Fr Mark Montebello
Beware a persecution culture
The main aim of creating a sex offenders' register, such as being proposed by the Commissioner for Children, seems to be that of preventing convicted sex offenders from being employed at workplaces where children are involved. In itself, this is, of course, a most recommendable measure. The problem is that a sex offender's register would not be able to attain such an objective.
Take the well-known MFA case. The employers knew that the prospective worker was a convicted sex offender and, yet, they went on to employ him just the same. They even refused to send him away when the case was made public. In this case, the employers were in possession of the worker's propensity because they knew him personally. Alternatively, they could have acquired the same information from a register. This would not have prevented them from proceeding with the employment and neither would it have obliged them to strike him off their books.
It is clear that what is needed is not a register but an edict prohibiting employers from taking such a course of action. And only an amendment to the law to this effect can do that. A register would thus be redundant in the circumstances.
But how can an employer play safe without the existence of such a register? Normally, any employer would demand a police criminal record before engaging a person.
This would include all serious convictions, including that of child molestation. So, again, a register is superfluous in such cases. What a register would include is already found in the criminal record.
So why create a paedophile register that is redundant in some cases and superfluous in the rest? The argument that such a register can have a preventive role does not hold water.
It must also be noted that, statistically speaking, the incidence of child abuse is not prevalent at places with regular employees. There are 101 other places that are frequented by children and here no register can protect them from sexual abuse. The same goes for households and family environments.
Having said this, it must seem evident that, first, a paedophile register emphasises one type of child abuse perhaps at the detriment of others. Most children are not victims of sexual abuse but more of emotional, psychological and/or physical abuse. By highlighting only sexual abuse, the register may demote into the background these other types of abuse that are as serious, if sometimes not more, than the sexual type. This shift in emphasis does not serve children or society well.
Secondly, a paedophile register may act as a blanket proscription for convicted child offenders. I hope it is agreed that such persons should not be reduced to living a life of outcasts. We agree, I trust, that, though they should be prevented from having jobs that bring them in contact with children, they should not be prevented from exercising any other civil right as any other citizen.
Finally, I submit that such a register displaces the focal point of intervention in relation to convicted paedophiles. Save for the employment aspect, exclusion should not be the prevailing philosophy when dealing with such persons. On the contrary, inclusion should. But this will not be attained with the creation of a sex offenders' register. First of all, if it be the case, convicted paedophiles should be given appropriate attention while in prison, something that is presently not done. And, secondly, proper and apposite services should be made available to them to help them in their condition, provisions that, again, are practically non-existent today.
I fear that a paedophile register will create a persecution culture around convicted child sex offenders, and this is, I hope, the last thing anyone of us would want to do.
Of course, I am not against that we seriously discuss the whole matter in a mature, competent and responsible way. But already I see that such discussions do not include organisations like ours that seek to uphold the rights and dignity of convicted persons. It is important to protect children from any kind of abuse, undoubtedly. But it is equally important not to be trendy when proposing such delicate measures and also to be cool-headed so as not to go overboard.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 7th 2008, 19:15
1. I have to admit that personally I don't like Fr Montebello's philosophy in general, as well as his attitude in bringing forward his arguments.
2. However, I can sympathise with what he says in this contribution, in that the society believes that once a person has paid for his misconduct (through prison, for instance), that person will have been deemed to have paid his due to society and is a free man. With this register, it would appear that a person who paid for his or her misdemeanours is going to continue being punished. Might as well bring in the guillotine, no?
3. With the prospect of a register being available to the general public, even relatives will be somehow 'punished' for the misdemeanours of one of their kin. Is this just? Try putting yourselves in their shoes - and remember that 'There goes I without the help of God!' Point made, I hope.
4. I have a feeling that in the case of Malta, this request - no, demand - for a register is spurred by our innate habits of curiosity and gossip.
5. I still believe that with more parents' attention, children will be less vulnerable.
Vincent Zerafa
Nov 7th 2008, 16:49
It seems that Fr. Montebello is more preoccupied with what happens to the agressors than the victims. What's going on? Is this world really got upside down?
What happened to common sense? If someone savagely abuses innocent children, what does he or she expect? A bunch of roses? Or pay dearly for their despicable acts? At least if they are persecuted, it is becuase they reaped what they sowed. On the other hand, their victims will always be persecuted by the memories of their horrible experience, even though it wasn't their fault.
Charles Camilleri
Nov 7th 2008, 16:08
Fr.Mark why do you always talk about the right of the accused (who refuse and trample on the rights of others) and forget the rights of the victims.
Evarist Saliba
Nov 7th 2008, 12:36
This article overlooks these three important points.
1) In many cases the names of paedophiles are not made known to the public to protect the identity of victims. Thus, in protecting the victim, the paedophile criminal is also protected, unlike other criminals, when it is well known that paedophiles tend to strike again and again.
2) Bringing into the argument other forms of child abuse is an irrelevant diversion which protects the perpetrators and not the victims. The young innocent victims should be society's first concern.
3) A paedophile register does not rule out any care or help which could be given in prison. How effective such help can be is highly questionable.
4) The threat that paedophiles present to young persons is not limited to the place of work.
John Azzopardi
Nov 7th 2008, 11:40
Why not talk about the rights of the innocents instead of the criminal.
Ramon Casha
Nov 7th 2008, 11:38
One problem with the idea of this register is that the law is extremely vague - what is "defilement"? See http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081105/local/online-defilement for an example - just 2 days ago. The report is short on detail, the only specific act mentioned is "chatting her up online". Whatever the details were, the sentence given seems to reflect the fact that it was not very serious. Would this person be registered the same as a rapist?
Also, what about those cases where the courts require the culprit's name not to be published on account of being a close relative? Will they still be published in this list - thus still identifying the victim - or will they get out of appearing on the list?
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 7th 2008, 10:27
If a sex offender register is not the perfect solution to their risky re-employment in jobs which put the very young at risk that does not justify its rejection, out of hand, on the false premise that a police conduct certificate would be an effective substitute. To the best of my knowledge these certificates are not so easily available to prospective employers and, with the passage time, convictions would no longer continue to appear on them.
Fr Mark Montebello's dedication to the protection of the underdog is most admirable if it were tempered by an equal regard for the real needs of the rest of society. Society needs protection from habitual convicted criminals prone to be repeat offenders such as sex offenders or drug abusers. These thrive on violent crimes preying on the weakest members of society such as those who are too young or too old to defend themselves.
No effort should be spared to try to rehabilitate these habitual criminals even though all too often this is a thankless job. We should discuss the matter in a mature, competent, responsible and cool-headed way - this did not happen during Fr Montebello's last appearance on Xarabank.