The Pros And Cons Of A Public Sex Offender Registry In Australia

Description, Readings and the marking criteria are all included.

The purpose of this list is to increase community safety and deterring crimes. The key issue of this debate is whether adaptation of a public sex offender list will enable the Australia government in reducing sex-related crimes and ensuring safety of individuals.

Benefits of a Public Sex Offender Registry

A sex offender registry is referred to a system which is designed by government authorities in which details regarding sex offenders is included to ensure that they are able to keep track of the activities of sex offenders (Harris & Socia, 2016). This list assists the authorities in ensuring that the offenders are continuously monitored to avoid any potential crimes. This list also includes details regarding those sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences. The purpose of this list is to increase community safety and deterring crimes. The key issue of this debate is whether adaptation of a public sex offender list will enable the Australia government in reducing sex-related crimes and ensuring safety of individuals. The affirmative side will argue that adoption of a sex offender list will ensure that the governmental authorities are easily able to track the actions of sexual offenders which assist them in keeping a check on their crimes (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). It will ensure that the sex offenders are under supervision which will deter sex-related crimes in society.

This will also inform public regarding who is a sexual criminal to ensure that they are able to take precautions to protect themselves and their children. The negative side will argue that often the information on these public registries is incomplete and inaccurate. This practice resulted in making it difficult for ex-offenders to get a house form rent or employment. Public availability of this information could also lead to networking of sexual predators. The case statement provides that introducing a sex offender registry will reduce potential crimes and assist government in keeping a check on sex offenders.

The model of establishing a public sex offender list is focused on keeping a track on those people who are known for committing one or more sex-related crimes. The objective of punishment is to compensate the innocent party who suffered any grievances due to the actions of the criminal (O’Malley, 1999). The punishment also assists in eliminating crimes from society by keeping a check on the criminals to ensure that they are not able to get away with their crimes. However, in many cases, the criminals are able to get out of the supervision of the government authorities by shifting their location and after completing their punishment. In the case of sexual offenders, they can change their location after serving their punishment to continue to conduct more crimes. It becomes easier for them to repeat their crimes and affect more innocent people. However, the government can avoid this problem by creating a public list of sex offenders in which their details must be included (Harris & Socia, 2016). This list should be updated to ensure that details regarding criminals are always in the supervision of the authorities so that they can easily track them if they engage in any other criminal activities.

Challenges of a Public Sex Offender Registry

The sex offender registry will create fear among people who engage in illegal activities regarding bad public image. If they get on this list, then everyone will be able to identify them as sex offenders that make their life difficult. It resulted in deterring crimes from society to ensure that people fear that they will have to serve punishment for the rest of their lives (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). This list should be public so that people are able to identify who among them are sexual offenders. Most sexual offenders shift their location after serving their prison sentences which makes it difficult for people to identify a sexual offender. However, by implementing a sex offender registry list, everyone would be able to access this list to ensure that they know who the offenders are and where they live. It will assist the public in protecting themselves and children from sex predators. People will be able to take precautions to ensure that their children and others did not become a victim of sexual offenders (Godfrey & Cox, 2008). Conclusively, the introduction of a public sex offender registry list while ensure that actions of sex offenders are being tracked by the government which keep a check on their actions. It will deter crimes by creating a fear among people to avoid going on that list. People will also be able to take precautions to protect children and others from sexual predators.

The key issue established by the affirmative side is that it is difficult to track sexual offenders when they switch their location which makes it easier for them to commit crimes against. The goal of implementing a public sex offender registry list is to inform people regarding who is a sexual offender and to keep track of their actions (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). The negative side will argue that often the information in this list is wrong, inaccurate or not updated which creates challenges. It becomes a challenge for sexual offenders to find a house or employment after their name is included in the list. It also increases the chances of potential networking of sexual predators. Although, there are some benefits of a public sex offender list, however, the case statement will argue that introduction of a public sex offender list makes it difficult for the ex-offenders to live a normal life which increases their chances of committing another crime.

Maintaining a national registry of sexual offenders in which details regarding all the current and ex-offenders is included is a difficult job. The governmental authorities that will be responsible for preparing this list will find it difficult to collect accurate data on these criminals (Freeman, 2012). Updating this list will be another challenge because people might shift their locations after which it becomes difficult for police to track them. People who are removed as a sex offender might not be removed from the list within appropriate time which will create challenges for them. These factors show that although the concept of a public sex offender list is positive, however, its practical implementation is complicated which makes it an unsuitable option to eliminate and deter sex-related crimes in Australia.

Impact on Ex-Offenders

Another key challenge with implementing a public sex offender registry list is that it becomes difficult for ex-offenders to live a normal life by getting a house for rent and employment. The objective of punishment is to teach the criminal and others a lesson to eliminate crimes from society and ensure that the criminal did not commit the crime in the future. However, the public sex offender list makes it easier for people to identify who has committed a sex-related crime which makes it difficult for them to live normally. Before giving the house on rent, the landlord can easily check whether the tenant is on the sex offender list or not which makes it difficult for the ex-offenders to get a house for rent in decent neighbourhood (Feeley & Simon, 1992). While searching for a job, corporations reject the applicants who are registered as a sex offender since they did not want to create a negative environment. These factors create challenges for the ex-offenders who have learned their lesson and who wanted to improve their lives. The only option which they have is to get a house in a neighbour that is filled with criminals and get money by engaging in illegal activities. It resulted in defeating the purpose of punishing the criminals in the first place and increases the number of criminals in society. For minorities, such as Indigenous people in Australia, the situation is more disastrous because they already face discrimination and the sex offender list will make it impossible for them to live their life normally (Finnane & McGuire, 2001).

A public list which contains information about the crimes of all sexual offenders along with their address can lead to networking between sex offenders. It becomes easier for the sex-offenders to find other criminals who have committed same crimes. The offenders will be able to create a network with each other, and they can help each other in committing crimes (Schultz, 2014). They will not receive any support from the local communities which will increase their chances of joining together and committing crimes. The networking of sexual offenders is dangerous for society, and it eliminates the effectiveness of the programs which are implemented by the government to deter crimes. Conclusively, the main goal of implementing a public sex offender registry list is not achieved due to the negative impact of this list. Maintaining and updating a list is a difficult job, and it also makes it difficult for ex-offenders to live a normal life. It also encourages networking of offenders which could negatively affect many innocent people; therefore, the Australian government should avoid implementing a public sex offender registry list.

References:

Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474.

Finnane, M., & McGuire, J. (2001). The uses of punishment and exile: Aborigines in colonial Australia. Punishment & Society, 3(2), 279-298.

Freeman, N. J. (2012). The public safety impact of community notification laws: Rearrest of convicted sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4), 539-564.

Godfrey, B., & Cox, D. J. (2008). ‘The Last Fleet’: Crime, Reformation, and Punishment in Western Australia After 1868. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 236-258.

Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28(7), 660-678.

Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6-28.

O'Malley, P. (1999). Volatile and contradictory punishment. Theoretical criminology, 3(2), 175-196.

Schultz, C. (2014). The stigmatization of individuals convicted of sex offenses: Labeling theory and the sex offense registry. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 2(1), 4.

Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2013). Law-enforcement officials' views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(2), 95-113.