After seeing the interview with Derryn Hinch on ABC TV's 7.30, I would like to reinforce the opinion piece by David Biles (''Caution on way ahead for sex offender registration,'' December 28, p13) cautioning against paving the way in Australia for community notification of sex offenders.
I am a psychologist who has worked with sex offenders and recently I have studied the impact of Megan's Law through New York Law School.
In a nutshell, it is a failed policy in the US for the following reasons. It does not work - on balance research has found no impact on reducing re-offending.
It is expensive - a 2008 study in the US found that in addition to failing to reduce re-offending or victims, it was ''an unjustifiable'' cost of $US3.9 million per year for New Jersey alone. It is wrong-headed - it relies on the assumption that the community needs to be protected against ''stranger danger'' when most offences against children occur within the home. It is dangerous - five registrants have allegedly been murdered as a result.
Despite these major issues, the US Government launched a national Sex Offender Register and Notification Act in 2006.
Although states were to comply by 2009, at July 2011 only 14 of 50 US states had done so. I like to think this is because 72per cent of US states have realised that community notification is not an effective or efficient way for politicians to win votes in the name of community protection.
Let's hope Australia sticks to evidence-based policy that is ethical and works to protect the community.
Astrid Birgden, South Melbourne, Victoria
THE REPUBLIC
Congratulations to your correspondents Mike Hutchinson and Sarah Brasch (Letters, December 29) for their passionate diatribes against the ACT Government and the British Foreign Office in failing to expose the sham of our present monarchical system of government, and for underestimating our ''determination to be finally free''. Their letters made my day.
I am reminded of Winston Churchill who once commented on an emotional rant shouted at him by a political opponent: ''The honourable member should not generate more moral indignation than he can conveniently contain.''
As they heap opprobrium on our links to the royal family, the one word your correspondents avoid mentioning is that wicked word referendum. They and their ilk lost the last one in spades. Why do they think they will do any better next time?
Robert Willson, Deakin
Nowhere in the Australian constitution is the term ''head of state'' mentioned, and Sarah Brasch (Letters, December 29) awarding it to the Queen, the head of a foreign monarchy, is unwarranted. However, an Australian republic would require such an office with similar powers and conventions to those of the existing governor-general. The more important issue is whether candidates would be parliament-appointed or directly elected, which needs to be put to the people.
As to Robert Willson's letter (December 30), his '99 republic referendum results avoid the fact that 45per cent voted yes.
Bryan Lobascher, Chapman
In his letter of December 30, Robert Willson laments, ''The republican movement has missed Shakespeare's tide and is 'bound in shallows and in miseries'.''
I can only suggest that he turn to a more puritan strain of his calling and take solace in the exculpatory perception that life is suffering.
Yet he can still delight in the decadence of pageantry rooted in our head of state and his head of Church. He might even be tempted to indulge in the rather hedonistic view of the Shavian Back to Methuselah: ''Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful.''
Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor
.gif)
