‘

‘‘‘ 
 ‘‘
‘ ‘‘‘‘‘

 ‘   ‘ ‘‘


‘
‘ 

‘
 

‘
‘

Yael Rom

Issues in Criminal Justice- CRJ 730

Professor John Laffey

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

December 8, 2010

c
Introduction

On March 1, 2003 a law (approved in 2001) was enacted in Israel to prevent sex offenders

from being employed in certain institutions that provide services to minors. The law applies to

institutions that provide services such as health, education, security, transportation and

entertainment for children and young adults, and requires that these institutions apply for police

authorization to employ such offenders. The law was initiated by the eighteenth Israeli Knesset

member Yuval Steinitz. Between 2003, when the law came into effect, and June 2007, the Israeli

police have been asked to issue 67,500 authorizations. (http://www.knesset.gov.il/huka).

Background

Each year in Israel, approximately 780 offenders (adults and minors) are convicted of sex

offenses. Approximately 200 of these are sentenced to prison, about 150 of which receive

sentences of more than one year. According to an Israeli Internal Security Ministry estimate, each

year approximately 200 sex offenders are sentenced to community service.

A literature review reveals that the recidivism rate observed among sex offenders typically

ranges from 10% to 15% during the five years following release from incarceration; however, in a

more extended monitoring period a higher rate of recidivism was found (Hamill, 2001). For

example, studies show that in Canada the recidivism rate among sex offenders after 15 years of

follow-up is 24%. Recidivism rates among incest offenders are the lowest, while the rate among

rapists and child molesters outside the family is extremely high. However, although many studies

indicate a relatively low level of recidivism among sex offenders, the actual rate may be

significantly higher than the official statistics, due to the phenomenon of under - reporting to the

police of sex crimes (Harris & Hanson, 2004).


The law on its main points and its effectiveness

The 2001 Israeli law prohibits the employment (including volunteers and people employed

through agencies) of sex offenders in institutions that provide services to minors and people with

intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. The law¶s purpose is to protect such vulnerable

groups from sexual predators. This law defines a sex offender as any man who has been convicted

of a sexual offense as an adult (over 18) since March 1st 1998 (five years prior to the law going

into effect). The law does not, at this time, extend to female sex offenders. The restrictions

imposed by the law apply to a sex offender until 20 years after the date of conviction of the sexual

offense or release from prison, whichever is later. If an employer employs an adult sex offender

without a police permit, that employer will not be held criminally liable if there were special

circumstances which prevented the employer from getting the certificate, provided that the

employee was hired for a reasonable period of time, not exceeding 30 days, and the employer

acted without delay to obtain the police approval. Provisions of this law apply also to an employer

hiring an adult sex offender through a manpower contractor.

(http://www.mops.gov.il/BP/Legislation/SexOffenderLaw)

The law includes the following prohibitions:

1.‘ Employers are prohibited from hiring sex offenders in any job that allows them to be in

contact, regularly or permanently, with minors or with people with intellectual and/or

developmental disabilities.

2.‘ A ban on sex offenders being employed at such institutions.

3.‘ Employers are prohibited from hiring an adult sex offender without prior approval from the

Israel Police Department that this person¶s employment is permitted by law.

x
 Among the institutions mentioned in the law that are prohibited to hire sex offenders are:

1.‘ Schools, daycare centers, pre-nursery play groups, various educational institutions for

minors;

2.‘ Youth movements, summer camps, sport and cultural centers for minors;

3.‘ Zoos and amusement parks;

4.‘ Fitness rooms and swimming pools that are open to minors;

5.‘ Transportation services for minors or persons with mental or developmental disabilities;

6.‘ Businesses who organize travel and leisure for minors or persons with mental or

developmental disabilities;

7.‘ Businesses that deal with among other things, securing minors;

8.‘ Pediatric departments in hospitals and clinics;

9.‘ Clinics or hospitals for the mentally ill;

10.‘Clubs, daycare centers, treatment centers or rehabilitation centers for persons with mental

or developmental disabilities;

11.‘Organizations which provide mentoring services, training, instruction, entertainment or

diagnoses to minors or to people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, or

handle them, care for them or accompany them to their legal proceedings;

A committee of experts established by law is authorized to exempt an offender from the

prohibition to be employed, at his request, after conducting a risk evaluation. The chairman of the

committee is a Magistrate Court Judge, and its members are experts in behavior patterns and

treatment with sex offenders. An employer that fails to obey the law is finable under section 61

Î
(a) (3) of the Penal Code, 1977 up to 75,300 NIS. A sex offender who has been employed in

violation of the law is imprisoned for typically up to one year. The law has been amended six

times with updates to its name and definitions, and the addition of the risk evaluation process and

more institutions. Published in June 2010 and in effect as of September 3rd 2010, the last

amendment to the law states that many institutions not necessarily related to an institutional entity

are to be included among the institutions which have to obtain a police permit for the employment

of a sex offender. (http://www.knesset.gov.il/huka).

As previously mentioned, world literature shows that recidivism rates among sex

offenders are lower than the rates among other criminals, yet it is important to note that many

sexual crimes are not reported to law enforcement agencies and therefore it has been claimed that

the actual recidivism rate is much higher than officially recorded in the literature. Although most

sex offenders are not reconvicted for a sexual offense, many of them return to commit a crime. It

should be noted that recidivism rate is an important factor in determining policy regarding the

punishment and treatment of sex offenders. In Israel, sex offenders serve between several months

to several years in prison for their crimes. After their release, if they attack again and are caught,

brought to trial and return to jail until the next release and, possibly, their next offense. According

to Professor Witztum (http://www.police.gov.il/persumim/kitvey_et/01179) it¶s been proven in

studies that incarceration itself does not prevent the sex offender from committing another crime.

When he is released from prison, it is not uncommon for him to return to his ³old ways´.

According to Professor Witztum there is treatment available, for those offenders that elect to take

it, in the form of a chemical injection of the drug Medroxyprogesterone. It is important to say

that the injection has not yet passed the test of the court and there are several problems with it.

First, there is still no scientific proof that the chemical castration by injection


Medroxyprogesterone or similar drags (as Androcour or

Edakpapttil) is effective in reducing Recidivism in sex offenders. The studies on chemical

castration were based mostly on self-reports of sexual drive in offenders who were in therapy.

This measure is highly unreliable given the tendency

of Sex offenders to lie about their perversion. In addition, most studies were done without a

control group and without using the method of the double blind placebo as required in order to

prove efficiency and effectiveness of the study. Although there is no reason to doubt this

assumption, the literature talks about drugs as not exclusive and not effective as a treatment

Suitable to use in all types of sex offenders. The chemical castration is only effective when

treating patients who willingly cooperate, and receiving psychotherapy along with the drug

treatment (Prentky, 1997) [CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFO ON THIS? WHAT SORT OF

INJECTION? WHAT DOES IT DO? But although this solution is difficult, it is the most

effective ± though it does not solve the problem entirely. In the opinion of Professor Witztum,

treatment should be not only for the offender himself, but preventive efforts should also be made

in the community. In Israel, elementary school children receive two hours per week of general

education in which the teacher leads an open discussion regarding various social issues. As part of

this educational program, the teacher has the opportunity to raise children's awareness to the law

and to sexual offenses in general. As a society, we must give our children of school age sexual

education, and guide them (with professionals) on how to behave in exceptional situations and to

avoid falling victim to sexual offenders. Considering Professor Witztum¶s claims, as a society that

wants to protect our next generation we need to do everything in our power to prevent this

recidivism. Sex offenders can fall very quickly to their ³old habits´ and the community must play

a part in preventing such relapses.

ÿ
 The original law applied restrictions to employment only to those who had been sentenced

to at least one year in prison. Amendment number four to this law, enacted in 2007 states that any

person convicted of committing a sexual offense shall not be employed in institutions that provide

service to minors and people with disabilities regardless of the duration of his prison sentence.

The amendment¶s initiator, Knesset member Shelly Yachimovich, stated that the law is designed

to further strengthen the protective measures for minors and the helpless, who have repeatedly

fallen victim to sexual predators ± sometimes without realizing, and without the understanding

that they can and should report such incidents. Yachimovich added that on one hand this law

protects the most vulnerable segments of the population, and on the other it does not infringe

upon the freedom of occupation of convicted sex offenders, considering the variety of other jobs

available to them. To date, many sex offenders have not been sentenced to prison and not always

because of the nature of the offense, but sometimes due to personal circumstances and factors that

led to more lenient sentencing. Until amendment number four was enacted, such offenders were

still able to work with children and vulnerable individuals.

(http://www.police.gov.il/persumim/kitvey_et/01179).

The root of the problem today: Enforcement and implementation of the law

Though statistics are not available, it is believed that over the last several years in Israel, the

number of incidents in which released sex offenders that were hired in institutions that service

minors have attacked again is high. Further, institutions are breaking the law by not conducting

necessary authorizations, and hiring sex offenders without facing punishment. For example, an

ex offender was employed as a coach in two sports organizations and although a complaint was

filed the police closed the case against his employers. Similarly, another convicted sex offender

was employed as a school janitor (following his conviction, and release from prison) and was

a
caught by the control unit for sex offenders. To date, no charges have been filed against the

school that hired him and most likely none will be brought forward. In a third case which received

a great deal of publicity in Israel, a man was caught molesting a minor while guarding her in the

hospital in which she was hospitalized. It emerged that he was a convicted sex offender who was

employed without being checked and without the police permit as required by law; to date

charges have not been filed against the hospital nor the contracting company who hired him. In

the years since the law has been enacted, not even one case has been opened against an employer

who hired an employee without the required approval. Just two cases have been opened against

sex offenders themselves for working in an institution where they were not allowed to work ±

however in both instances, remarkably, these cases were opened as a secondary offense and not as

the primary one. Cases such as these that have been reported likely represent a far larger problem

± i.e. similar instances are likely occurring without being reported. (www.children.org.il). Various

ministries, including the Ministry of Education, Welfare, Health Industry, Trade and Labor, have

formulated procedures for implementing the law and distributed them to the relevant institutions, but a

review of the law reveals only a partial implementation has occurred;

ڑThe actual monitoring of the implementation of these procedures is only partial. The

implementation of the law in private institutions which are not related to any governmental body

is also lacking. The last amendment to the law in September 2010 required the Department of

Homeland Security to issue a press release regarding the provisions and the details of the law.

Information regarding the provisions is also published on the Ministries of Public Security and

Justice web sites. However, there is no evidence of any additional efforts to inform the public

about the details of and duties under the law of the institutions that provide services to children.

ë
ڑThe Ministry of Education has stated that implementation of the law in educational institutions

operated by local authorities versus private owners is not uniform. The Ministry of Education has

been working to formulate a procedure to better apply the law for these bodies, but its schedule

for roll-out is yet to be announced.

ڑSince it came into effect in 2003, the police have opened only three cases for violations of the

law. Internal priorities are keeping the police from engaging in active punishment for employers

who do not obey the law ± rather than initiating inquiries or operations, the police merely respond

to complaints

ڑ. According to Chief Superintendent Meir Berkovich ± Head of the Department of Homeland

Security, enforcement is complicated due to all of the restrictions of the law- it doesn¶t apply to

all institutions and the police have to check whether it applies to the institution or not. He claims

that active pursuit is not practical and it should be in accordance with the complaints.

(www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/data/rtf/huka/2010-04-28.rtf).

It appears that the main problem today with the law for prevention of the

employment of sex offenders at particular institutions in Israel is the public¶s lack of awareness of

it; a result of limited implementation and poor enforcement. In order to improve the process, a

more practical way to publicize and enforce the law must be established. Such is the situation in

Israel, that in 2010 we cannot demand that the police dedicate 100% of their efforts towards this

goal. If a way is found to bring this to the public eye, the public can help the police enforce this

law for the good of society. In general, the Minister of Public Security is responsible for the entire

law, but all government offices must work to bring this to the attention to the sector of society that

they work with.


ƒoals and Objectives

The goal of this analysis is to examine the law and assess whether it is serving its purpose.

Since the late '90s the Israeli law has been in a process, which has accelerated in recent years, to

increase legislation against sex offenders. This legislation is characterized by increasing deviation

from the traditional boundaries of punishment. These developments are expressed in a significant

increase in the number of prisoners that have been convicted as sex offenders, which quadrupled

between 1995 and 2008; this statistic is a result of longer prison sentences for sex offenders, as

opposed to more sex offenders being caught. Indeed, the number of complaints regarding sexual

crimes has actually decreased (http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton58/st11_03.pdf). In addition to the

laws surrounding the institutions in which a convicted sex offender may be employed, laws have

been enacted that impose other ex-punitive restrictions that are not related to the punishment itself

for the sex offender who has completed his sentence. For example, sex offenders are forbidden by

a 2004 law to return to the victim¶s environment, designed to protect the victim from any

psychological damage that would result from an encounter with the sex offender. Another law

imposes limits on the places where the offender can live following his release.

The position of this paper is that while there are laws in place that are designed to protect

future and past victims of sexual offenders, such laws are not being sufficiently enforced in

practice; I believe that these laws and associated amendments must be more effectively

implemented under the oversight of government authorities and private institutions, with the

assistance of a well-informed public. Additional sections and clauses should be added to the law,

with increased emphasis on monitoring its enforcement and raising public awareness, with a view

to reducing the number of incidents in which a sex offender is working near children or

vulnerable populations following his release. Such laws and their enforcement must be enacted in

c

a way in which the offender¶s rights are not violated ± his chances of re-integrating into society in

a positive and meaningful way should not be hindered. Public awareness is crucial to more

successful implementation of these laws ± currently awareness levels are extremely low (parents,

for example, are rarely aware of the fact that institutions to which they send their children are

obliged to check employee¶s backgrounds). It is my belief that increased public awareness

(through top-down and grass-roots publicity campaigns sponsored by public and private

institutions) would drive better enforcement of these laws. This sort of revised policy should be

implemented progressively within six months.

The revised policy

In order for us to implement the law correctly and to prevent the employment of sexual

predators in certain institutions, a central office must be nominated to be responsible for the entire

law. Today although the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) is in charge of the law, the publication

responsibility is on each and every body (Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, the

Department of Homeland Security and the Council for Child Welfare). Each is responsible for

publicizing the law to their own population that they are working with, but unfortunately it does

not get published as it should (www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/data/rtf/huka/2010-04-28.rtf u. It

seems as if having each and every institution involved in publicizing the law is leading to it

falling through the cracks ± with all, yet none, effectively taking responsibility for this serious

task. As such, I propose that there should be only one entity managing and operating all ministries

regarding the law¶s implementation and enforcement. Though the Homeland Security Institute is

committed to publishing a public notice regarding this law (within its first month of being issued)

in two popular daily Israeli newspapers in Hebrew, as well as a popular newspaper in Arabic and

one in Russian (the three most prevalent languages in Israel) it does not always do so.

cc
(http://www.mops.gov.il/BP/Legislation/SexOffenderLaw/). In revising the law and

implementing the proposed policy, a clause regarding the legal responsibility and publicity would

be put in the wording. In addition, the HSI would come out with an annual media campaign and

would emphasize the importance of monitoring children¶s surroundings.

Since most of the complaints today come via The Council for Child Welfare (CCW) it would be

jointly responsible with the HSI. The CCW would open a hot-line for anonymous complaints. It

would serve the public 12 hours a day and every valid complaint (with a name and place) would

be evaluated and forwarded to the police department for more detailed inspection. Also, I suggest

educating volunteers that answer calls made to the Rape Victims Crisis Center in Tel Aviv, an

organization that operates a 24 hour hotline and receives 4,000 calls a year. Since the public's

awareness of the existence of this center may be greater than that of the CCW hotline, it is crucial

to educate the volunteers that answer the victims' calls so that they too can help spread awareness

of laws regarding sexual offenders and guide callers about measurements that they can take in

order to protect children. The HSI will also be responsible for informing the institutions listed

under the law of their duty by law to ask permission from the police for all their employed adult

men or prospective employment candidates.

Aside from awareness, it is clear that the other major policy revision required is in

enforcement. For those who break the law the punishment should be more severe. Today an

employer in one of the listed institutions who violates the law by employing a person without

checking his background convicted sex offender is liable to a fine (up to 75,300 NIS). A

convicted sex offender who is employed in one of the listed institutions without the knowledge of

the employer is liable for one year imprisonment

(http://www.mops.gov.il/BP/Legislation/SexOffenderLaw/). I am of the belief that this

c
punishment must be more severe. The revised law/policy that I am proposing would include a

clause that states that an employer in one of the listed institutions who violates the law by

employing a person without a background check convicted sex offender would be liable for up to

500,000 NIS fine. I believe that punitive measures should be focused on the institutions, as

opposed to the convicted sex offender. The institutions that provide services for minors and the

mentally disabled have the same interest at heart as the legislators - to protect our children.

Therefore, they must assume responsibility for who they hire. Another way to better manage

enforcement is to work alongside probation officers, and require that they are more involved post-

release of sex offenders, and initiate un-announced visits to their place of employment and living.

Today probation officers are not required by the law to confirm police authorizations prior to

employment for sex offenders ± in proposing a revised policy, I would recommend that this be

added to their duties.

Another issue is that the law today does not apply for women. At the time the law was issued, this

decision was based on the balance between minority offenses committed by women and the vast

majority of women who work in the education system. In addition, the data presented during the

writing of the law was that most sex offenders are men and so it came as a temporary order.

Demanding certificates for that many people from the police was too much to handle and created

what was viewed as unnecessary work for the system. This temporary order has not changed and

has not been tested again. If and when the data changes we must add a clause regarding women to

the law.

Action planning

Overall, the proposed changes should not stretch budgets too significantly. If public

awareness is raised, even among just a sector of the population, those convicted of sex offenses

cx
would be less likely to even approach institutions that work with children for employment, since

they would know that employers will know to seek police approval prior to their hiring. The law,

public awareness of the law, and substantial fines for those that violate the law, would act as

gating factors preventing convicted sex offenders from seeking employment in such institutions.

In other words, by making this law more public through effective advertising campaigns, the

work required to enforce the law would be partially done by the public and institutions, as

opposed to just those who report complaints and the police that respond only to complaints rather

than initiating inquiries.

The proposed amendment involves budgetary and computing preparations to be

undertaken, particularly by the Israeli police force. To enable the police and other entities to

prepare for these changes, an overhaul of the computer system of criminal information is

required. To reform these systems would require a period of approximately six months. In

addition, the postponement period will allow the institutions employing convicted sex offenders

time to get or renew police permits for existing employed persons. It is recommended that

commencement of the amendment be six months after the publication of the revised law, and to

determine that the institutions can continue to employ the same persons until the beginning of the

patch. It will also allow those who are already employed at the time of publication a period of six

months to find alternative jobs, or contact the special committee of the law to request exemption

from the law¶s prohibitions.

The proposed law will impact existing law in several ways: a clause regarding

responsibility and publicity will be added, punishment for violation of the law (Section 5 (a) will

be amended to include a higher fine for violators, and a clause assigning responsibility to the

cÎ
probation officer will be integrated. The impact of the revised law on standards in government

offices and on the administrative aspect has no effect for now.

Although the proposed changes to the law should not stretch the state budgets too much, it would

impact the state budget; expenses would rise as a result of an increase in the number of police

requests for employment approval, and the required changes to existing computer records would

add costs. A preliminary assessment of these effects suggests that an initial one-time expenditure

of about 250,000 NIS is required, with expected annual expenditures of approximately 600,000

NIS (as a result of needing more than 3 - Standards in the police team). However, this is only a

preliminary assessment as we cannot precisely evaluate at this stage how increased public

awareness and other amendments to the law would affect the number of applications for police

permits, or the number of appeals made to the expert committee. Therefore it is not possible to

accurately estimate at this stage the full impact of the proposed amendment on the state budget -

but it will not be under 200,000 NIS.

Monitoring and evaluating‘the plan

Monitoring: Overall, within the Ministry of Education there is a control system when it

comes to the law. All educational institutions have the necessary licenses and approvals and a

direct supervision enforcement unit that commands and controls operations, and handles all the

necessary procedures. The same applies to the Ministry of Education¶s transportation services. In

the annual circular letter distributed by the Ministry of Education, there is a specific clause for

this monitoring. However, the monitoring and enforcement shouldn¶t only be within the

educational institutions. It must also come from the Israeli police and the State Attorney. Though

I am keenly aware of the many tasks imposed on the Israeli police and the limited manpower

resources, I think that seven years after the law existence, and given the immense importance of

c
protecting the vulnerable from sexual crimes, much more must be done. The seriousness of these

crimes warrants a higher priority being given to initiating police operations on the issue, with a

focus on detection and deterrence: relevant institutions must be monitored to ensure observance of

the laws, and those that violate them must be properly prosecuted. Periodic spot checks should be

regularly carried out and announced to the public, in order to act as a deterrent factor for all

employers ± presumably none of them have an interest in violating the law or getting involved

with a potential lawsuit, it¶s just a matter of ignorance or a lack of resources. Moreover, when it

has been revealed that a child has been sexually abused by a person employed in an institution

that gives services to children, it should be essential that in addition to the primary offense the

criminal justice system should also investigate the crime of unlawful employment of the offender

and will also prosecute this matter.

Evaluation: There should be a committee with representatives from the Ministry of

Justice, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, Department of Homeland Security, Ministry of

Social Affairs, Council for Child Welfare and the Israeli police that will evaluate the process

every year. Each year, the committee will collect data from the relevant institutions (including

names of employees, and their police permits and validity of status), to determine the

effectiveness of the amendments. The committee will not only review institutions' permits, but

will also retrieve information regarding the employers of the sex offenders from their probation

officers. The committee will gather statistical data from the police regarding the number of

complaints filed in the past year, and data from the Israeli State Attorney regarding the number of

cases that were opened that year. This kind of information shall also be obtained from the social

services. It is clear that not all sexual abuse complaints are reported to the authorities, and

therefore the committee should also pro-actively contact the social service providers in the

cÿ
community and obtain statistical data regarding their clients. After the plan has been active for a

few years, a comparison should be made of the number of calls received prior to the amendments

being made, and document whether there was a decline in the number of calls/complaints

received.

Despite the vitality and the importance of the law, I would argue that it has been

essentially disregarded and not enforced by either employers or, more surprisingly, by the Israeli

police and prosecution system. Based on the seriousness of these crimes, this is an intolerable

situation that has left defenseless children abandoned and exposed to sexual crimes. While the

Ministries of Justice and internal security do not hesitate to promote far-reaching and invasive

bills that permit, for example, body searches without a solid suspicion, the same authorities

refrain from making non-intrusive searches to confirm police certificates that employers must

hold.

Is sexual violence not violence? Is violence against children considered any less serious

than other types of violence? Should we not enforce and implement existing legislation that can

save thousands of innocent children and mentally disabled? Is that the Israel we are willing to

create? It is said that one can best judge a society by how well it protects its innocent and

defenseless citizens. Through continued study of the issues at hand and exploring potential

solutions, I hope to in some way contribute to fixing this serious problem.

ca
References

Yanai, Ori (2002), š  
 ‘‘ ‘

 ‘  ‘  ‘" Police and

Society 6, (Vol. 73).

The Department of Homeland Security (2007), "‘‘‘
‘‘‘ 

 ‘‘


‘  ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘  ‘   ‘ ‘ ´. June 27th 2007,

http://www.knesset.gov.il/huka

Hamill Richard, American Bar Association (2001), ³ 

‘‘‘‘
‘ ‘!‘

‘"´, Criminal Justice

Andrew J. R. Harris and R. Karl Hanson (2004), ³‘‘ 

‘#‘ ‘$ ´,

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Canada.

(http://www.police.gov.il/persumim/kitvey_et/01179).

Protocol No. 186 from meeting of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice, Wednesday,

28/04/2010).

cë
The law to prevent employment of sex offenders in certain institutions, 2001, 
‘ %  ‘ ‘

& ‘ , http://www.mops.gov.il/BP/Legislation/SexOffenderLaw.

The National Council for Child Welfare, www.children.org.il).

The Statistics annual report‘ on‘ Convictions and sentences in serious offenses, 2007‘

http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton58/st11_03.pdf).

Prentky, R .A. (1997). Arousal Reduction in Sexual Offenders: A Review of Antiandrogen

Interventions. Sexual buse: J‘‘
‘‘ '‘('‘))*)+,.

c