Show description

237–64. Lieb, R. (2000) ‘Social Policy and Sexual Offenders: contrasting United States’ and European policies’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8:4, pp. 423–40. Lovell, E. (2001) ‘Megan’s Law: does it protect children? A review of evidence on the impact of community notification as legislated for through Megan’s Law in the United States’, Recommendations for Policy Makers in the United Kingdom. London: NSPCC. , Noaks, L. and Wincup, E. (2001) Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders: the work of public protection panels, Police Research Series Paper 139.

It would require not optimism so much as a wholesale triumph of hope over experience to regard this as the dawn of a new era of tolerance of sex offenders. However, the necessity of reconciling increasingly ‘tough’ measures with human rights legislation, together with a pragmatic need to limit the number of sex offenders who fall into the resource-intensive ‘very high risk’ category, may incline decision-makers by default towards a less populist, more principled, and potentially more effective approach.

Here, however, the issue is not whether the individual presents a risk of serious harm, but whether he intends to commit a sexual offence against a child. The same applies to the RSHO, conceived as a complementary provision, which targets those (whether previously convicted or not) whose behaviour suggests that they may present a risk of sexual harm to children. Although the Order is intended to cover a wide spectrum of behaviours, the examples given – ‘explicit communication with children via email or in chatrooms or hanging around schools or playgrounds’ (Home Office 2002b: 25) – are consistent with an agenda that is circumscribed by popular fears about predatory stranger offenders.