Editorial

There is, sadly, a line of thinking in some liberal quarters that would diminish personal responsibility and place certain crimes, such as the murder of young children, or paedophilia, in the "psychological disorder" category. The act is so morally reprehensible, they argue, that the one who performs it cannot be personally responsible for it. It is a beguiling argument but a wrong one.

It would be dangerous to bring down wickedness to the level of an illness. Abroad, experience has shown, over and over again, that the early release of prisoners for good behaviour or, more often, by psychiatrists' reports recommending their release on the grounds that they were suitable for rehabilitation, led to further crimes of the same nature being committed by the released prisoner. Society should not be so threatened even if it must be merciful and tolerant.

That a paedophile, man or woman, should subject totally innocent youngsters to an experience that could scar them, that could stunt their sexuality and, later, their future relationship with other adults for life may be a perversion on the part of the marauders; it is nonetheless criminal. That fathers or mothers can perpetrate acts like these is something altogether more horrendous. The "killing of the innocent", for so it must be seen, cries to something in our deepest being, not for vengeance per se but for justice.

The incidence of paedophilia in Malta may not be alarming, but some say it is detected or reported less often than its actual occurrence. This may be so; it may not. Thus, we have to be as careful not to raise the profile of paedophilia as we need to be clear that all we get to know about is all we have. Prudence either way is called for to avoid the twin temptations of hysteria and complacency.

What is certain is what is brought to the public domain, that is, the courts. In this context it is not always clear whether the adjudicators follow the same sentencing policy once guilt has been established. This is unfortunate. No clearer message to the paedophile can be signalled than the sentence meted out for an offence. The paedophile who genuinely believes s/he cannot suppress his/her urges should be encouraged at the punishment stage to seek serious counselling.

It would not be subscribing to a witch-hunt when one calls on the authorities to set up a register of those convicted for any form of child molestation, abuse or rape. Such a register will not be for the prurient or the mean-minded to consult, but to improve the safety of children once these offenders serve out their sentence. It would be a grave error, for example, to allow convicted paedophiles to seek any form of direct or indirect employment that involves children, as was the case in the lamentable MFA affair.

Prospective employers of staff whose job requires them to come into contact with children should be able to consult such a register before making certain appointments. The recommendation made by the Council for Children to make such screening compulsory is thus commendable.

It is also vital that we do not see a paedophile behind every genuine, loving gesture played out by fathers on their sons, mothers on their daughters, and adults generally who display a physical form of natural affection towards children. Having said that, today's parents should take a slice out of their grandparents' book of life and warn their offspring not to accept sweets from strangers, still less, lifts in a car.