The news that 35 sex offenders are due for release in the next six months has led to calls for a register of people convicted of sex crimes. The Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, has responded by promising, again, to introduce a register. What has to be worked out, his spokesman said, is whether it will be a register of paedophiles or of sex offenders in general.
But, the Irish Penal Reform Trust pointed out yesterday, that something more than this is needed: appropriate treatment needs to be made available for sex offenders. Currently, 10 people a year are taken into the treatment programme at Arbour Hill prison. That is a very poor level of provision indeed, considering that Arbour Hill alone has over 200 inmates, most of them sex offenders. An expansion of treatment programmes in the prisons is urgently required. And frequent offenders also need a greater incentive to participate in such programmes.
Mr Kieran McGrath, who has been involved with treating offenders, points out that the current policy of denying early release to sex offenders removes this incentive. He believes the prospect of an earlier release date should be held out to encourage them into a treatment programme.
The Irish Penal Reform Trust also suggests postrelease supervision for some categories of sex offender. Some types of offender, particularly paedophiles with a history of previous convictions, are very likely to reoffend. Supervision could do a lot to reduce that likelihood. A rigorously-enforced register would, in itself, provide the basis of a system of supervision if those on it were obliged to present themselves to the Gardai once a year or when their address or place of employment changed.
Who should be on the register? Confining it to paedophiles would appear to be a very minimalist approach. Most sex offenders are not paedophiles but can do as much damage as a paedophile. With treatment, though, it would appear that the risk of this category reoffending is low.
But being placed on a register would in itself be a powerful incentive to these men to co-operate with treatment, if there was a prospect of being able to leave the register if they did not re-offend for, say, 10 years. Those who would prefer to leave them on the register forever might reflect on the findings that one offender in five is under the age of 15 when he (sometimes she) first abuses a child. The country's longest-established treatment programme for teenage sex offenders, the Northside Inter-Agency Project in Dublin, reports a high level of success for those who complete the programme. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see why a person should be kept on the register regardless of their record over the years.
But there is something else that is important to bear in mind in this debate: by and large, we are discussing the kind of treatment and care facilities that are still not fully in place. We haven't got a register. We have little or nothing in the way of in-prison treatment programmes. We have only a handful of treatment programmes in the community. We have no post-release supervision for special categories of sex offender.
The ISPCC has called on Mr O'Donoghue to act urgently. A swift response is desirable, but the Minister should not act so urgently that he fails to get it right.