Advertisement

Managing Sexual and Violent Offenders Across EU Borders

  • Sarah Hilder
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the challenges presented by the increased ease of opportunity for transient serious violent or sexual offenders to move across European Union (EU) borders. The Serious Offending by Mobile European Criminals project brought together a range of European Union (EU) law enforcement and probation personnel to investigate the use of existing mechanisms for information exchange available to EU Member States. This chapter focuses on how varied understandings and commitments to concepts of risk, rehabilitation, multi-agency working, and privacy and data protection influence information exchange. Several EU legislative frameworks support a proactive engagement in shared cross-border understandings of identifying who is high risk and how this information is to be exchanged. However, establishing an EU-wide commitment to such information exchange remains in its infancy. The chapter concludes by considering the impact of this tardy progression, together with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and any assumption that ‘closed borders’ are a quick fix.

Keywords

Sexual offenders Violent offenders EU information exchange cross-border criminality Risk management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement and thanks to the research team of Hazel Kemshall, Michael Scott, Tony Grapes, Gill Kelly, Bernadette Wilkinson, and Jo Chilvers; and thanks to the EU for the research grant for the Serious Offending by Mobile European Criminals project and for the EU Action Grant for the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime programme, ISEC, 2011/AG/4000002521. The views expressed here are the author’s.

References

  1. Bigo, D. (1998). Frontiers and security in the European Union: The illusion of migration control. In M. Anderson & E. Bort (Eds.), The frontiers of Europe. London/Washington, DC: Pinter.Google Scholar
  2. Bigo, D. (2008). EU police cooperation: National sovereignty framed by European security? In E. Guild & F. Geyer (Eds.), Security versus justice. Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union (pp. 91–108). Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, L., & Collett, S. (2015). Delivering rehabilitation. The politics, governance and control of probation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP). (2010). Strategic overview 2009–2010. Available at: http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/Strategic_Overview_2009- 10.(Unclassified).pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
  5. Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union.Google Scholar
  6. Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, H. (2013). Civil prevention orders. Review. London: Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).Google Scholar
  8. De Pourbaix-Lundin, M. (2010). Reinforcing measures against sex offenders. Report to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Doc 12243, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly.Google Scholar
  9. Deutscher Bundestag. (2016). Consequences of Brexit for the realm of justice and home affairs. Scope for future EU cooperation with the United Kingdom. Deutscher Bunderstag: Research Section for European Affairs. PE 6-3000.Google Scholar
  10. EU Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_trafficking_in_human_beings/jl0064_en.htm. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
  11. European Commission (EC). (2010). Study on the status of information exchange amongst law enforcement authorities in the context of existing EU instruments. International Centre for Migration Policy Development JLS/2009/ISEC/PR/001-F3.Google Scholar
  12. Frosdick, S., & Marsh, P. (2005). Football hooliganism. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  13. Hilder, S., & Kemshall, H. (2014). Serious offending by mobile european criminals (SOMEC). Mapping Report on Existing EU Information Exchange Systems. https://www.svdv.org.uk/somec-project/. Accessed 6 Feb 2017.
  14. Hilder, S., & Kemshall, H. (2016). Serious violent or sexual offenders travelling across European Union Borders: Ideological and ethical challenges of information exchange. European Probation Journal, 8(3), 128–145. doi: 10.1177/2066220316678749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (2000). Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibility of governance (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hobbing, P. (2011, November). A farewell to open borders? The Danish approach. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe Series.Google Scholar
  17. House of Lords. (2016). Brexit: Future UK-EU security and police cooperation. House of Lords European Union Committee. 7th Report of Session 2016–17. London: Published by the Authority of the House of Lords. HL Paper 77.Google Scholar
  18. International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD). (2010). Study on the status of information exchange amongst law enforcement authorities in the context of existing EU instruments. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/doc_centre/ police/docs/icmpd_study_lea_infoex.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
  19. Jacobs, J. B., & Blitsa, D. (2008). Sharing criminal records: The United States, the European Union and Interpol Compared. International and Comparative Law Review, 30(125), 125–210.Google Scholar
  20. Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/OUP.Google Scholar
  21. Kemshall, H. (2008). Understanding the community management of high risk offenders. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kemshall, H., Hilder, S., Kelly, G., & Wilkinson, B. (2015). Information exchanges, monitoring and management – A field work study of current responses by member states (Report 2, part 2). https://www.svdv.org.uk/somec-project/. Accessed 6 Feb 2017.
  23. Kirby, S., & Penna, S. (2011). Policing mobile criminality: Implications for police forces in the UK. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 34(2), 182–197. doi: 10.1108/13639511111131030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lammers, M., & Bernasco, W. (2013). Are mobile offenders less likely to be caught? The influence of the geographical dispersion of serial offenders’ crime locations on their probability of arrest. European Journal of Criminology 10(2), 168–186. Euc.sagepub.com: SAGE. doi: 10.1177/1477370812464533.
  25. Magee, I. S. (2008). The review of criminality information. London: ROCI.Google Scholar
  26. May-Chahal, C., & Herczog, M. (2003). Child sexual abuse in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  27. McAlinden, A. M. (2012). The governance of sexual offending across Europe: Penal policies, political economies and the institutionalization of risk. Punishment and Society, 14(2), 166–192. doi: 10.1177/1462474511435573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Messenger, I. (2012). An examination of the dynamics of multi-agency arrangements in different cultural contexts: The case of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the International Child Protection Network. Professional Doctorate, Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  29. Nanz, K.-P. (1996). Free movement of persons according to the Schengen Convention and in the framework of the European Union. In A. Pauly (Ed.), De Schengen à Maastricht: voie royale et course d’obstacles (pp. 61–79). Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  30. Parkin, J. (2011). The difficult road to the schengen information system II. The legacy of laboratories and the cost for fundamental rights and rule of law. CEPS paper, April 2011, www.ceps.eu. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
  31. Ruggiero, V. (2013). Conclusion. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.), Punishment in Europe. A critical anatomy of penal systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Ryan, M. (2013). Introduction. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.), Punishment in Europe. A critical anatomy of penal systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Stelfox, P. (2003). Transnational organised crime: A police perspective. In A. Edwards & P. Gill (Eds.), Transnational organised crime: Perspectives on global security (pp. 114–126). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, T. (2011). The registration and monitoring of sex offenders. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas, T. (2013). The travelling sex offender. Monitoring movements across international borders. In K. Harrison & B. Rainey (Eds.), Handbook of legal and ethical aspects of sex offender treatment and management. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Thomas, T. (2016). Policing sexual offences and sex offenders. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Kalmthout, A. M., & Durnescu, I. (Eds.). (2008). Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP).Google Scholar
  38. Walsh, J. I. (2006). Intelligence sharing in the EU: Institutions are not enough. Journal Common Market Studies, 44, 625, 629. Available at: http://jamesigoewalsh.com/jcms.pdf. Accessed 7 Apr 2017.
  39. Zaiotti, R. (2007). Revisiting Schengen: Europe and the emergence of a new culture of border control. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 8(1), 31–54. doi: 10.1080/15705850701204087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Hilder
    • 1
  1. 1.Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations