Trends in the management of registered sexual offenders across England and Wales: a geographical approach to the study of sexual offending

Abstract

Social scientists, and geographers in particular, have long been interested in examining spatial patterns of offending in order to generate a "geography" of crime and criminality. This paper examines what value, if any, a geographical approach to the study of sexual offending might offer. Utilising published official data from England and Wales it presents for the first time geographical analyses of the registration, risk assessment and management of Registered Sexual Offenders (RSOs) across 42 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) areas. In doing so it considers and evaluates the methodological issues pertaining to the use of such data and such a geographical approach. We conclude that geographical interpretations of both the incidence of RSOs and the rates of risk allocations between MAPPA areas provide valuable insights and raise new questions about the way in which RSOs are managed nationally and are thus worthy of further exploration.

Disparities in public protection measures against sexual offending in England and Wales: An example of preventative injustice?

“…In particular, the need to ensure that all RSOs are allocated to the appropriate level of risk management and that the imposition and use of SOPOs during this time was appropriate. Similar concerns over consistency were also raised by Hudson et al (2015). These findings highlighted an uneven distribution of RSOs and variations in risk-level allocations both geographically (between the 42 MAPPA areas) and over time (from 2004/2005 to 2010/2011), again raising a number of concerns about the fairness of MAPPA practice.…”

“…For example, the variation in the way that risk is being assessed most likely reflects institutional differences (see also Hudson et al 2015). The imposition of a SOPO, similarly, appears to be strongly influenced by localised preference across MAPPA areas, rather than due to the risk management level to which RSOs have been allocated…”

“…In particular, the need to ensure that all RSOs are allocated to the appropriate level of risk management and that the imposition and use of SOPOs during this time was appropriate. Similar concerns over consistency were also raised by Hudson et al (2015). These findings highlighted an uneven distribution of The primary purpose of this paper is to examine further the incidence of RSOs alongside the use and consistency of preventative measures against further offending.…”

Satellite Tracking of Offenders and Integrated Offender Management: A Local Case Study

“…While the civil liberties concerns have been significantly downplayed within this evaluation, this reflected the voluntary and targeted nature of the pilot. If GPS tracking was to become available as a sentence to the courts, and/or placed under the direction and control of the police, it may prove impossible to maintain the consideration given in the Cardiff pilot to the circumstances of the offender and the offence, and, in particular, spatial and temporal patterns of offending (Hudson, Taylor and Henley ). As one of the offender managers argued: ‘We've got to be able to argue that the risk [the offender] poses is high enough to warrant that loss of the right in the same way as going to prison is; [that they] pose a risk high enough to lose those civil liberties’ (OM3).…”

Risk, discretion, accountability and control: Police perceptions of sex offender risk management policy in England and Wales

“…Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2017). This increase will inevitably incur further structural, procedural and logistical strain on the criminal justice system (Hudson et al, 2015) and a range of policies have been introduced to try to improve the management of registered sex offenders. For example, the National Police Chiefs Council (2017) recently announced that police forces are implementing a risk-based approach to managing registered sex offenders to ensure the robust, proactive management of those who pose the greatest risk to the public.…”