‘Narrow exceptions’ to erasure of sex convictions

There are only “very narrow” exceptions to the exclusion of sex offenders from proposed laws aimed at erasing the convictions of offenders, according to penal reformers.

Tue, 19 Jun, 2012 - 01:00

Cormac O’Keeffe

Responding to a report in yesterday’s Irish Examiner, the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) said sex offenders should be entitled, as much as any offenders, to have their convictions spent after a period crime free.

The Irish Examiner reported that a range of sexual offenders are included within the provisions of the Spent Convictions Bill 2012, contrary to official statements that sexual offenders were excluded from the bill.

These sex offences, defined in the bill as not being sexual offences for the purpose of the legislation, include:

* Sexual assault, indecent assault, and incest on a person aged over 17 where the offender was convicted but not imprisoned;

* Defilement and other sexual offences on a child under 17 where the offender is not more than two-to- three years older, depending on the offence.

The Rape Crisis Network of Ireland has raised concerns at the exclusions and described the bill as “confusing”.

The IPRT also described the provisions regarding the exceptions as “unclear” but believes sex offences should be included in the bill.

“Our reading of the Spent Convictions Bill is that, as currently drafted, there are only very narrow exceptions to the general exclusion of sexual offences from the Bill,” said an IPRT spokeswoman.

“The proposed exclusion of any broad category of offender should be supported by empirical evidence and in the absence of such evidence, the singling out of sex offenders or any other category of offenders regardless of the severity of instant offence, appears arbitrary.

“As the Spent Convictions Group correctly observed in their 2009 report, it is usually assumed that the recidivism rates of sex offenders are much higher than those for other offenders, despite the fact that the Irish and international research into recidivism does not appear to support this.”