Tougher sentencing of sex crime offenders have been agreed by MPs in a move that it is hoped will act as a deterrent to anyone tempted to commit a sexual assaults or related crimes.

However, the passage of the new penalties and a number of amendments to the 1907 Criminal Code did not have a smooth ride through the House of Assembly because of late changes to the amendments which Opposition MPs complained gave them no chance to study the complete picture of what was being proposed before the debate started.

After complaints from the United Bermuda Party benches, Government relented and agreed an early lunch while the matter was sorted out and Opposition had a chance to look at the revised amendments.

Telecommunication Minister Michael Scott said the purpose of the changes was to safeguard the young, the vulnerable and others from falling victim to sexual assaults and crimes.

There have been a number of changes of the Criminal Code over the years, but a number of anomalies still existed and the level of punishment for the crimes was judged to be too low to act as a proper deterrent, said Mr. Scott.

Lawyers, judges and magistrates had been canvassed for their views on how the sexual penalties and description of sex crimes might be altered, said the Minister.

One earlier suggestion to increase sentencing range in a Magistrates Court for certain offences from five to ten years had been reversed.

However, Mr. Scott said there has been outrage amongst the public at some ?light? sentencing of sexual offenders, which had been made because the judiciary had to abide by the sentence limits of the Criminal Code. That is why changes were being made through the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006, said the Minister.

He added: ?This House has a duty to provide the judges and magistrates with the tools. Government must send a signal that such conduct will be punished. This is a signal that Government take sexual exploitation and assaults seriously and offenders will face severe sentencing.?

Amongst the tougher sentencing to be introduced is increasing the prison term for indecency in public from 12 months to five years, sexual offences against a girl under the age of 14 will go from a 20 year prison term to 25 years and offences of buggery can now attract up to a 20 year sentence rather than previous maximum of ten.

Acts involving indecency with a child that were previously restricted to a two year imprisonment limit can now go all the way up to 20. A total of ten sections of the Criminal Code relating to sexual offences are to be altered by the new amendments if agreed at a later date by Senate.

St. David?s MP Suzann Roberts-Holshouser said a child who was sexually abused was a child who lived with a life sentence.

During the debate Mrs. Roberts-Holshouser said she saw sexual offenders as horrible beasts that should have their names and photographs published on their release from prison to better protect children.

An ex-principal of a St. George?s Primary School once posted a picture of a convicted sex offender who he thought was casing the area, she said.

However, both the Ministry of Education and Police told him to take it down because it was against the law, Mrs. Roberts-Holshouser said.

But she said she could think of no better deterrent for potential sexual offenders than knowing their pictures would be appearing on signposts around school grounds.

Mrs. Roberts-Holshouser also asked why there was not more legal protection for boys against sexual abuse. ?Are we putting on a shroud of ignorance and pretending it does not happen to boys?? she asked.

The Childrens Act of 1988 should also have been brought to the House for amendment along with the Criminal Code, she said, as the 1988 Act made child abusers liable to a $3,000 fine or a prison sentence of not more than six months.

She said it baffled her to think why the Ministry of Health and Family Services was not working in parallel with the Ministry of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety on this issue. Shadow Minister of Health and Family Services Louise Jackson said the best way to stop sexual offences would be to raise the minimum penalties, not the maximum prison sentences.

?This worked with the bladed weapons law,? Mrs. Jackson said. ?It made people stop and think before they commit a crime.?

She said Bermuda had a dismal record when it came to sexual offences but it was time to turn this record around.

Government Party Whip Ottiwell Simmons seemed to speak against the amendment when he said preventing sex offences would not be solved by further punishment. ?Man has not found an answer yet to crime and punishment. The idea is to make a better society, not lock people up in Casemates,? Mr. Simmons said, referring to the Island?s former maximum security prison, which has been replaced by Westgate Correctional.

However, responding to jeers from the Opposition benches, Mr. Simmons said he would vote for the bill and rehabilitation was key.

?There are too many mad things going on in this society, we have got to treat the madness,? he said.

Deputy Opposition Leader Jon Brunson said as the father of a teenage girl, he was alarmed to hear that a survey of 13- to 14-year-old girls said 50 percent of them had boyfriends over the age of 20. ?We need ways to protect victims,? he said. ?It suggests young girls are potential victims and they do not even know it.?

Deputy Speaker, Dame Jennifer Smith, said every family had a secret sex offender and called on Government to bring on legislation that would name and shame sex offenders.

?Every family?s got one,? Dame Jennifer said. ?The joke was ?don?t sit near him?. He?s dead. But it?s not a joke. It is very real this. We have a very widespread secret in Bermuda and no one wants a family member revealed as one,? she said. ?We want to sweep it under the carpet where we keep all the other stuff.?

Shadow Attorney General Trevor Moniz questioned how the effect of the legislative changes would be monitored, citing concern that the House does not receive performance reports from the criminal justice system on numbers of prosecutions and convictions.

He cited concerns about what were, in his view, failures to convict, observing: ?We?ve had murder cases in this community where we?ve not been able to get convictions when there are 50 or more witnesses.?

When the bill reached the committee stage, Opposition House Leader John Barritt questioned whether magistrates would have the power to ?kick a defendant up the hill to Supreme Court? if they feel a longer sentence is called for.

Shadow Finance Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin asked whether as well as maximum sentences, the Minister would be prepared to add minimum sentences to the new legislation.

Shadow Minister of Health Louise Jackson objected to the use of the phrase ?sex with a defective? in the act to refer to unlawful sex with a woman suffering from severe sub-normality within the meaning of the Mental Health Act.

?That may be a little term that I?m not familiar with but I find it insulting in this day and age. It might have been used in 1907 (when the original Act was passed) and people would have been happy with it but today we are sensitive to this term.

?Could it be changed to ?mentally or physically challenged? which seems to be the words used today?? she asked.

Shadow Minister of the Environment Cole Simons asked that more ?gender neutral? terms be used in the legislation, classing victims of some of the crimes as ?young persons? not ?females?.

MP Michael Scott responded by saying this could not be done as the criminal justice system had found the need to be gender specific.

He also told the House that the magistrates would indeed be able to refer cases to the Supreme Court if a sentence beyond their powers was deemed necessary. On the subject of the term ?defective? he pledged to change the inappropriate language to ?something that?s more sensitive?.

On the matter of minimum sentences, he said the Government might go to this ?next level? if careful monitoring of the impact of the new higher sentences showed this need.