The one-year sentence of a man surnamed Li, who was convicted of molesting a 5-year-old girl, was upheld by Beijing No 2 Intermediate People's Court on Tuesday. (Photo: China Daily/Cao Boyuan)
A new document issued by the judiciary in Cixi, East China's Zhejiang province, says information on sex offenders targeting minors will be made public and it will remain in the public domain during the offenders' probation period and even after their release. This is a welcome move for the protection of minors, but it should be implemented carefully, says a comment in Beijing News:
Many countries make such information public because offenders are known to commit such crimes again after being freed. The cases against child molesters will be made public to prevent other minors from being attacked.
The Cixi judiciary's move has won wide public support because there have been too many cases in which minors have been sexually violated. In a recent case, young girls were reported to have been raped but the sex offenders got lighter punishments in the name of "prostitution". The public expects the judiciary to better protect minors from sex offenders.
Some doubt whether the Cixi judiciary's move has legal support. It has. As early as 2013, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly published a document, which allows courts to make public the sentences of those convicted of raping minors, as well as authorizes them to prohibit the criminals from entering middle and secondary schools and kindergartens. The Cixi judiciary has taken this a further step forward.
Of course, to implement it, people need to be careful not to violate the legal rights of those convicted of such offenses, because they are citizens, too, and their legal rights should not be violated after their release.
Some have compared the Cixi judiciary's move with Megan's Law in the United States, which requires sex offenders to report their places of residence to police and let the residential community members know. They look similar, but Cixi's move is judicial practice, while the US practice can be attributed to legislation.
Will Cixi's judicial practice lead to related legislation? That will depend on whether the results of the practice are satisfying. We look forward to seeing the results.
