QCCL opposes Public Sex Offender Register
The Council accepts that it is a fundamental human right of all persons particularly children to be protected from sexual assault. However, proposals such as Daniel’s law are most likely to have the opposite effect and do harm to innocent people such as victims”, says QCCL President Michael Cope
The first point is that the purpose of laws which prohibit the publication of the names of sex offenders is not to protect the sex offender, but to protect the victim. Given that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are known to or related to their victims the first people likely to be harmed by the publication of the names of sex offenders are the victims who may well be identified.
The second consequence of the fact that most victims know the offender is that these laws by focusing attention on stranger danger could create a false sense of security which may actually expose children to risk.
“The fundamental fact to be understood about these registers is that the clear evidence is that they do not work.”
Research into the effectiveness of public registers of sex offenders such as Megan’s Law in the United States which was passed in 1996 generally shows that these measures do not lead to significant reductions in recidivism[1].
We all know that access to housing, employment and stable social relationships are fundamental to reducing the risk of re-offending. However, community notification increases the prospect of the offenders being ostracized, harassed and relocated significantly reducing the chances of this successful rehabilitation. In fact, this increases the prospect of offenders being located together with the very serious risk that they will network increasing the risks to children.
“These laws increase the prospect the offenders will go into hiding which must surely be a most undesirable outcome.”
American research[2] shows that there have been numerous reports of vigilantism against people on the sex offender registry including harassment, threats and even murders[3]. The research says 47% of those on a register who were surveyed stated that they had been harassed, 28% had received telephone calls and 16% had been assaulted.
“Sex offenders are already required to report their location to police. The QCCL does not oppose this measure which allows police to protect the community without the adverse consequences of public reporting,” says Michael Cope
To the argument that wouldn’t you want to know if there is a dangerous sex offender in your neighbourhood the Council says that this is not the right basis for making policy. Should people be entitled to know that the person moving in next to them has been convicted of stealing or driving without due care and attention on the basis that they might be a risk of repeating those offences? The same principle applies in the case of sex offenders: where the evidence is that notification is not going to reduce the risk of offending, and it may result in harm to victims, the offender and their family there is no justification for a right to know. This is particularly so if has been suggested the proposal is based on a false view of the rate at which sex offenders reoffend in comparison with other types of offenders[4].
Mr Cope says, “There is also another moral argument against these laws. The likely result of these laws is that responsibility for the commission of these crimes will be passed on to parents and other relatives who didn’t check the register or didn’t take some hypothetical steps rather than responsibility clearly and solely lying with the offender.”
For further information contact Michael Cope President QCCL on 07 3223 5939 during office hours and at all times on 0432 847 154 17 March 2025
[1] Zgoba, K., Veysey, B.M., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27, 667-691. Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W.G., & Zgoba, K. (2012); A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 308-328. For similar views from a Queensland expert Dr Danielle Harris of Griffith University see this podcast A Matter of Crime - Should Australia have a sex offender registry: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/a-matter-of-crime/id1481063375?i=1000453409482 (published 14/10/19)
[2] American Justice Policy Institute: Registering Harm page 25
[3] Human Rights Watch in its report No Easy Answers: Sex Offenders Laws in the US https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us#:~:text=The - found evidence of 4 pre meditated murders of registrants - see pages 4-7
[4] For a discussion of recent US research comparing sex offenders re offending rates with other types of offenders see - BJS fuels myths about sex offense recidivism, contradicting its own new data https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/06/sexoffenses/. For similar Australian research see Kelly Richards Misperceptions about Child Sex Offenders https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi429