CCJ3006: A Debate on Australia's Public Sex Offender Registry List

This essay presents a debate on whether Australia should adopt a public sex offender registry list to increase community safety and deter crime. The affirmative side argues that such a registry would help track offenders and deter future crimes, while the negative side argues that it could lead to inaccurate information, difficulty in reintegrating ex-offenders into society, and potential networking among offenders. The affirmative side focuses on the government's ability to monitor sex offenders and the public's ability to protect themselves, while the negative side highlights the challenges of maintaining an accurate registry, the difficulties faced by ex-offenders in finding housing and employment, and the risk of creating a network of offenders. The essay concludes by weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of implementing a public sex offender registry in Australia.

0
Assessment Debate

1
Affirmative
A sex offender registry is referred to a system which is designed by government
authorities in which details regarding sex offenders is included to ensure that they are able to
keep track of the activities of sex offenders (Harris & Socia, 2016). This list assists the
authorities in ensuring that the offenders are continuously monitored to avoid any potential
crimes. This list also includes details regarding those sex offenders who have completed their
criminal sentences. The purpose of this list is to increase community safety and deterring
crimes. The key issue of this debate is whether adaptation of a public sex offender list will
enable the Australia government in reducing sex-related crimes and ensuring safety of
individuals. The affirmative side will argue that adoption of a sex offender list will ensure
that the governmental authorities are easily able to track the actions of sexual offenders which
assist them in keeping a check on their crimes (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). It will ensure that
the sex offenders are under supervision which will deter sex-related crimes in society. This
will also inform public regarding who is a sexual criminal to ensure that they are able to take
precautions to protect themselves and their children. The negative side will argue that often
the information on these public registries is incomplete and inaccurate. This practice resulted
in making it difficult for ex-offenders to get a house form rent or employment. Public
availability of this information could also lead to networking of sexual predators. The case
statement provides that introducing a sex offender registry will reduce potential crimes and
assist government in keeping a check on sex offenders.
The model of establishing a public sex offender list is focused on keeping a track on
those people who are known for committing one or more sex-related crimes. The objective of
punishment is to compensate the innocent party who suffered any grievances due to the
actions of the criminal (O’Malley, 1999). The punishment also assists in eliminating crimes
from society by keeping a check on the criminals to ensure that they are not able to get away
with their crimes. However, in many cases, the criminals are able to get out of the supervision
of the government authorities by shifting their location and after completing their
punishment. In the case of sexual offenders, they can change their location after serving their
punishment to continue to conduct more crimes. It becomes easier for them to repeat their
crimes and affect more innocent people. However, the government can avoid this problem by
creating a public list of sex offenders in which their details must be included (Harris & Socia,
2016). This list should be updated to ensure that details regarding criminals are always in the

2
supervision of the authorities so that they can easily track them if they engage in any other
criminal activities.
The sex offender registry will create fear among people who engage in illegal
activities regarding bad public image. If they get on this list, then everyone will be able to
identify them as sex offenders that make their life difficult. It resulted in deterring crimes
from society to ensure that people fear that they will have to serve punishment for the rest of
their lives (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). This list should be public so that people are able
to identify who among them are sexual offenders. Most sexual offenders shift their location
after serving their prison sentences which makes it difficult for people to identify a sexual
offender. However, by implementing a sex offender registry list, everyone would be able to
access this list to ensure that they know who the offenders are and where they live. It will
assist the public in protecting themselves and children from sex predators. People will be able
to take precautions to ensure that their children and others did not become a victim of sexual
offenders (Godfrey & Cox, 2008). Conclusively, the introduction of a public sex offender
registry list while ensure that actions of sex offenders are being tracked by the government
which keep a check on their actions. It will deter crimes by creating a fear among people to
avoid going on that list. People will also be able to take precautions to protect children and
others from sexual predators.
Negative
The key issue established by the affirmative side is that it is difficult to track sexual
offenders when they switch their location which makes it easier for them to commit crimes
against. The goal of implementing a public sex offender registry list is to inform people
regarding who is a sexual offender and to keep track of their actions (Lasher & McGrath,
2012). The negative side will argue that often the information in this list is wrong, inaccurate
or not updated which creates challenges. It becomes a challenge for sexual offenders to find a
house or employment after their name is included in the list. It also increases the chances of
potential networking of sexual predators. Although, there are some benefits of a public sex
offender list, however, the case statement will argue that introduction of a public sex offender
list makes it difficult for the ex-offenders to live a normal life which increases their chances
of committing another crime.

3
Maintaining a national registry of sexual offenders in which details regarding all the
current and ex-offenders is included is a difficult job. The governmental authorities that will
be responsible for preparing this list will find it difficult to collect accurate data on these
criminals (Freeman, 2012). Updating this list will be another challenge because people might
shift their locations after which it becomes difficult for police to track them. People who are
removed as a sex offender might not be removed from the list within appropriate time which
will create challenges for them. These factors show that although the concept of a public sex
offender list is positive, however, its practical implementation is complicated which makes it
an unsuitable option to eliminate and deter sex-related crimes in Australia.
Another key challenge with implementing a public sex offender registry list is that it
becomes difficult for ex-offenders to live a normal life by getting a house for rent and
employment. The objective of punishment is to teach the criminal and others a lesson to
eliminate crimes from society and ensure that the criminal did not commit the crime in the
future. However, the public sex offender list makes it easier for people to identify who has
committed a sex-related crime which makes it difficult for them to live normally. Before
giving the house on rent, the landlord can easily check whether the tenant is on the sex
offender list or not which makes it difficult for the ex-offenders to get a house for rent in
decent neighbourhood (Feeley & Simon, 1992). While searching for a job, corporations reject
the applicants who are registered as a sex offender since they did not want to create a
negative environment. These factors create challenges for the ex-offenders who have learned
their lesson and who wanted to improve their lives. The only option which they have is to get
a house in a neighbour that is filled with criminals and get money by engaging in illegal
activities. It resulted in defeating the purpose of punishing the criminals in the first place and
increases the number of criminals in society. For minorities, such as Indigenous people in
Australia, the situation is more disastrous because they already face discrimination and the
sex offender list will make it impossible for them to live their life normally (Finnane &
McGuire, 2001).
A public list which contains information about the crimes of all sexual offenders
along with their address can lead to networking between sex offenders. It becomes easier for
the sex-offenders to find other criminals who have committed same crimes. The offenders
will be able to create a network with each other, and they can help each other in committing
crimes (Schultz, 2014). They will not receive any support from the local communities which
will increase their chances of joining together and committing crimes. The networking of

4
sexual offenders is dangerous for society, and it eliminates the effectiveness of the programs
which are implemented by the government to deter crimes. Conclusively, the main goal of
implementing a public sex offender registry list is not achieved due to the negative impact of
this list. Maintaining and updating a list is a difficult job, and it also makes it difficult for ex-
offenders to live a normal life. It also encourages networking of offenders which could
negatively affect many innocent people; therefore, the Australian government should avoid
implementing a public sex offender registry list.

5
References
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of
corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474.
Finnane, M., & McGuire, J. (2001). The uses of punishment and exile: Aborigines in colonial
Australia. Punishment & Society, 3(2), 279-298.
Freeman, N. J. (2012). The public safety impact of community notification laws: Rearrest of
convicted sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4), 539-564.
Godfrey, B., & Cox, D. J. (2008). ‘The Last Fleet’: Crime, Reformation, and Punishment in
Western Australia After 1868. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 41(2), 236-258.
Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex
offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28(7), 660-678.
Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex
offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6-28.
O'Malley, P. (1999). Volatile and contradictory punishment. Theoretical criminology, 3(2),
175-196.
Schultz, C. (2014). The stigmatization of individuals convicted of sex offenses: Labeling
theory and the sex offense registry. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and
Forensic Science, 2(1), 4.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2013). Law-enforcement officials' views of sex offender
registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science &
Management, 15(2), 95-113.