The Coalition for the Protection of Children has been a strong advocate of the establishment of a sex offender registry for many years. While we can appreciate the need to protect the identities of victims, we also recognise the concern to avoid further marginalising offenders. We also acknowledge the varying levels of seriousness associated with offences that fall into this category. We do, however, believe there are ways to address all of these concerns and still to protect the public by ensuring that the identities of serious sexual offenders are a matter of public record.

Bermuda requires released sex offenders to register their whereabouts to police at present, but that requirement is not always communicated to offenders upon release and is not generally made a condition of parole. The likelihood is that there is a high level of non-compliance to this requirement. This means that even if the registry did exist, it would probably not be accurate. Furthermore, that list is not available to the public.

We are recommending an approach similar to Megan’s Law enacted in California in 2004 that allows the general public to view information on the name and whereabouts of offenders by visiting the police station or calling a toll-free number.

There are a number of points to consider:

1, The need to protect victims.

At present time, there is a ban on the publication of the names of convicted sex offenders if it would lead to the identification of the victim. We have recommended that the victim — or victim’s parent in the case of a child — be consulted and if their permission is granted, the names could be published. Our expectance is that most victims would prefer to have the offender’s name out in the public domain. Once these names are published in the media, any individual or organisation such as the coalition can themselves maintain a publicly available register. At the moment, a significant portion of those convicted are protected because of the connection to the victim.

There is another way around the problem of the identification of the victim resulting from the naming of the offender as follows: if, when the details of the offence are carried in the media, the media outlets refrain from any mention of the relationship between the victim and the offender. This would eliminate the problem. Our discussions with media personnel indicate that they would very likely agree to this provision if they were able to name the offender.

2, Are we stigmatising the offender?

The second concern raised has to do with the possibility that making the names (and, potentially, addresses) of sex offenders publicly available would further marginalise them and may even contribute to their likelihood of reoffending. Indeed, there is no evidence that this is occurring in California, where Megan’s Law is in effect and where this information can be obtained by going to the police station. No one is suggesting that these names and addresses are posted in public areas, as is the case in some American states.

The argument that having the public aware of the names of convicted sex offenders is damaging to the offenders’ reputation and his or her likelihood of finding employment must be balanced against the safety of the children in our community.

We at the coalition are strong proponents of the principles of restorative justice. It has been argued in some sectors that publicly naming such an offender breached the fundamental beliefs inherent in the concept of restorative practice.

This shows a lack of understanding of the tenants of restorative justice, which begins with the acknowledgement of responsibility for the offence by the offender. An offender who maintains his or her innocence and refuses to participate in a treatment programme has missed the first and most essential step in the restorative process. Acknowledgement that one has a sickness and apologising to all of those affected is not in fact at odds with public recognition, especially if this is coupled with support, as in our recent training for the Circles of Support and Accountability programme (COSA).

The COSA programme embodies the recognition that the best protection that a community can have from a sexual predator is twofold: the healing of that person and close monitoring to ensure that the offender is complying with the conditions of probation or parole. This programme has been very successful in the United States and in Canada, and recent research indicates that offenders involved in it have an 85 per cent lower risk of reoffending.

The support component assists the offender in reintegrating into the community, but is coupled with the accountability component, which monitors the offender daily and ensures that he or she follows the strict conditions of their parole and avoids the triggers that may lead them to reoffend.

3, What about minor offences?

An additional concern relates to the potential stigmatisation of someone convicted of indecent exposure while skinny-dipping on the beach at night, for example. There are a host of similar offences that are technically sex offences and need not be included in such a list. For that reason, the register should refer only to serious sexual offences. At the end of the day, our primary objective must be the protection of the public from what continues to be a serious threat to our children.

According to the report on the “Assessment of the Situation of Children in Bermuda”, more than 60 per cent of the cases never went to court. In most of those cases, it was because the child in question was either unable or unwilling to give evidence. The typical scenario in cases such as this is that, while the child may tell his or her mother or primary caregiver what happened, he or she refuses to describe this to the police when interviewed by them. This results in a case referred to as “unsubstantiated” and it never moves forward. One can imagine why a child would have a problem talking about such a delicate issue in front of a complete stranger or strangers with whom they have no relationship.

In Canada, this situation has been remedied through the Ontario Court of Appeal in what is referred to as the Khan Decision. This decision allows for an exception to the hearsay rule, allowing someone whom the child has trusted to testify on their behalf.

We have seen countless such cases throughout the 23 years that we have been supporting child victims; more than half the cases have never proceeded to court for this reason. It is within the purview of our Bermudian courts to consider this decision and to allow testimony from a caregiver in cases such as this, but the decision has never been referenced.

Further, although the law provides for the use of videotaped evidence by children, this facility is never used in Bermuda courts, which results in children being required to give evidence in the same room as the accused. Subsequently, they are subjected to sometimes very stressful and often unfair badgering by the defence.

4, What about treatment?

Also fundamental to the reduction of risk to the community is provision of an effective sex offender programme in the correctional institution. Such a programme should be mandatory for all sex offenders and failure to involve oneself in it should be considered a violation of prison rules serious enough to remove eligibility for automatic release after two thirds of the sentence.

At the moment, although those who refuse the programme will not be granted parole, they can, however, walk out the door after two thirds of their sentence — free of parole supervision, removing the restrictions and also removing the ability of the prison to recall the offender for parole violations.

We have made the recommendation that this policy be changed in our 40 Point Plan for a Safer Bermuda. This is a rather moot point, however, since there is no sex offender treatment programme available at Westgate. There is no chance that an offender will have rehabilitated without extensive, continuing treatment that begins in prison and continues upon release.

We are aware of one sexual predator who has seriously harmed three children for which he was given a 12-year sentence. But he has refused treatment when it was available and is about to be released after two thirds of his sentence, with no parole restrictions. He remains a dangerous paedophile and has neither remorse nor appreciation of the harm that he has caused and is highly likely to reoffend. Not having public access to his name and his whereabouts puts the children of this community at serious risk. That same individual is out on day release at present, working at a church that has daycare on site.

The suggestion has been made that public access to the names and whereabouts of sex offenders does nothing to protect the public or reduce the incidence of sex offences. According to the most recent data in the United States, where this information is readily available to the general public, the rate of reports of child sex abuse is significantly lower.

Recent data in Bermuda indicates that in 2010 there were 110 reports of child sexual abuse. Try to imagine a small town of 65,000 people in the US that received 110 reports of child sexual abuse? One can only imagine the shock and horror that such a situation would evoke. More so when you bear in mind that only a very small portion of these crimes ever get reported.

This has to be viewed as a national crisis. The majority of the population of Bermuda is supportive of these recommendations. It is beyond me why we continue to sacrifice the safety and security of our children. It is better to offend an adult than to sacrifice a child.

• Sheelagh Cooper is the founder and chairwoman of the Coalition for the Protection of Children