The Truth About IPP Sentences

Sarah’s law is a fraud and a waste of money

Sarah's Law is a fraud and a waste of money

Sarah's Law is a fraud and a waste of money

TheOpinionSite.org does not usually reprint articles from other websites. On this occasion however, we break that rule. The Guardian website reports in clear and simple terms one of the great lies of the tabloid press in startling simplicity; that Sarah’s Law is a fraud, a waste of money and a populist measure sanctioned by a weak Home Secretary.

The so called “Sarah’s Law”, so beloved by child protection charities, policemen, social workers, probation officers and vote-hungry politicians is a fraud. It always was a fraud and was a populist measure introduced by Theresa May as a populist sap to those whom she lacks the courage to resist.

May fell hopelessly into the same trap as David Blunkett and Jacqui Smith before her and gave in to the mob instead of standing up for rational thought and common sense.

TheOpinionSite.org congratulate David Wilson and The Guardian on revealing  what we all knew – that politicians in general and Home Secretaries in particular will do anything to get votes, headlines and popularity, even if it means betraying the truth.

It costs about £7,500 every time someone invokes ‘Sarah’s Law’. That is money that would undoubtedly be better spent on supporting the real and genuine methods of child protection that are known to work and that have been used for years. Instead, huge amounts are now wasted on a political gesture that helps nobody, destroys the lives of individuals and wrecks families.

The article is reprinted below:

There is no evidence that the News of the World’s ‘naming and shaming’ campaign protects children from predatory paedophiles

The final edition of the News of the World claimed that its “naming and shaming” campaign, which led to the introduction of the child sex offender disclosure scheme (CSODS), commonly known as Sarah’s law, had proven that the paper was a “force for good”.

The paper’s controversial approach to outing known paedophiles in the wake of the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne in 2000 by Roy Whiting, did indeed prompt the process that led directly to the CSODS. The scheme allows parents, carers and guardians of children to formally ask the police to tell them if someone that might have access to their children has a record of child sexual offences. It was initially trialled in four police areas in 2008, later extended to eight further police force areas and then rolled out across England and Wales.

But has the scheme been a “force for good”? Has it helped to protect children from predatory paedophiles like Whiting, or has naming and shaming – albeit in the limited way allowed in law – been counterproductive, in that it changes a paedophile’s behaviour, forcing them “underground” and so making it much more difficult for the authorities to keep track of them?

Given that the pilot schemes were evaluated you would imagine that this would be a relatively easy question to answer – especially as that evaluation prompted CSODS to become adopted throughout the country. Yet, as the authors of the evaluation, Professor Hazel Kemshall and Dr Jason Wood, acknowledge, the aim of their report was about process.

They wanted to determine “how successfully the pilots have provided members of the public with a formal mechanism for requesting information about individuals who have access to children and who may have convictions for child sex offending” – rather than attempting to answer the question of whether or not such schemes actually protected children.

As part of their evaluation Kemshall and Wood interviewed 61 registered sex offenders (RSOs). However, some of these RSOs had not offended against children, and crucially none had been disclosed against; as the authors openly admit, this simple fact does represent a limitation of the study.

So, the evaluation that led to the scheme being rolled out across the nation hasn’t really got anything to tell us at all about whether or not paedophiles who might be about to be “named and shamed”, or indeed had been “named and shamed”, would respond, or did respond, if they found that their name, personal details or photographs were about to be, or had been splashed all over the front pages of a tabloid newspaper.

But what did the evaluation tell us?

That there had been 159 applicants asking for disclosure during the period covered, and of these more than 50% had been requests about an ex-partner’s new partner, a family member, a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a neighbour. In other words, these requests were not about “stranger-danger” – predatory paedophiles roaming the country looking for children to abduct – but were about people who were known to the families who were making the requests.

No surprises there then, for we know that only about 20% of child sexual offences are committed by strangers, and that children are much more likely to be abused (80%) by someone that they know and trust, rather than by a stranger within the community.

Would the scheme have prevented Sarah Payne being murdered? The evidence from the pilot schemes suggests that it would not – Whiting would have had to have raised suspicions in the local community, which in turn might have prompted the Paynes to have contacted the police about whether or not he was dangerous.

Sadly, that does not remotely resemble the circumstances in which Sarah was abducted and murdered.

But perhaps the scheme has prevented other children being abducted and murdered? Again it is difficult to see any evidence that might support this, although we should remember that the CSODS does sit alongside the more robust multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) which can claim a greater degree of success in protecting children (though that has yet to be proved – Ed)

So, was the “naming and shaming” campaign a “force for good”, as the News of the World claims?

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was, and we also know from evaluations from similar schemes in other countries – such as Megan’s law in the US and Christopher’s law in Canada – that, in the words of the most recent evaluation from 2008 of the impact of Megan’s law that it has “showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual offences”.

Let’s not get too teary-eyed and enthusiastic about a campaign that had little to recommend it in the first place, and which led to a policy that does not appear to have had the success that is claimed on its behalf.

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to Sarah’s law is a fraud and a waste of money

  1. Jamie
    October 24, 2011 at 1:03 am

    It was to be a cancer that has eaten, and still continues to eat at the fabric of society. To safe-guard a child’s safety, one would require them to live in a bomb-proof shell. The goal HAS to be to “reduce” crimes against children, not to “prevent” crimes against children. One is possible, the other is not, one is rational, the other is not. We can no more prevent that, than natural disasters. In a time when the mere mention of “images of children”, now seems to provoke thoughts of “paedophiles”, yeah, society has a problem allright.

  2. Alison
    August 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    With Murdoch’s sleaze empire being torn to shreds and along with it his ability to brain wash the masses through scare mongering, sensationalised but factless and or distorted news articles, maybe this easily influenced nation will begin to recieve accurate information in newspapers concerning rediculous campaigns such as Sarah’s Law. That is to say newspapers will begin to report the truth that it is a crock of s###.

    I wonder how much money Sarah Paynes mother has made from her ‘fame’ as the mother of a murdered child? Did she jump on the bandwagon following the death of her daughter? How easily influenced was Payne’s mother by the press and police to start her campaign?

    Was in fact Paynes campaign her own idea or was it planted in her head by the cops and Murdochs people in order to safeguard existing child protection jobs and create new posts?

    It’s all a sham and a disgrace. There are no more ‘politicians’ in this country at present. Just career grabbing, expense swindling fraudsters who will stop at literally nothing to secure their places in politics.

    I fear the problems with the policing and politics of this country have become so deep rooted and corrupt that nothing short of a revolt, a peoples revolution is now required to bring some sort of sensability and balance back.

    I should be careful what I write because the next law to be introduced could be to create a register for individuals who openly state their discontentment with the governement and that register is likely to be retrospective

    Where is the nearest airport. I gotta get out of this sinking country!

    • martin
      July 30, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      As the father of a now six yr old child if I had used Sarah’s law I believe our child would have been better protected.Sarah’s law is good.I was saddened to see you comment that Sarah’s mum revels in (fame and money)her grief.more power to freedom of information.

  3. Paul
    August 2, 2011 at 11:10 am

    The CSO Disclosure Scheme is nothing like the “Sarahs Laws” demanded by the News of the World (now deceased!) – it is just they realised they were getting nowhere so they claimed this, very different, scheme as a “victory” – deceptive but again no supprise there.

    The important point is that the police already would disclose a sex offenders details if they thought a child was at risk. And the criteria for disclosing information have not changed. The only thing that is new in the disclosure scheme is that people can ask about someone who has access to children.

    If a decision is made to disclose information this would not necessarily be to the person who made the request – but to the person who is best placed to protect the child, usually the mother.

    Before any disclosue can be made a lot of checks have to be carried out, including criminal checks on the person making the request and on the mother and father of the child. Only limited information can be made available and disclosing information to other people is a criminal offence. If no disclosure is made advice is given on keep your child safe (referal to Stop It Now etc).

    In cases where the child may in immediate danger a reference to child protection (local authority) will be made. This may result in the child being taken into care.

    The effectiveness of MAPPA (police, probation and other agencies) in reducing sexual offending has not been shown by a report by Mark Peck of Ministory of Justice (June 2011). His report compared offenders released after 1998 and 2001 (when MAPPA was introduced). He found a small decline in violent offending (which was already declining anyway) and NO decline in sexual re-offending (from already low base of 4% after two years). The conclusion of this study, which was not independent, claimed a reduction in offending although this was barely supported by the data.

  4. crbforums
    August 1, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    How very true .. it is bureaucracy gone mad again another knee jerk reaction .. it is never ending

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.