Curious - this essay like a few others has attracted little heat - Hmmmm? - I reckon there is as much to learn about the readership here from what is not remarked on.

I have always felt the public lists were more about revenge than protection and more than a little about some men feeling insecure about all mannerof things sexual.

They also assuage some community guilt where some feel as though they've let these bad things happen - and these lists are kind of a rear gaurd action and a public show of concern and regard for the well being of others - too little too late.

Well said Sneeky. I saw this article earlier this morning and thought to offer a post myself, but then I thought...."Hang on a minute," and took a step back. The issue of sexual abuse, especially with regards to children, is a very emotional issue. One wrong word could find a poster in serious hot water through possible mis-interpretation, so I took the cowards way out and didn't post at all. I'm sure many potential posters feel the same way. Although many may feel that public "outing" and in some cases, violent repercussions for the registered offender goes against the moral fabric of our society, to say so risks being seen as sympathetic to the offender and so be branded as such by the general community. None the less, it was an excellent article and I applaud the authors bravery for both having survived such horrific abuse and for having the courage to turn her life around and help sexual offenders.

It really is time for all societies to get beyond the "old Testament" of punishment to using a 21st century understanding and treatment. I've heard the stories of people coming out of prison "cured" of their gross offence but, I've never met one. My understanding is that there is a greater than 80% recidivism. I've also read that as high as 13% of the inmate population is innocent and falsely accused. I'm not against jailing someone for a proven crime against society. I just don't believe that it should be our first and only course.

The purpose of publicly available sex-offender registers is not about revenge, but about alerting parents to the presence in their community of a person previously convicted of a sex offence. I am not a parent but I believe parents have a right to know about the presence of such individuals near to their children. Sex offending is not like burglary or other criminal offending, it's a sexual proclivity, just in the way some people are attracted to the opposite sex and others are attracted to the same sex. Decades ago "therapists" tried to "treat" homosexuality. We all know it was a failure because you can not change someone's sexual preferences. The same applies to those attracted to children for sexual gratification. The only answer is to lock them up until they are too old to offend again.

Barbara is right that there have been some tragedies in relation to allegations to do with sexual abuse.

A gay man was bashed to death in Melbourne because a woman accused him of raping her.

Recently another male was killed because of unproven allegations or it was beleived that he was an abuser.

It has stuck in my caw that Dr Peter Hollingsworth was the scarifical lamb. Judged by todays standards against how he treated allegations of sexual abuse decades ago.

All of us make errors of judgement and do things big or small that we later regret. Some will learn from their errors and some wont.

Sex offender registers are dangerous, and a bizarre way to admit to a failed policy towards dealing with these deviants.

People get the names wrong, they lynch the wrong guy with the same name, it promotes fear and suspicion, instead of alleviating it. This has already happened in the UK and US.

Governments and the legal profession are too gutless to admit that the vast majority of people who commit sexual offences against children are incapable of controlling their compulsion and their affliction is life long. Admit this and it necessarily follows that most should be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Chemical castration will work for some but, studies show, not all. But suggest that taking medication should be part of a molester's bail conditions (even if they themselves are willing!) and you'll have the civil liberties cretins on your case.

Physical castration should also be allowed, if the offender requests it.

Don't get me wrong. No community should be exposed to a habitual sex offender, but they should be locked up for good rather than putting them near children and painting a big arrow outside their house.

Ok, so I've had time to read the article now...

Barbara Biggs is just plain wrong. A recidivism rate of 5pc? I'd be interested to see how long they tracked them for and how much just staying well clear of potential victims led to that result.

She seems to be implying that sexual attraction to prepubescent children is something many of us could fall into if we suffered a sufficiently awful life trauma. Huh!? That thought may make dealing with what happened to her easier but it's just bizarre.

These feelings that these men and women have are the result of mental derangement! They are not merely the extreme end of normal human sexuality. For heaven's sake, we don't look at serial killers and say, oh yeah well, there but for the grace of God go I.

Anyone who is NOT a pedophile looks at a child and instinctively recoils in disgust and disbelief at the thought that anyone could see him or her as an object of sexual desire. If you feel otherwise, even slightly, then I suggest you seek professional help, NOW.

cpg wrote:

"The purpose of publicly available sex-offender registers is not about revenge, but about alerting parents to the presence in their community of a person previously convicted of a sex offence."

The problem with this assumption is that a very large proportion of sex offenders against children are either the children's own parents, or step parents of the mother's or father's new partner.

The other problem is that many sex offenders don't get caught until years after their offending has been discovered. Many have been in positions of trust, in that they work with children over many years before being caught.

Of course these people should be kept away from children after release from prison, but this can be best done by post sentence monitoring and supervision by probation and parole services and by the police. By all means warn certain persons in positions of authority in situations involving children, for instance school principals, clergy and the like.

As it is, most states have measures in place where anyone who is seeking employment, or who wants to do volunteer work, with people under 18 have to go through a range of checks, and in today's climate supervisors are essentially compelled to keep a very close watch on all staff and their relationships with children.

Generally advertising that someone is a sex offender will not aid in this control.

Public registers are about revenge, not prevention. Furthermore,I think too often we attach sexual meanings to expressions of affection, mainly because our social sphere is becoming more suspicious and mistrusting, as pressure to compete with each other for social resources is increasing. This area is also fraught with potential cultural misunderstandings. Do we really need another method to translate our racist, ethnic prejudices into public persecution? Education is the answer. Educating the child, the parent and the sex offender. Ensuring everyone has a full appreciation of the messages we transmit,the messages received and the choices available in these transactions

This article is technically behind the times. If someone wants to set up a register of persons convicted in Australia for any nominated category of crime, all they have to do is set it up as an internet site in the United States. There truth is an absolute defence against any legal action. If they publish something that is untrue, they can rightfully be sued to high heaven. But if they confine themselves to the truth, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that they would enjoy the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and be immune from action anywhere. There is no way that any authority in Australia can prevent anyone from accessing such a website.

On the other subject raised, revenge is the essence of justice. The whole basis of law as it was set up in the 12th century was that the state would have a monopoly on revenge, and would exercise it on behalf of the community, thus eliminating all the feuds, private armies, etc. that characterised the middle ages.

Persons who rape and kill young children should hang.

I would suggest, trials are conducted in open court.

Sex Offenders are sentenced in open court.

A register merely makes the record for offending easier for the public to access.

My view, someone who commits a crime, sex offender, stealing or anything else should expect their name to appear on a public register.

Why should we extend any protection or cloak of anominity to those who abuse others (sexually or otherwise)?

That is not to say I do not believe sex offenders should not be "treated" as well. Anything which helps protects the public when these creatures finish their sentences is a good thing and the terminally deranged offenders, who refuse treatment of any kind, because of the destruction they inflict and certainty of reoffending, should never ever be released.

There is another path that we should perhaps be following.

As most predators only get caught after there have been a series of offenses, it maybe safer if we consider that anyone who comes in contact with our children is a potential sexual predator.

Everyone from a child's parent, their uncle or aunt, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews. Teachers, youth leaders, the clergy, politicians, police, members of the judiciary, music teachers, sporting coaches, doctors and nurses, neighbours and a whole range of other people have been found to be sexual predators against children.

We don't need a register of predators, because if we have one we will be in a position to trust those who are not on the register, but its the ones not on the register who pose the greater danger and risk, because they haven't been caught yet.

So, we must be vigilant, we must teach children from an early age about the danger from others - not 'stranger danger' because so often it is not strangers who commit sexual offences involving children.

The classic example recently was the mother who has been charged with using her children for child pornography.

I bet that she wasn't on the register.

Everyone is a danger - most offences are committed by someone who already knows the child.

what is interesting is that research for the Office of the Status of Women, available here

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/reports/2003-06-recidivism.pdf

indicates that sexual offenders have a generally low rate of recidevism in comparison to other offences.

Despite sharing common community outrage and loathing toward child sex offenders I also feel that a public register has inherent problems.

The main one is that despite the best of intentions and all the failsafe mechanisms that may be put in place, in this technological age there is always the remote possibility of error - human or otherwise.

The effect on the life of somebody incorrectly being registered on such a database would be devastating - probably worse than an innocent person being sent to prison or having a false problem with their personal credit rating.

Would you be willing to risk your personal life and those of your family on such a system?

I pity all the innocent "John Smith"s out there that could be tarnished by a sex offender with the same name.

The other problem I have is that this could be the start of something much bigger.

Why stop with pedophiles?

Wouldn't you like to know if the person who drives your children to sport on Saturday mornings has ever been convicted of drunk driving? What about your neighbour - has he/she ever been convicted of theft or shoplifting. Could you trust that person to mind your house while you are away on holidays?

The scope for expansion is enormous and once the system exists it only takes the stroke of a political pen after an election to modify it.

There may be a better solution to this problem but this seems to be the only one being canvassed.

Hamlet makes a good point - recidivism in theft related crimes is about 7 times that of sex crimes which is half that again of violent(non sex related crimes).

Colonel Rouge suggests trials should be conducted in an open court - I am no jurist - but I thought ost were - with some protection of identity offered to the victims - put the perpertrators name was not with held - and their offence and sentences a matter of record already.

Maybe it is time to draw a breath and take a dispassionate look at an emotionally charged subject:

www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/nl2005/summeraf.pdf

Respondents can draw their own conclusions as to why sexual abuse of children is given so much media attention in the west and major risks such as child neglect are forgotten. It inevitably results in a splintering of political effort, producing skews in funding and frustrating efforts to come to grips with the fundamentals. It is like sending all fire engines to spot fires while forgetting the bushfire beyond.

To quote from the report given above (hyperlink):
"Arguably, focusing on perceived “perpetrators” of neglect or
abuse of children provides a scapegoat and allows community members to avoid taking responsibility in
the every day situations where we can all make a difference........ Why is our public discourse so different
from the reality of most children experiencing maltreatment? Unless we find ways to reframe our
public discourse we cannot expect investment into addressing the root
causes (for example, poverty, social isolation, poor parenting skills).
In the most complicated situations, the poorest communities, the most
socially marginalised, and the most violent places, substantial effort is
required to turn things around – people, time, money, and knowledge."

Sneekeepete “Colonel Rouge suggests trials should be conducted in an open court - I am no jurist - but I thought ost were”

No I wrote
“trials ARE conducted in open court
Sex Offenders ARE sentenced in open court.”

The point being, criminal convictions are a matter of public record and as such, a register merely confirms that record in a single source, instead of a number of diverse and fragmented sources.

If you are going to comment on my posts, at least have the courtesy of quoting me correctly. Similarly, the “Col” is neither indicative nor alluding to any military rank.

If you had started doing what I suggest, attending to reading my post before replying to it, you would have found your post was entirely superficial and pointless, descriptions I am sure you have become accustomed to and can empathise with.

Cornflower I would be careful about implying a general responsibility on private individuals for the neglect and abuse perpetrated by others. Such notions stink of “collective responsibility”.

Accepting a greater duty of care exists toward children than toward other adults, we should only extend that in areas we have a responsibility for.

I recall some years ago a doctor in UK who had a fixation about child abuse and reported parents of every child brought to her surgery because of her own disproportionate obsession.
Those parents were then the victims of inappropriate intrusions and their children subjected to privations of fostercare, to say nothing of the emotional trauma which the entire family suffered because of a public functionaries distorted take on things.

As to Hamlets post,

“it maybe safer if we consider that anyone who comes in contact with our children is a potential sexual predator.”

Such an attitude, being a presumption of guilt, until proven innocent is, itself, a perversion of the fundamental laws upon which our community is built.

It is an entirely inappropriate and repulsive over-reaction.
It is a reaction which is equivalent to turning back the clock and making individuals the victims of a witch hunt where merely being accused deems someone guilty.

Col Rouge, we have locks on our doors and windows, and on our cars. We do not trust our possessions to everyone.

Does this presume the 'guilt' of everyone who may come onto our property or see our car on the street?

No, it safeguards against those who would want to take our property.

An employer, when wanting to hire someone, often checks references to make sure that the applicants are not lying.

Does this presume the 'guilt' of all the applicants?

No, it is an attempt to stop the liar and the cheat from wrongly getting the job.

Our computers, even access to this grate sight, are protected by passwords.

Does this presume that all will use our computers and our access to our disadvantage, that is that all are guilty?

No.

Locks, passwords, checks and the like are all essential parts of our society.

What I am simply proposing is that we treat children as the precious people that they are, and not consider that only convicted, or even suspected, sexual predators are the only threats.

Most instances of child abuse and child sexual abuse happen either in the home, or involve relatives of the victims, or friends of the family, or so called trusted people.

It is simply a matter of vigilance against all possible threats, because it is often the threat that appears to be innocent that is the greatest threat.

By the way Col Rouge, yes, convictions etc are a matter of public record, however, when the perpetrator is under 18 their identity is protected. I think that you would be surprised how much sexual abuse happens between siblings who are under the age of 18. Yes - that may disgust many, but unfortunately it happens.

Where the identity of a victim, under the age of 18, could be assumed from the name of the perpetrator, ie - when it is a relative who commits the crime and identifying that relative will identify the victim, the perpetrators name is usually suppressed. This happens in more cases than I would presume that you would consider.

When, for instance, in the Family Court, a 'certificate' is granted so that information about sexual and other abuse is used in evidence without it being used in a court of law against the person giving that evidence, then the names of the victim and the perpetrator are not available for publication, and I fail to see how these people would ever make it onto a register, as that would in essence defeating the granting of the certificate.

Not every perpetrator is named in court, or if they are named it is an offense to make public those names if they are suppressed by the court.

Whilst nearly anyone can go and sit in an open court, some courts being closed to protect victims or others giving evidence from being further victimised, not everything that is said in court can be publicised. The media walks a fine line here and many trials have been aborted due to the crossing of that line.

The interests of justice - in the wider sphere instead of the idea of penalising a single person - have to be protected.

Hamlet
You make some interesting points, BUT we know from experience that attempts to ‘safeguard” some groups in our “progressive” society invariably leads to other groups being vilified.

Hence we have “Australians say no to violence against women” days ( but not Australians say no to violence against everyone)

We have Govt bodies & a hosts of NGOs ensuring that some races/sexes are only referred to/portrayed in a positive manner while we have a free for all on others.

We have such bodies as the Dept of Community Services stomping with jackboots over parents in the interests of the safeguarding the higher “good” of the child.

All very appealing to damn lawyers & damned princes but not very healthy for a society.

Horus,

I did not mention 'groups' as perpetrators of sexual crimes, of all kinds, can come from all 'strata' and groups within our society. These crimes are carried out by individuals, and in some cases by groups of individuals.

I am aware of the British case of the doctor who went far too far, based on a wrong methodology, that in itself required a 'diagnosis' that bordered on an act not far removed from sexual abuse in itself. I am also aware of the abuses of 'recovered memory': the idea of which I have heard described by one of Australia's leading forensic psychiatrists (sorry, I cannot name this person here) as being problematic, as the difficulty in sexual abuse cases isn't repressed memory as much as trying to have the victim put the memory intro perspective so that they can still lead a meaningful life.

We must be aware, not by means of witch hunts - anyone who has read Miller's 'The Crucible' will know what I mean - of the possible perils. Being aware and accusing anyone and everyone are two very very different things.

I am also aware, thru the story told by an old mate of mine from Queensland, of the dangers of community knowledge of 'sexual offenses'. There was a man in a fairly small country town in Queensland who was caught in an act of 'animal husbandry' with a chicken - yeah, gross.

He was taken to court by the police, and found guilty: his children, however, was subjected to years of torment at school of being described as the children of the 'phantom fowl 'f**ker of XXX'.

Of course you could argue that if he didn't want his children victimised in this way he should not have done the deed, however, no one does anything illegal thinking that he, or she, will get caught.

So the idea of a 'register' in itself, not a deterrent either.

Barbara is clearly someone with a big heart and more courage. She is the type of person needed in our society.

I must also question though Barbara's claimed rescidivism rate. Until such a released offender is deceased they may still re offend. As such statistics are meaningless. I'm not prepared to risk my children on such statistics by accepting the release of sex offenders at all.

On the other hand I have also seen an in house sex offender register used Australia wide in a large profession where that register was kept by management but every State or Territory had access to it and blank an individuals future without them ever knowing. They just get told they didn't get the job. That's the least of their troubles though as people with access also talk.

Things have changed a bit since then in that some governments are requiring "blue cards" etc to prove the applicant has been cleared. Supposedly. We have seen also the failings of that system. For example where someone who has not been caught yet is involved in the register.

These registers are enormously dangerous, not only to sex offenders but to you and I as if there is one secretly kept register you can be certain there are many more covering many other issues. Even to the extent of political affiliation and you all know those records are kept.

If such registers must be held they must be public, all registers to give the individual at least the knowledge they are known to all.

Family members are the main offenders so it is the trust we place in those people that needs scrutiny first. Again though families tend to cover it up and ignore the person who suffered.

I can only suggest such people remain in jail. One chance only, no release. Anything else to me creates more misery and it is the person attacked who has to wear all this. Yes others do on their behalf but they are where we should focus our attention, not on people who knew what they were doing and persisted.

From my reading of the article, Barbara was not saying the recidivism rate of all child sex offenders was 5%, merely that this was the rate for a particularly effective treatment program. Her point was that this human perversion can be treated.
Barbara is right, if there are effective ways to treat these men, then we should be using them and funding them, now.
No matter how terrible the crime, to dehumanise the criminal and deny them any compassion is a dangerous path. How do any of us know, for sure, that if our own childhoods had been different, and our life circumstances much worse, that we would still never be capable of doing terrible things?
I am not religious, but it always surprises me how the followers of Jesus - who preached forgiveness and the searation of sin from sinner - are often the most vicious in their condemnation. Surely compassion always has a place?

I wonder what the recidivism rate of all child neglecters is though, because from my reading of Barbara's account of her early life, the prime contributor to her downfall was neglect by her mother and grandmother - the main carers in her life.

There is reason to believe that child neglect (which is child abuse) places many children needlessly at risk in many aspects of their life including from sexual predators.

By all means do something about child molesters, but let's put the big spotlight on child neglect, which harms thousands of children daily in Australia.

Ena, agree about Barbara's comments relating to a specific program.

My point was "At what stage can you declare a success or failure rate?". Seems to me while any such offender is still alive then the statistics drawer is still open. They may not reoffend for the first 2 years or whatever figure was used but what about beyond the period defined?

This simply proves, yet again, that statistics mean little. I'd like to see the 5% statement refined to "rescidivism occurred within 5% of cases during a period of X years following first being treated".

As to dehumanising the criminal, I'm afraid they did that to themselves, and their victim(s) and families, and friends and society. You forgive them if you can but please do not ask others to simply because you want to. As I see it they have revoked their own rights to be a part of any society and belong with others like themselves, in jail for life.

There are many acts of violence in our world and many receive punishments greater than child sex offenders. To me this indecency is a unique attack upon innocence and there can be no excuse. The risk of reoffending cannot be taken over and over again in order to save those children who do fall prey to reoffenders.

Any such attack is unacceptable. Full stop.

This crime is a uniquely dreadful attack upon trust which takes away a young persons dreams, future, everything really. It is a rare person like Barbara that can face life after being attacked.

Focus on those who are offended against first please. If there is any room for compassion after that, then do what you feel is right. I have none for such people.

Imagine if you will the feelings and thoughts and restrictions on a persons life when their attacker is released. I see no fairness in such an arrangement, do you?

There must be a register of child abuser's. I don't believe that it should be made open to the public though.

Hopefully there will come a day when we see a government with the strength to use this list to execute those on it.