapable of controlling their abnormal desires, which would arguably reduce the incentive for vigilante attacks and reduce the risk posed to the society.

These aspects of registries are vital to reducing recidivism amongst sex offenders. The legislation, as proposed, simply acts to return offenders to the community without motivation or assistance to change, thereby increasing the risk to the community.

Leanne Levers is a human rights advocate and PhD candidate at the University of Birmingham, where her research focuses on criminal punishment of sex crimes in postcolonial jurisdictions. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and leanne.levers@gmail.com.