Should we strengthen police powers to deal with sex offenders?

Published on Friday 2 September 2005 00:46

YES: Derek Green

It is time we started to prevent crimes - not react to them

THERE are many factors involved in the management of sex-offenders in the community and one of the most important is intelligence. As with any investigative agency, the police require as much intelligence as it is possible to obtain in order to identify and apprehend sexual criminals soon after a crime is committed.

The problem with this evidently necessary approach is the same problem faced by all professionals in the field of child abuse - the UK has no national "Child Protection Strategy". Instead, it has a "Child Abuse Response Service".

What this means is that very little is achieved in preventing sexual crime, but there are thousands of professionals (police officers, social workers, doctors, psychologists, sex offender specialists, probation officers and the courts) geared up and ready to respond to an offence against a child.

Preventing the offence in the first place, however, is basically reduced to teaching "stranger danger" - and the problem there is, very few offences against children are committed by people who are a stranger to them.

Currently, there is a new system of intelligence rolling out across the country which holds information on individuals convicted of sex offences, or jailed for more than 12 months for violence, as well as unconvicted individuals who are still assessed as posing a risk.

Naturally, this has led to arguments about civil liberties. However, for the first time, "soft" intelligence (information based on concerns rather than conviction) will be made available to all police forces across the UK. This is an absolutely vital addition to the prevention armoury.

It would have prevented Ian Huntley (the Soham murderer) from obtaining a job at Holly and Jessica's school. Of course, it does not mean he could not have made contact with and attacked other children, but it would surely have limited his chances. He would have been a marked man thanks to the "soft" intelligence that existed on him but was never shared.

It is true that liberty is an important plank of our society and it is being tested in many ways. Some parallels can be drawn with the "war against terror". At what point should liberty be infringed to protect society? Is it not right that the police should have information on un-convicted persons but who have been previously assessed as having a particular risk? Is this really a step towards a police state or is it a step towards a society that is grasping the nettle of preventing child abuse, rather than simply responding to it?

The police are seeking more and more powers and want more and more information to assist them in preventing crime, but is that not one of their primary tasks - prevention rather than detection? I believe that their every plea for assistance should be looked at and listened to carefully and that we are facing harder and harder choices in doing so. Without the ability to identify a potential threat and to nullify that threat then the status quo will remain - a "Child Abuse Response Service" - small comfort for the victims of the future.

• Derek Green is a sexual crimes consultant with RWA UK

NO: John Scott

More laws cannot guarantee perfect safety... let the police use fully those they already have

THE murder of a child brings grief, anger and confusion. The parents of Rory Blackhall are entitled to howls of rage or loss. Instead, they have kept their grief largely private. Their dignity is a testament to Rory.

However, on the part of some others there has been an entirely unacceptable loss of control. In the voices of some politicians there has been a barely controlled hysteria which has enflamed the situation in a misleading and totally unnecessary way. It does no-one any favours to start a witch-hunt. The opposition should put out their torches.

The police are under intense pressure and, like others, may have lessons to learn when all the facts are known. Our police have significant powers already where they suspect a crime. Are they now to be given powers where they have no reason to suspect a crime?

Does anyone share my concerns about allowing the police to enter any house they want at any time they want, without any reason? If they have a reason, then let them get a warrant. If they do not, then why should they be allowed to act in this way? If such powers are to be allowed, then why stop at that? Where do we draw the line?

Surely the police can be trusted not to abuse such powers? Surely they would not make a mistake? Your confidence in the police may be unlimited, but I have met Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six and Shirley McKie on many occasions and am convinced that we should allow the police no more power than is absolutely necessary.

Mistakes happen every day, and sometimes worse. All the more so when they are under intense pressure.

In relation to the police desire to veto proposed accommodation or employment for sex offenders, I am also not convinced. They accept that they can go to court and seek an order from a sheriff. Apparently, this is rarely done. Why?

Again, we must be careful about giving the police more powers which they do not need. If this can be done through a court it allows some check that the veto is justified. I feel sorry for the police at times like these, but more powers or new laws cannot guarantee perfect safety. Let the police use their existing powers as fully as possible.

Sex crimes, especially those involving children, are the most emotive of all crimes. Many assumptions have been made about this case which makes the rush to legislate even less excusable. Let us take some care.

It seems that the non-appearance warrant is something of a red herring. No doubt these things could be done quicker, but some delay is inevitable. As long as there is a proper system for prioritising warrants, that should be enough.

There is also the issue of bail. At least one opposition spokesman has called for the end to bail in all serious cases, although he did not define "serious". That is simply wrong.

Every day people are released on bail to return to court with a condition that they must not reoffend. A small number breach bail, some in a serious way. The majority do not. Some fail to attend. Most of my clients turn up at court, even though many have chaotic lifestyles and drug problems. Bail is an essential part of our system. It usually works, even in serious cases.

Let us keep some perspective in the aftermath of a horrible crime; although I will make one concession.

If the Executive and the police can come up with a foolproof system for identifying and prosecuting only guilty people, then I will stop arguing.

• John Scott is director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre.

YOUR VIEWS

Police eyes and ears

This is not another issue that we should let get snarled up with bureaucracy. The police, not the politicians, are the eyes and ears on the ground and know what they need. If they are being stopped by current legislation from doing their job, which surely is to enforce law and protect the public, to the best of their ability, something must be done. Police know what they need and it is up to the politicians to switch on and do something.

PETER BURGESS, 16

Perthshire

Pieces of a jigsaw

All the time it seems we hear after the event that these people were dangerous but nobody seems to connect the dots. What happened with Rory is like Soham: in both cases, there were jigsaw clues but nobody was looking at the big picture. Can't the police computer connect these bits of information and tell all the agencies and councils that need to know? The information seems to exist, but not the intelligence to turn it into a coherent picture to stop children getting murdered.

CLARE FINN

Kirkcaldy, Fife

Wait for full facts

Until such time as someone tells us the full facts in the Rory case, I would be reluctant to go too far in terms of police powers. But there is an over-riding issue. It is all very well talking about new powers but the police have not got the numbers to act on the powers they already have. I understand that there are 22,000 warrants outstanding in Strathclyde alone. We need more police to execute the warrants that are already outstanding.

BILL AITKEN

Conservative MSP

Make bail tighter

I think bail restrictions should be a lot tighter for people accused of sex offences, but I don't believe that police powers should be increased to the extent that people are placed on a sex offenders register before they are found guilty.

I feel that to do that would be to risk branding an innocent person for life.

HELEN MACGREGOR

Glasgow

Crucial safeguard

There is nothing wrong in putting someone suspected of serious sex crimes on the sex offenders register, as long as their name is immediately removed if they are cleared. The tragic case of Rory Blackhall has certainly highlighted major shortcomings in the system and there are loopholes that need closing to make sure this situation doesn't happen again. More powers are fine as long as relevant checks are built in when they are introduced.

KATE SMITH

Glasgow

Abolish police

We believe in the abolition of state policing and its replacement by a mixture of self-help community co-operation and private protection agencies. We believe that the police while they exist should be confined to their traditional definition of a citizen in uniform paid to uphold the law in the same way as all citizens have the right to do. So, we reject all arguments of giving the police more powers and we would argue for the abolition of all powers the police now have that do not belong to the ordinary citizen.

THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

Fear of attack

The police have just been given new powers to deal with terrorists. These laws have been put in place to protect people just trying to get to work and to stop people feeling afraid. In the same way, the police should be given extended powers to protect women and children from becoming victims of sex crimes. Stricter measures must be taken as our most vulnerable members of society are living in fear of attack.

LAURA BISHOP

Edinburgh

Definition is the key

It depends on how you define a paedophile. If the person in question has already committed a sex-related crime towards a juvenile and been convicted in a court of law, I would be happy for the police to have greater powers such as monitoring and home surveillance upon their departure from prison. I would assume a level of psychological imbalance in a person who committed such an act, and assume that such psychological imbalances do not simply disappear, hence the need to monitor the offender even after they have served their time.

However, ministers catching headlines in response to single tragedies is not a reason to continue the trend whereby people's private lives are under increasing public scrutiny. Innocent until proven guilty must be maintained.

TIM LARGE

Glasgow