Use this url to cite ETD: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/123728
Options
Ar asmenų nuteistų už seksualinius nusikaltimus(SEX OFFENDERS) priverstinė registracija nepažeidžia fundamentalių žmogaus teisių?
Field of Science
Teisė / Law (S001)
Type of publication
type::text::thesis::master thesis
Title
Ar asmenų nuteistų už seksualinius nusikaltimus(SEX OFFENDERS) priverstinė registracija nepažeidžia fundamentalių žmogaus teisių?
Other Title
Does mandatory sex offender registration violates fundamental human rights?
Author
Stauskas, Mangirdas |
Advisor
Extent
64 p.
Date Issued
2011-06-10
Abstract
Seksualinė prievarta yra socialinė problema skatinanti milžinišką visuomenės baimę ir pyktį, šias emocijas dar labiau sustiprina žiniasklaidos priemonės, kartas nuo karto pranešančios apie šiurpius išžaginimo ar seksualinės prievartos prieš vaikus atvejus. Kovai su šiais nusikaltimais, keliose valstybėse buvo pasitelktas lytinių nusikaltėlių registracijos mechanizmas. Šio mechanizmo šalininkai įsitikinę, jog registracija yra prevencinė priemonė, skirta padėti teisėsaugos institucijoms tirti padarytus seksualinius nusikaltimus, sulaikyti lytinius nusikaltėlius nuo nusikaltimų darymo ateityje ir užtikrinti visuomenės saugumą. Potencialių seksualinių nusikaltimų aukų teisės yra laikomos svarbesnėmis, nei registruotų asmenų teisės, o lytinių nusikaltėlių patiriami teisių apribojimai yra pateisinami jei yra tikimybė, jog „bent vienas vaikas bus išgelbėtas“. Registracijos mechanizmo kritikai teigia priešingai. Jie yra įsitikinę, jog lytinių nusikaltėlių registracija yra baudžiamoji sankcija, neproporcingai suvaržanti registruotų asmenų teises, o priverstinai registruojant anksčiau teistus asmenis, jie yra baudžiami antrą kartą už nusikaltimą, už kurį jiems paskirtą bausmę šie atliko. Kritikai įsitikinę, jog registracijos mechanizmo reikalavimai nepagrįstai apsunkina nusikaltėlius, o JAV veikiantys vieši registrai verčia lytinius nusikaltėlius patirti visuomenės atstūmimą, patyčias, smurtą ir prievartą. Dėl viešai platinamos registro informacijos, lytiniai nusikaltėliai negali gauti darbo, susirasti tinkamos gyvenamosios vietos, išlaikyti artimų santykių, be to šios sunkios pasekmės paveikia ir registruotų asmenų šeimos narius. Šiame darbe palaikoma lytinių nusikaltėlių registracijos mechanizmo kritikų pusė ir remiantis JAV, Europos valstybių ir EŽTT praktika, JAV, JK, Airijos, Prancūzijos registracijos įstatymų analize, moksliniais darbais ir žmogaus teisių gynėjų tyrimais, įrodinėjama, jog asmenų, nuteistų už seksualinius nusikaltimus, registracija pažeidžia jų teises į privatų ir šeimos gyvenimą, į laisvę ir saugumą, į gyvybę, orumą, darbą, nuosavybę ir būsto neliečiamybę, teisę draudžiančią skirti asmeniui sunkesnę bausmę negu ta, kuri buvo taikoma nusikaltimo padarymo metu. Taip pat šiame darbe įvertinamas lytinių nusikaltėlių registracijos atitikimas teisėtumo ir nusikalstamos veikos bei bausmės proporcingumo, taip pat ne bis in idem principams.
Society is enraged by sex offenders, since sexual crimes, especially when the victims are children, are considered heinous because they cause long lasting damage and violate personal privacy and innocence of the victim. To avoid such terrible crimes some countries enacted sex offender registration laws. However, in most of the cases, countries have based their laws on moral and conventional grounds rather than on rational or scientific evidence, because of that, in some countries sex offenders are treated unlike any other criminals, especially in the area of punishment and rehabilitation. Three main goals sex offender registration are: 1. deterring offenders from committing future crimes; 2. providing law enforcement with an additional investigative tool; 3. increasing public protection. USA, UK, Ireland’s courts, as well as European Court of Human rights (ECHR), reached the same conclusion, that the goals of sex offender registration are civil and preventative in their nature. However, because of increasing requirements of the new sex offender registration laws in the USA and the way the registration influence everyday lives of sex offenders, Supreme courts of various states decided that consequences of sex offender registration are so punitive, that it makes the whole registration mechanism a punitive, rather than civil, sanction. ECHR still hasn’t reached the same conclusion, but it is necessary to have in mind, that the last decision considering sex offenders registration in UK was reached more than 10 years ago, that is, before the implementation of Sex Offender Act 2003, that made significant changes to sex offender registration requirements. According to England Supreme court, these changes might be good enough reason for ECHR to consider the question of proportionality of sex offender registration and maybe even to agree that registration is a punitive sanction. According to critics of sex offender registration, this mechanism unnecessary limits the rights of registered persons, makes it difficult for former convicts to reintegrate in to society, to rehabilitate, to leave the past life behind and begin everything with clean slate. It’s especially true in the cases of sex offenders in the USA, which along with South Korea, are the only countries in the world that have public sex offender registries. Critics believe, that unrestricted access to registry causes sex offender despair, isolation, leads to them being ostracized, stigmatized, it brands registered persons with a “scarlet letter” and makes it impossible for them to avoid all the heavy consequences of the registration. The lack of “need to know” limitations on who has access to the registrant’s information, makes it possible for everyone to use the registry information for any purpose, witch usually is not connected with their own or public safety and results in registered persons being harassed, terrorized and sometimes beaten or even killed. Critics note that because of public registries, offenders will be subjected to the likely loss of employment and place to live. Secure employment, housing, and a supportive network of family and treatment are important factors in ensuring rehabilitation of an offender, because research shows that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend in the absence of such stabilizing influences. Critics contend that unlimited public accessibility to the registry information, the lack of any initial individualized determination of the dangerousness and scope of disclosure is excessive, giving the law a punitive effect notwithstanding its purpose to protect the public. The other reason that bothers sex offender registration critics is the length of registration requirements and particularly lack of possibility to appeal the open ended registration terms in the US. Ireland, France and since recently UK, allow sex offenders to seek their unlimited registration terms shortened or suspended as long as they no longer pose a threat to society. In US, only juvenile sex offenders can appeal the unlimited registration term, all other sex offenders get no credit for their rehabilitative efforts and law-abiding lifestyle. ECHR and Supreme Court of the UK had decided, that lack of ability to appeal registration terms, infringes sex offender’s right to privacy. Up to date there’s very little research done on efficiency of sex offender registration, that’s probably the main reason why more countries doesn’t use the registration mechanism. In the countries that do use it, politicians often cite statistical data showing that recidivism rates of sex offenders are sky high, making society think that all registered sex offenders pose a great risk of committing crimes in the future, however statistical data mentioned in this paper, proves otherwise. Sex offender registration critics’ state, that this mechanism creates a “false sense of security” by letting society think that community is safe as long as offender is on the registry and only strangers pose the threat of sexual violence, however, according to research data, most of registered persons were first time offenders and most of sexual crimes were committed by someone related to the victim or someone the victim knew. This significantly influences registration effectiveness and even rises doubts about the need for sex offender registration altogether. This paper supports opinion that mandatory sex offender registration violates fundamental human rights. It is done by comparing registration requirements in US, UK, Ireland and in some instances France, by analyzing courts decisions from US, UK, Ireland and ECHR, as well as analyzing opinions of law experts, human rights specialists and US Supreme Court judges, also by considering various research data collected by different institutions and specialists. Also to illustrate the unintended consequences of sex offender registration and to show differences between the registration mechanisms in separate countries, this paper introduces various cases of human rights violations in different countries, coming from online news sites.
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Defended
Taip / Yes
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access