OCTOBER 8, 2018INDIA TODAY 11the problems well. In this case, the offender was arrested on
charges of child molestation, following which he confessed
to sexually assaulting more than 500 children over a period
of 12 years. Further investigations revealed that he had even
been convicted earlier (in 2006), on sexual assault charges
and imprisoned for six months. Maneka Gandhi, the Union
minister for women and child development, seized the
occasion to call for a sex-offender registry, arguing that it
would have helped prevent some of the attacks. But that opti-
mism is completely misplaced because a registry, by itself,
does not prevent offences. It’s time to ponder instead why
hundreds of cases go unreported, and even when reported,
unsolved. The case of Sunil Rastogi does not validate the
institution of a sex-offender registry; instead it reveals the
gaping holes at the ground level in our child protection
system, the poor investigative machinery and the inability of
our criminal justice system to respond to these crimes.
OPEN AND CLOSED REGISTRIES
The evidence from countries that have experimented with
such registries is not exactly favourable. The US, for instance,
has the longest history of using a sex-offender registry. But,
unlike India, which does not offer public access, the registry
in the US is openly available through a public notification
system. A study assessing the effect of the introduction of a
sex-offender registry in the state of New Jersey concluded
that it did not lead to a drop in the number of re-arrests for
sex offences, or a decrease in the number of victims of sexual
offences. On the other hand, the costs of maintaining such a
registry were substantial and kept mounting.
In the US, being on the register exposes former
offenders to extensive restrictions and severe limits on
finding meaningful employment. They also often face social
ostracism and harassment. In fact, the repercussions of
living on the registry are so severe that studies show that as
a consequence, the rates of re-offending have increased after
public notification of the register. One study concluded that
a simple registration led to a slight decrease in the crime rate
(1.1 per cent), but coupled with a public notification system,
“offenders become more likely to commit [a] crime when
their information is made public because the associated
psychological, social or financial costs
make crime more attractive” (J.J. Prescott
& Rockoff, 2011).
In the UK, by contrast, the sex-
offender registry was introduced in 1997
as a closed system. However, a child
sex offender disclosure scheme was
introduced in 2008, permitting parents,
caregivers and guardians of children to
enquire whether a particular person has
been convicted for child sexual abuse.
Similar conditionally public systems are
now prevalent in South Africa and parts
of Australia. Unfortunately, there are no major studies on
the effectiveness of non-public registries in these countries
and their effect on crime rates is unclear.DNA DATA AND ISSUES OF PRIVACY
Another concern about these registries is the privacy of
registrants, which has predictably found little sympathy.
However, considering the disastrous counter-productive
impact of public notification in the US, there is real and
valid apprehension that hacking and/ or leakage of data
on the registry would expose former offenders to vigilante
justice or social ostracism besides severely limiting their
chances of finding gainful employment and potentially
pushing them back into a life of crime.
An interesting aspect of the registry in India is the
inclusion of DNA data, which is expected to help solve
cases where repeat offence is suspected. The pending DNA
Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018, also
provides for the establishment of DNA banks with a separate
category for crime. The inclusion of DNA data is significant
in light of the recent capture of the ‘Golden State Killer’
in the US, who is alleged to have committed 13 murders,
50 rapes, over a hundred burglaries in the 1970s and 80s
and evaded the police for nearly 30 years. In a remarkable
investigative triumph, he was nailed by cross-verifying the
DNA found at the crime scenes with a private genealogical
website containing the genetic information of thousands of
users. These successes do open up possibilities for the use
of DNA information in crime investigation. However, these
form a minority of cases and optimism about their possible
application in India must be tempered with the recognition
that we have only six central forensic science laboratories and
31 state laboratories and more than 12,000 sexual assault
cases are currently pending before the central labs.
Any beneficial impact the registry may have in advancing
the safety of women and children is contingent upon a well-
oiled criminal justice system. The government must focus
more urgently on increasing systemic accountability for
crimes, which demands better police investigation, robust
prosecution and rigorous yet speedy court trials. More
urgently and importantly than a sex-offender registry in the
country, we need preventive systems in
place and long-term plans to address
the root causes of sexual violence. The
mounting public pressure to address
these safety concerns must be tackled at
root instead of distractionary measures
such as instituting a registry that offers at
best a false sense of security. ■Shruthi Ramakrishnan is an
independent legal researcher in the field
of human rights. She has published
extensively on child rights lawMORE THAN A NATIONAL
REGISTRY OF SEXUAL
OFFENDERS, WE NEED TO
ASK WHY HUNDREDS OF
CASES GO UNREPORTED,
AND EVEN WHEN
REPORTED, UNSOLVED