Protecting_Sex_Offender

Opinions have been divided for years about whether judges and magistrates should be free to suppress the identities of serious sex offenders. Most people would agree that sex offenders should be punished, however whilst some people believe that these criminals should be named and shamed, others believe that the offenders can be rehabilitated and that by allowing the public access to their names, these people will forever live in fear from angry attacks. 3AW radio host Derryn Hinch, has been actively working for over twenty years to pass a law to prevent judges and magistrates from suppressing the identities of convicted sex offenders. Hinch was sent to prison after attempting to alert unknowing parents to the ‘predatory behaviours’ of priest Michael Glennon, whose victims include multiple teenage boys and a ten year old girl that he raped. These sex offenders can be found in many community positions involving work with children. Such as the psychologist who sexually assaulted a brain damaged young rape victim, and the number of registered sex offenders who were given the green light to work with children. Many people believe that though these people have done terrible things, once they have done their time in prison, they should have the right to live the rest of their lives as law abiding citizens. There, of course, are those who do not fit back into society and continue to break laws regarding sexual conduct. These are the minority in which Derryn Hinch and his followers believe should be named. Because there is no way to differentiate these people from the ones who have learnt their lesson, it is suggested that all sex offenders should have the same rules. Defenders of suppression orders believe in rehabilitation, freedom and privacy, whilst people who want to prevent judges and magistrates from suppressing criminal identities value justice and the safety of Australian citizens. People against suppression orders claim that by protecting these names, the government is putting the safety of criminals above the safety of the community, including Australia’s children. The opposing side claims that the suppression of offenders’ names is not merely to protect them but to protect their families and the families of victims from more hardship. Like in the case of Laura and Colleen Irwin, who were found stabbed to death in their Altona North home in January 2006, there are many cases of registered sex offenders going on to commit more crimes. William John Watkins had been sentenced in the Victorian County Court to four years and three months' jail, with a non-parole period of two years, for rape, aggravated burglary and theft, in 2000. He was later released on parole, after being labelled by doctors as a moderate threat to the community and went on the rape and murder the Irwin sisters, who he had moved next door to. It is suggested that if the girls had known that they were living beside a known rapist, they may still be alive today. Opinions will always be divided on the subject of suppression orders, and as long as the community is unaware of these people in their neighbourhoods, reoffending will occur. The question is whether public knowledge will improve or worsen the violence in Australia.