According to the RCMP:
“The National Sex Offender Registry is a national registration system for sex offenders who have been convicted of designated sex offences and ordered by the courts to report annually to police…
It is a database maintained by the RCMP that provides Canadian police services with important information that will improve their ability to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature.
The public does not have access to the National Sex Offender Registry.”
Canada has a long tradition of child abuse: from the residential schools to Catholic churches, and twisted abuse in small towns and the north.
It figures cakers would make a national registry that nobody could actually see, that way parents can’t look up nearby predators to protect their children like they can in the USA.
Who is on the list? According to Maclean’s:
“At last count, the national sex offender registry contained 43,217 names—or about one entry for every 813 people in Canada.”
“Unlike in the United States, where sex offender registries are publicly searchable, Canada’s version was never designed for citizen consumption. Its founding purpose is to help police locate potential suspects who live near a crime scene, not provide parents with a printout of every convicted molester residing in the neighbourhood.”
It’s okay for law enforcement to have the information to investigate a crime after the fact, but not acceptable for diligent parents to have the information for crime prevention and neighborhood safety. Makes sense … if you’re Canadian.
It gets better, as in backwards Canada sex offenders are winning court rights:
“If a national sex offender database doesn’t contain the name of every known sex offender, after all, is it even worth having?
In a legal first, Ndhlovu convinced a judge last October that the NSOR is unconstitutional because all convicted sex offenders automatically make the list, regardless of how relatively minor their crimes might be, or minimal the threat they may pose. Simply put, the judge found that denying an offender the opportunity to seek an exemption from the database—especially someone like Ndhlovu, who displayed “great remorse” for his actions and is considered a “very low risk to re-offend”—violates his Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
“Subjecting all offenders, regardless of their future risk, to onerous reporting requirements, random compliance checks by police, and internal stigma, goes further than what is necessary to accomplish the goal of protecting the public,” wrote Madam Justice Andrea Moen, of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench. “The law as it stands will now place Mr. Ndhlovu on police radar for the rest of his life anytime a sexual offence is committed by a black man of average height in his neighbourhood. I find that requiring him to register bears no connection to the object of assisting police officers in the investigation or prevention of future sex crimes.”
” … At the heart of the legal arguments is a question that has divided policymakers since before the registry even launched in 2004: Should every convicted sex offender be automatically added to the system? Or should judges have the leeway to decide who makes the cut, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the specific danger posed by the perpetrator?”
Welcome to Canada folks: protecting women and children is a minor detail next to protecting the rights of sex offenders. If you don’t want to be placed on the list it’s quite simple: don’t commit sexual assault. Plenty have gone through life without committing the “mistake” of sexually assaulting others.
When the data base began it was “discretionary” which allowed for a judge to decide on a ‘registration order’. Predictably: “The result? Hundreds of convicted rapists, pedophiles and child pornographers were left off, either because a Crown did not apply or a judge did not approve.”
After a 2008 Maclean’s investigation into the matter which put it in the spotlight, changes were promised. Starting in 2011, changes were made to include automatic inclusion.
( 2011 !!! WHAT THE HELL CANADA?!)
Not only that:
“Offenders can also apply for removal after a certain period of time (someone with a lifetime order must wait 20 years, for example).”
So initial registration (a simple process), checking in once a year, and being eligible to apply for removal is “too much” for the poor burdened sex offenders of Canada.
Whenever it faces criticism, Canada falls back on the following argument against a public registry: by allowing sex offenders to remain anonymous in the community they are being “protected”. Being protected they are more likely to integrate into society, and if living a “safe, normal” life they are less likely to reoffend – or so is the perverse logic about the matter.
A Canadian study on recidivism rates of sexual offenders (2004) shows:
“Table 2 summarises the recidivism estimates for three distinct time periods, five years, ten years, and fifteen years, for each of the subgroups examined.
The overall recidivism rates (14% after 5 years, 20% after 10 years and 24% after 15 years) were similar for rapists (14%, 21% and 24%) and the combined group of child molesters (13%, 18%, and 23%).
There were, however, significant differences between the child molesters, with the highest rates observed among the extrafamilial boy-victim child molesters (35% after 15 years) and the lowest observed rates for the incest offenders (13% after 15 years).
… Offenders with a prior sexual offence conviction had recidivism rates about double the rate observed for first-time sexual offenders (19% versus 37% after 15 years).”
Recidivism rates tend to change depending on the study. What’s interesting is that this study included Americans (Washington, California) and Brits (England, Wales) – a significant portion I’ll add. The SOR is public in the United States, but only accessible in the UK by law enforcement, teachers, youth leaders, sports club managers, landlords and some others. There is a disclosure scheme whereby parents can request the record of a person with unsupervised access to the child.
I wonder how much the recidivism rates were affected by the public SOR in the USA, and a somewhat open registry in the UK? How does that factor in, versus Canada? It doesn’t say.
They try to put a positive spin on it with this:
“Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs.”
Interesting conclusion to come to based on a little over 4,000 people studied, considering the global amount of sexual predators. Do these predators reoffend more in developing nations without registries and with poorer law enforcement agencies?
Also pointed out earlier in the article: each study on this subject compromises different definition and criteria, making it difficult to pin down matching conclusions.
But even just going by this study, we can conclude that very serious sex offenders overall reoffend at a rate of about 24%. That’s roughly 1 in 4 offenders. While it may not be “most”, it is a frighteningly significant amount.
If I threw one of the authors into an abandoned building with four rapists and told her “only one” was likely to reoffend, I wonder how comforted she’d be?
If a neighbor three doors down is protected and goes on to rape an eight year old, I’m sure her father will be comforted by the fact the RCMP have access to the SOR to “investigate” the crime afterwards. Caker logic!
Until sussing out which offenders will reoffend becomes an exact science or has enough accuracy to merit discussion, we best make do with what we have and protect people, especially children!
Canada: haven for serial killers and sex offenders.
Canada: shit hole with no regards for the victims.
Canada = dump.
It should be noted that this study does not even begin to touch on the subject of psychopathy, which is intertwined with serious crimes.
A large percentage of violent crimes are committed by persons with psychopathy or other Cluster-B disorders. These people are notoriously difficult to treat and can’t be cured; they’re often able to fool even hardened detectives and world class researchers.
If the statistics in this study are reflective of recidivism by ASPD offenders, then keeping the list private in hopes of rehabilitation is in effect aiding the criminals and makes no difference whatsoever to future outcomes.
Article: The Criminal Psychopath (see section III).
“The picture is almost as bad for violent sexual recidivism. Psychopathy is a significant predictor of sexual violence. Rice and Harris found that 75% of all individuals with both a high Hare score and a positive sexual deviance response—defined as a positive penile pleithismograph response to depictions of children, rape cues, or nonsexual violence—committed a new sexually violent crime within 10 years (as shown in Figure 5).”