This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

A ‘sex offender register’ refers broadly to a state-managed database of all people convicted of one or more sexual offences. One of the most significant ways in which sex offender registers vary is in their availability to the public. The US is the only country in which the national register is available for “unfettered public access.”[1] However, even those registers with access restricted to government agencies can still have incredibly negative effects on the lives of past offenders.

In August 2014, the New Zealand Cabinet signed off on a bill that would introduce New Zealand’s first child sex offender register.[2] As of August 2016, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill is still making its way through Parliament,[3] although its near-unanimous support means it is almost certainly going to be passed into law.[4] The register is to be administered by the Police Commissioner,[5] and is to be available to the Police, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, and to any other public agency.[6] Thus, while the information in the register will not be readily available to the public, government agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand may easily be able to use the information to deny past offenders access to housing or welfare entitlements. These concerns were expressed in the Green Party’s minority view in the Select Committee report on the Bill, in which the Party held that the relevant provisions give government agencies “an unacceptably broad discretion to access and publicise the information on the register.”[7]

Alongside these Parliamentary developments, the Sensible Sentencing Trust has launched its own public database on violent and sexual offenders, with the justification that a publicly-accessible database will “protect the public and help keep offenders accountable for their criminal actions.”[8] In a report on the existing public register in the US, however, Human Rights Watch revealed the consequences of such registers, which “brand everyone listed on them with a very public ‘scarlet letter.’”[9] This branding marks people as dangerous regardless of the exact nature of their offence, regardless of when it was committed, and regardless of whether that person has been rehabilitated. Human Rights Watch’s registered informants reported “shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment, and even vigilante violence” for both themselves and their families.[10]

Government-restricted registers, like the one currently going through New Zealand Parliament, also impact on crucial areas of people’s lives, despite lacking the social stigma associated with public registers. As noted above, the Bill would provide Housing New Zealand with the power to access the register.[11] This would be for reasons including “managing the risk that the offender may commit further sexual offences against children,” and more broadly “managing any risk to public safety.”[12] This means that somebody who otherwise qualifies for a state house managed by Housing New Zealand may be denied a home on the basis that they would supposedly pose a threat to the community. The register may thus compromise people’s ability to achieve the safety and stability necessary for personal rehabilitation.[13]

While there are some, such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, who believe that the answer to somebody engaging in harmful behaviour at one point in their life is to “lock ‘em up and throw away the key,”[14]No Pride in Prisons takes the issue of sexual violence more seriously. We believe that efforts should be made to reduce the harm caused by sexual violence. Sex offender registers simply respond with further harm, and in no way address the causes of harmful behaviour in order to stop it. These registers can in fact, along with prison sentences, make rehabilitation more difficult.

It is for these reasons that No Pride in Prisons demands that no public sex offender register be implemented by the New Zealand government, and that the current government-restricted register be dissolved.

[1] Human Rights Watch, US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm than Good: End Registration of Juveniles, Residency Restrictions and Online Registries, (United States: Human Rights Watch, 2007), abstract.

[2] Matthew Backhouse, “Cabinet Signs off First Sex Offenders Register,” NZ Herald, 4 August 2014. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303639.

[3] New Zealand Parliament, “Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill,” New Zealand Parliament, 2 June 2016 https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL64667_1/child-protection-child-sex-offender-register-bill.

[4] New Zealand Parliament, “Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second Reading,” 2 June 2016. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/51HansD_20160602_00000020/child-protection-child-sex-offender-register-bill-second.

[5]Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill s 10.

[6]Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill s 41(2).

[7] Social Services Select Committee, Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill Commentary, (Wellington: New Zealand Parliament, 2016), 11.

[8] Sensible Sentencing Trust, “SST Offenders Database,” 22 March 2016. http://sst.org.nz/offenders-database/.

[9] Human Rights Watch, US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm than Good: End Registration of Juveniles, Residency Restrictions and Online Registries, (United States: Human Rights Watch, 2007), 6.

[10] Ibid., 7

[11]Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill s 41(2)(d).

[12]Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill s 41(1).

[13] Nathan James, Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism, (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2015): 1.

[14] Peter Jenkins, “Lock ‘em Up and Throw Away the Key,” Sensible Sentencing Trust, n.d.. http://sst.org.nz/our-aims/articles/lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key/.