The Home Office estimated that in 1993 there were at least 260,000 men aged 20 or over who had been convicted of a sexual offence of some kind, of whom 210,000 had convictions for a "sexual offence with a victim" (ie excluding offences involving only consenting adults). About one in 60 of a sample of men born in 1953 had a conviction by the age of 40 for some type of sexual offence. Some 10% of these offenders had a further such conviction within five years of their first conviction for a sexual offence.
The same 1993 Home Office study estimated that at least 110,000 men aged 20 or over had a conviction for an offence against a child. Despite popular paranoia about predatory paedophiles kidnapping children off the street, only a handful of children - between five and 10 - are kidnapped and murdered every year by strangers.
Another popular fear - that all sex offenders will reoffend again and again - is also not borne out by the facts. One study that followed up some 4,000 offenders against children over a period of 21 years found that 16% were reconvicted of a child sex offence. A range of international studies have put re-offending rates for sexual offenders at between 15% and 43%. This is some way short of the 64% reoffending rate for child sex offenders presented by the News of the World to justify their ill- conceived "campaign".
Though the majority of abused children do not go on to become abusers, most child sexual abusers were themselves abused as children (70% according to a recent Home Office study of participants in sex-offender treatment programmes). This means that reducing the risk of sex offenders abusing children should help to reduce the prevalence of sex offending in the future.
The sex-offender register is probably the best-known recent initiative for managing sex offenders in the community. It came into force on September 1, 1997 and requires sex offenders who, after that date, were convicted or cautioned, were serving a custodial or community sentence, or were being supervised to notify the police of their names and addresses and of any subsequent changes. This requirement lasts for periods of time that vary according to the seriousness of the offence but it is a lifetime requirement for anyone imprisoned for 30 months or more.
The sex-offenders register is a useful, though limited, power. It can help the police apprehend a suspect if an offence takes place, but it does little to reduce the risk of offending. Though there have been some concerns about how few sex offenders are coming forward to register, this problem will be made immeasurably worse if paedophiles fear reprisals. Perhaps the single greatest loophole in the current legislation is that those who kill a child with a sexual motivation are not covered by the register, as their crime is deemed to be violent, rather than sexual. This means that, when caught, Sarah Payne's killer may not be required to register, if he or she were to be released from prison.
The 1998 Crime and Disorder Act enables courts to order the post-release supervision of such offenders for periods of up to 10 years. This should improve public protection and the prospects for rehabilitating offenders. Post-release supervision can include conditions requiring, for example, offenders to live in supervised accommodation, to stay away from specified places or people, or to take part in treatment programmes. Failure to cooperate can result in recall to prison.
A recent survey by the probation inspectorate found that 93% of sex offenders, and 96% of those in probation hostels, did not reoffend while under probation service supervision. If there is a problem, it is that courts are not using their powers for extended supervision as regularly as they could.
If community supervision is to be fully effective, more treatment programmes for sex offenders are needed. Treatment programmes aim to counter sex offenders' distorted beliefs; increase their awareness of the impact of their crimes on victims; make offenders accept responsibility for the results of their actions; and help them to control their deviant behaviour and avoid relapse. Recent Home Office research on sex offenders on probation orders found that 5% of those participating in treatment programmes were reconvicted within two years, around half the figure for offenders under probation supervision without a treatment programme (9%). Both the prison service and the probation service have greatly increased the number of programmes in recent years, but more than half the sex offenders supervised by the probation service and two-thirds of those discharged from prison have not been through a sex-offender treatment programme.
A second key requirement for effective supervision is stable accommodation for released sex offenders. If offenders constantly move from place to place, their supervision and treatment is disrupted. The issue was highlighted in March 1998 by the court of appeal in R v the chief constable of north Wales police. The appellants, two paedophiles, had gone to ground after being made homeless by a police decision to reveal details of their offences to a caravan site owner. While upholding the lawfulness of the police's actions, Lord Woolf's judgment stressed the importance of efforts to find appropriate accommodation for offenders when they are released from prison.
A missing piece in the current legislative jigsaw is an indeterminate sentence for dangerous offenders, which would mean that sex offenders could be held in custody for as long as they pose a risk, rather than being released when their sentence ends, regardless of the danger they pose. This is being considered by the government in the case of those with a dangerous personality disorder.
The laws for dealing with child sex offenders are not perfect, but creating a vigilante culture is no way to solve the problem of child abuse.
Richard Garside is head of communications for Nacro, the crime-reduction charity