Sex-offender register raises thorny issues

Striking a balance between allowing offenders to turn over a new leaf and preventing them from relapsing into their old ways is a delicate issue. The conflict is most acute when it comes to sex offenders, particularly paedophiles, who are inclined to strike again because of their psychological condition.

In some countries, the balance is struck in favour of protecting the public. This usually takes the form of compiling a register of child-sex offenders. In some jurisdictions, such registers are open for public inspection; in others, access is restricted and the lists are aimed at preventing offenders from taking jobs that put them in close contact with children.

Over the past six months, courts at various levels have called for the setting up of such a register in Hong Kong. The judges were alarmed that some of the convicted defendants appearing before them were repeat offenders, but there was nothing to put the public on notice of where they are and the potential danger they pose. An unofficial survey of media reports of trials of child-sex offences so far this year has found that about 20 per cent of the defendants were repeat offenders.

The biggest problem with a register of child-sex offenders is that it would be a violation of their privacy rights. It would also subject them to ridicule and even attacks, and be a travesty of the presumption of innocence.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, a convicted criminal has the right not to disclose his criminal record once their sentence has been completed. While many sex offenders have a history of breaking the law again, some may be reformed after being treated. Putting the names of every offender on the register would work against the efforts of the reformed to lead a normal life again.

The danger of allowing open access to such a register cannot be underestimated. In 2000, after a British newspaper published photographs of convicted child-sex offenders from a government register, angry mobs ran amok at the sight of people whom they wrongly identified as the offenders. Victims were beaten and their homes smashed. Some vigilantes who were confused over the words 'paedophile' and 'paediatrician' even daubed the derogative word 'paedo' on the walls and doors of a paediatrician's office.