A 40-year-old serial rapist, a 12 year old young boy having consensual sex with his girlfriend. What do both of these individuals have in common? They can both be subjected under the Canadian sex offenders registry. However, when a rapist suddenly slides off the map and commits more crimes under the radar, one begins to question the effectiveness of the registry, and what can be done to develop it’s quality and accuracy. Another question which seems to badger Canadian society today is that relating to whether a minor should be a registrant at all, no matter what their crime, Canada has a strong belief in rehabilitation. Rehabilitate, and develop, both of the utmost substance when observing the ways in which a sex offender registry are and …show more content…
In an article on www.canada.com, the many flaws in the registry are clearly outlined. For starters, it is not mandatory to register and the RCMP “believe that some dangerous offenders are falling through the cracks”, it’s simple, make registration mandatory for offenders 18 years of age and up. Police seem to find it difficult to even keep track of those registered, probably because offenders do not have to notify them of trips consisting of two weeks or less. The police are not even allowed to access the registry until charges have been laid, they may not access it on any suspicions. For example, if a citizen were to report a suspicious character lurking around an elementary school quite frequently, the police would not be allowed to use the registry in order to find out whether that individual is a registered sex offender or not. The suspicious character would have to molest a child, get reported, charged and then, after a child has already been adulterated, the police may access the registry. This law in particular seems to anger citizens the most, deeming the registry “useless”. The resolution to this problem is that the registry can be kept away from the eyes of the public, but should be open to police all of the time, it’s their job to know who is on it. No matter how long the vacation is, police should be notified, especially after observing the Petiquan case. Another problem with the registry lies strictly with it’s accuracy, the content of the registry is given directly from the offender(s) in question. An offender could give a false address, name, etc.. again, this was one of the main flaws with regard to the Petiquan case, which is not the only kind of it’s nature. Lastly, any offenders convicted previous to 2004, are not registered with the database, there are literally thousands of sex offenders from before 2004 that are living free and unregistered.
Canada’s criminal justice system largely focuses on rehabilitation, but Bourque’s harsh sentence is similar to the sentencing practices of the United States (Gagnon 2015). This is troubling as Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system appears to be working. Canada has a low rate of recidivism for offenders who have been convicted of murder (Gagnon 2015). Research shows that Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system has also worked with crimes that are not as severe as murder. Between 2010/2011 and 2013/2014, there was a 12% decrease in completed adult criminal court cases. Most cases in adult criminal court involve non-violent offenses (Maxwell 2013/2014). Similarly, in 2013, the police-reported crime rate was at it lowest since 1969 (Statistics Canada). The homicide rate is also declining, as in 2013, it represented less than 1% of all violent crime (Statistics Canada). Notably, probation was the most common sentence given in adult court cases and custody sentences were less than six months (Maxwell, 2013/2014). These types of sentences showcase the rehabilitation focused thinking of the Canadian criminal justice system and reinforce the impact and possible repercussions of Justin Bourque’s
According to Michael Eisenberg, who conducted a detailed research, there is a four-phase process. The first phase is after an offender is released, they are immediately notified of the requirement of registration. In most cases, the offenders are unaware of the process and the courts, prisons and even jail officials are responsible to inform the offenders to register with the law enforcement agencies. All offenders are instructed to register generally within 10 days of their release. Age does not justify the exemption of an offender. Even juvenile sex offenders are required to register for the rest of their life. As previously explained, some offenders are not aware of the registration and are unjustly penalized. To reference this, we have the case of United States v. Kebodeaux tried by The Fifth Circuit. Schwinn, S.D. (2013) analyzed this case and explained the penalty given to the offender. Kebodeaux was convicted of a sex act under the Code of Military Justice in Colorado. He served his sentence and was released in 1999. He then moved and registered in Texas in 2004 and in 2007, however, failed to register when he moved to San Antonio. He was sentenced and incarcerated again for an additional year and a day. Even though the offender sought an appeal, it is crucial for them to be notified or
In the event that a prisoner (particularly a sex offender) does complete rehabilitation, he carries with him a stigma upon reentering society. People often fear living near a prior drug addict or convicted murderer and the sensational media hype surrounding released felons can ruin a newly released convict’s life before it beings. What with resident notifications, media scare tactics and general concern for safety, a sex offender’s ability to readapt into society is severely hindered (554). This warrants life-skills rehabilitation applied to him useless, as he will be unable to even attempt to make the right decision regarding further crime opportunities.
Finally, the third condition requires local and state law enforcement agencies to release all applicable information from state registration programs needed for the protection of the public (Corrigan, 2006, p. 271). While Megan’s Law has given community citizens the ability to be informed of sexual offenders in their areas and their demographic information, one must also consider the impact Megan’s law has on these offenders when they attempt to reenter society after incarceration.... ... middle of paper ... ... Levenson, J.S., Brannon, Y.N., Forney, T., & Baker, J. (2007).
It is typically thought that sex offenders are the type of individual that needs to be tried in our courts and then sentenced because there is really no hope for an individual that harms the most innocent of our society. But there just may be an exception to this way of thinking. Juveniles who at one point themselves may have been victims, and as they have grown into adolescence not knowing why they are thinking the way they are, turn around and abuse others. Then what happens is that these adolescents once found out, are then tried in our courts as adults because in the mind of the court they are committing an adult crime. But there are alternatives for these juveniles that are being placed in our court system. Because at this stage in their development they are more receptive to treatment options and there are treatments available with valid research to substantiate them. Our judicial system just needs to recognize these options in order to try to lessen the amount of trauma inflicted on these already potentially traumatized individuals.
When thinking about youth crime do you envision a country with a high rate of young offenders, gang activity and re-offending? Or do you envision a country with a significant increase of young offenders either being successfully reintegrated into society, or helped by a community when seeking forgiveness for a minor offence that they have committed? Since the passing of Bill C-7 or the Youth Criminal Justice Act on February 4, 2002 by the House of Commons, many significant improvements have been made in Canada’s youth criminal justice system on how to handle and care for young offenders. Some of the reasons why Bill C-7 was passed in Canada was because the bill before it, Young Offenders Act, had many problems and suffered large amounts scrutiny by Canadian Citizens. It’s because of these reasons that Bill C-7 had been revised multiple times before being passed, having previously been called Bill C-68, March of 1999 and Bill C-3, in October 1999. With this all being said, many Canadian citizens are still left to ponder a question of if there is even significant improvement in our Youth Criminal justice system when comparing the Youth Criminal Justice Act to the Young Offenders Act? In my opinion, there are many significant improvements that have been made in the Youth Criminal Justice Act which have aided our justice system. By addressing the weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has helped Canada improve in the field of youth criminal justice by implementing better Extrajudicial Measures, ensuring effective reintegration of a young person once released from custody and providing much more clarification on sentencing options.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted in 2003, has had considerable implications for youth offenders, especially in sentencing procedures. However, in 2012 Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his administration made significant punitive amendments that changed the application of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to youth sentencing procedures in Canada. This essay will first discuss a brief history of Canadian legislation regarding youth offenders, and the general characteristics and effectiveness of the YCJA within its first decade of existence. Then, it will highlight the changes made by the Harper administration to the YCJA, and the implications of those changes, using evidence of the cycle of juvenile reoffending through imprisonment
Vandiver, D. M., & Teske, R. (2006). Juvenile female and male sex offenders a comparison of offender, victim, and judicial processing characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 148-165.
There is much debate as to whether a sex offender should be released into the public, this debate stems from the idea that a sex offender cannot be treated and that they are a danger to the public as they are ‘purely evil’ (Burke, 2005), however there is much evidence that sex offenders can be treated and re-introduced into society as a productive member. Sex offender is a general term used to refer to any person who has been convicted of crimes involving sex, from rape and molestation to exhibitionism and pornography distribution. There are many theories which try to explain why people are sexual offenders, these theories along with treatments for sex offenders will be looked at to help explain why people sexually offend and to help evaluate whether sex offenders should be released.
The sex offender’s registry plays on parent’s emotional instincts to protect their children instead of really protect them. It gives parents a false sense of protection. The regis...
It may also bring issues of anger as the sex offenders laws state that some of the rights of the person being denied in some states sex offenders cannot attend Halloween and even lose their parental rights this may do more harm or good to the person and give him an I don’t care attitude. However flipping the coin to the other side legislation has helped with the integration of the sex offenders as in most cases those who have registered rarely repeat their crime. For example in New York between 1985-2001 out of the registered 11898 only 251 were returned to jail for recidivism which is about 2.1% this shows that it works as the cases have
Sex offender legislation has become a controversial topic in the recent years. There have been numerous laws enacted in response to sex offender crime. Do these laws really work to help minimize re-offending, or do they give the public a false sense of security and cause recidivism? In a several studies researchers found no evidence of sex offender registries being effective in increasing public safety. Some studies have found that requiring sex offenders to register with law enforcement may significantly may reduce chances of recidivism. However, the research also found that making registry information available to the public may back fire and lead to higher levels of overall sex crimes
The government made the registry with good intentions but it has backfired and only created more victims and more discrimination overall, and that is why it should be abolished. The citizens that are on the sex offender registry have already been punished for their crimes and have dealt with the consequences of their actions, there is no reason that they should continue to be punished for the rest of their lives.
of Sex Offenders Via the Internet. The John Marshal Journal of Computer and Information Law
Before the registry was enacted, sex offenders who lived in their neighborhood victimized adults and children and no one knew about their prior criminal history. In very public cases, it was brought to light that children were being abducted, violently sexually assaulted, and finally brutally murdered by sex offenders that should have been registered. Those children could have been kept safe and may still be alive today if the public knew the information about their attackers. Also the surviving victims of sexual abuse endure life long suffering in both mental and physical symptoms. In my opinion I think that families should have unlimited access to the personal information of the registered sex offenders regardless of the privacy rights of those sex offenders. I will discuss both the sex offender’s rights as well as the right to