The reasons that led to the creation of sex offender registries are legitimate: to prevent further sexual violence and to reduce recidivism among individuals who have committed a sexual offence. The public and support groups, particularly those working with victims, are calling for such registers. Nothing is more natural than wanting to protect potential victims and keep track of offenders in order to exercise better surveillance.
The idea of registers, at the source, is good. The problem is this: registers are not efficient. They do not reduce the number of individuals who commit a first sexual offence. They do not reduce sexual recidivism among proven offenders. The deterrent effect is therefore not obtained.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled mandatory registration in the National Sex Offender Registry, including registration in perpetuity, unconstitutional, thereby reversing the Harper government’s 2011 amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. sex offenders. One of the arguments raised concerns the low rate of recidivism among sex offenders. Thus, according to this judgment, the application of the register becomes a disproportionate measure in relation to the real danger represented by the average offender, because it conflicts with his rights and freedoms.
The effectiveness of sex offender registries has been widely studied in the United States, where powerful laws have been passed to improve public access to information about sex offenders (Megan’s Law, 1996, PROTECT Act, 2003, Adam Walsh Act, 2006). The D teamD Elizabeth Letourneau has done a lot of research on the issue.
She demonstrated that, during the period following the implementation of a mandatory registration law, the number of new offenders decreases significantly for a few years. However, the effect does not last over time, and it is difficult to establish a causal link between the reduction observed and the entry into force of the law. More importantly, the team observed that sex offenders on the registry have the same recidivism rate as those who are not.
There are a few other major studies that come to the same conclusion: sex offender registries do not fulfill their main tasks, which are to reduce new sexual crimes and reduce recidivism.
Why ? Two main reasons. First, our expectations about the effect of a registry are based on mistaken beliefs. Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders reoffend very little (between 10 and 15% recidivism over five years, on average). Second, the registers could even increase the intensity of factors associated with the risk of recidivism, such as low social support or precarious employment conditions. Publicizing a sex offender’s name can negatively affect these factors. The under-register sex offender evolves in a context likely to insidiously increase his risk of recidivism.
The findings are disappointing. The registers, which had the noble pretension of protecting society, do not work. At least, not in their current form, and especially not by addressing all sex offenders, without discrimination.
It is important to fight against sexual violence. These have devastating effects for the victims. Rather than investing considerable resources in the management of ineffective or ineffective sex offender registers, it would be preferable to ensure that individuals who have committed sexual offenses receive adequate treatment, adapted to their level of risk and targeting factors associated with recidivism.
It should be remembered that access to specialized treatment in sexual delinquency contributes to the prevention of sexual assault. Scientifically recognized for their effectiveness, the treatments reduce the risk of recurrence by 40%.