In 2006, Bravehearts released a position paper on Community Notification Laws. This paper has now been revised.
Bravehearts advocates for the first response to be the continued detention of dangerous sex offenders. It is our position that dangerous sex offenders should not be released back in to the community, until such time as they are assessed as low risk and that this risk can be managed in the community. We have continued detention legislation (such as the Queensland Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003) across the nation in place now that can achieve this.
Based on experiences in the US, Bravehearts does not support widespread community notification of sex offenders; however, given the lack of will of the courts to continually detain dangerous offenders, we do believe that current registration legislation should be expanded to allow for restricted community notification. We advocate the duplication nationally of the Western Australian Legalisation which provides for the public disclosure of limited information relating to released, adult, dangerous, repeat child sex offenders.
Read the Community Notification paper here.
Based on the experience of overseas usage of polygraphs in the community supervision setting, Bravehearts advocates for: (a) The introduction of the use of polygraph testing as part of a battery of assessment and monitoring tools for child sex offenders in Australia; and (b) A trial be put in place, guided by current practice in International jurisdictions.
It is our position that one of the best deterrents for child sex offenders is the risk of being caught, Polygraphs should not be viewed as a punitive tool, but a valuable preventative incentive to assist stopping offending.
Read the Polygraph Testing paper here.
In July 2012 the Queensland Government passed a bill enforcing a two strikes approach for repeat child sex offenders. The two strikes approach will apply to sex offenders who have previously been convicted of an offence that attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and who have been released and who then commit another sexual offence that attracts a maximum sentence of life.
This paper is an updated version of our original Two Strikes position paper and includes discussion of concerns expressed about the introduction of the Queensland legislation.
Read the Two Strikes paper here.
This paper will explore the ethical and practical implications of the introduction of continuing detention legislation in Australia from the perspective of a victims’ advocacy and support group. This will include consideration of the principles of justice and the rights of the community and a proposed mental health approach in sentencing dangerous and repeat sex offenders.
Read the Continued Detention paper here.
Bravehearts wish to outline our deep concerns with certain elements of the proposed NSW Victims Rights and Support Bill 2013 as it applies to survivors of child sexual assault. While we support the Bill as it relates to victims of other crimes and applaud it for some of the initiatives, we have serious concerns around some specific elements and the potential impact on victims/survivors of child sexual assault due to the concepts of ‘immediacy’ of disclosure as a trigger for qualifying for many of the support options contained in the proposed Bill.
Read the Victims Rights & Support Bill paper here.
In 2009, the Coalition of Australian Government (COAG) endorsed the National Framework for the Protection of Australia’s Children, which was hoped to bring a coordinated and informed shift in the way we respond to child sexual assault in this country.
Lack of urgency and progress since the endorsement of the National Framework and a number of high profile incidences of systemic issues being flagged (most recently the Australian Defence Force and the Catholic Church) has reignited our long standing call in support of a Royal Commission into the sexual assault of children in Australia.
Read the Need for Royal Commission paper here.
Why is publication of identifying information absolutely prohibited in offences of a sexual nature and not in other cases? Where are the rights of the family and the child (until 18 years old) to be seen and heard if they so desire? Why are the rights of the victim and family treated differently in cases of sexual attacks to attacks of a different nature? Is there something the victim and their family should be ashamed of such that their identities should be compulsorily hidden?
Bravehearts’ belief is that this should remain the choice of the child and the family – not dictated to by a government espousing traditional perspectives and underpinning the age-old demon – the silence and secrecy factor. This ‘silence and secrecy’ perpetuates the shame factor on the victim and relegates them to a life of isolation and victimisation. This paper presents Bravehearts’ position on the issue of confidentiality and privacy and child sexual assault.
Read the Silence and child sexual assault paper here.
The Sexual Assault Disclosure Scheme (SADS) was developed by Bravehearts Founder Hetty Johnston as a police intelligence tool aimed at identifying child sex offenders and therefore protecting children. Through SADS, survivors of child sexual assault are provided with an official, non-threatening means to disclose their experiences to the police.
This paper discusses the Scheme and its history.
Read the SADS background paper here.
The following is a copy of Bravehearts’ submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media Environment. The issue of the sexualisation of children has been of major concern to Bravehearts for some time. The proliferation of sexual images and sexual content in popular culture has dangerously expanded into children’s merchandise and advertising. This submission considers each of the three areas under the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry. Read the Sexualisation of children paper here.
Bravehearts believes that the offences of child abuse and neglect are different in nature, motivation and victimisation than offences of child sexual assault and that while both are incredibly traumatic for children, their differences dictate they should be addressed separately.
Read the Child Sexual Assault vs Neglect paper here.
This Position Paper argues that there is a fundamental power imbalance between children and adults and therefore sex between children, that is an individual under the age of 18 (as defined by Australian legislation), and an adult (an individual 18 years and over) should be subject to criminal sanctions.
In recognition that this same power imbalance does not exist between peers, it is put forward that sex between children aged 16 and 17, must be conditional on an age discrepancy law, where the age difference between the youngest person (16) and the oldest person must not be greater than 10 years.
Read the Age of consent paper here.
The objective of this Position Paper is to summarise the information available on interventions and responses to child sex offending and to report on the varying degrees of success of different approaches.
The paper also presents Bravehearts’ own Position Statements on the treatment and management of paedophiles.
Read the Management and treatment paper here.