Monday, 25th August 2008
Exposing child abusers
The editor of The Sunday Times (24/08/08 p. 24) is right. “It has not been a good month for children.” The editor wrote that it was not a good month because two different persons were accused of child abuse. A 63- year-old grandfather pleaded guilty to raping three of his grandchildren and a hotel manager was accused of committing sexual acts with a 14 year-old boy.
I understand what he wanted to communicate; but perhaps he isn’t right. Perhaps it has been a good month for children. It was a good month because at least two perpetrators were caught (one of them is still accused and so presumed innocent). During other months abuses also occur but no one is brought to court. There are still too many abusers out there committing their horrible and most vile crimes and not getting caught.
Child abuse happens regularly in different ways and forms. Sexual abuse is just one manifestation. There are other forms. Children are robbed of their childhood also as a result of physical and psychological abuse, not to say torture. There are too many children living in environments which destroy them and their innocence. There are too many children savagely beaten by one or both parents.
Children suffer when their parents constantly quarrel in front of them or where one parent physically abuses the other or when their parents separate. Constant verbal and psychological abuse can destroy a child as much as sexual abuse.
Hundreds of children suffer in silence and tears.
It is a pity that many do not abhor these abuses as much as they abhor sexual abuse and do nothing when they come to know of their existence. Those who know of such abuses and remain silent deserve harsh condemnation as well.
Therefore when abusers are taken to court it means that it was a good month for children.
To register or not to register
Should there be a register of child abusers?
My answer is a definitive yes. The discussion should centre on who to include and to whom such a register should be available. Should it include only those convicted of serious sexual abuses or should it also include the names of those convicted of serious abuses even those of a non-sexual manner?
I think that a good case can be made for a register that includes more than just sexual abusers. If a person has been found guilty of physically abusing his or her own children should he/she not be registered so that one assures that he/she will not be given employment or positions in voluntary associations which put him/her in constant contact with children? One can say that physical abuse is easier to detect than sexual abuse so there is no need for a register in this case. On the other hand one can take the safe option of registering the abuser so as to avoid taking risks.
Who or which organisations should have access to this register? As a minimum one can say that the police and those state agencies involved in the care of children should have access to it.
But shouldn’t voluntary organisations working with children, educational establishments, also have access to the register? Otherwise how can one be sure that abusers will not find themselves taking care of children?
I think that there is a very good argument for including these institutions among the list of those who have access to the register.
A more difficult one to crack is whether the register should be available to people living in the same area as a convicted child abuser. I see arguments in favour and against.
That is why there should be a national discussion and a decision about this register in the shortest possible time.
Helping abusers
I’ve used strong terms about abusers. The subject demands such harsh words. But let us also remember that abusers are human beings as well. Whatever is decided should not be decided out of a spirit of vindictiveness.
The common good and especially the good of those who are vulnerable should guide us. We should also be guided by the belief that abusers need help and they should be given all the help they need. Society should be firm but it should also be humane, even with those who abuse since this spirit of humanity can help heal them and integrate them – when and where possible – with the rest of society.
Licensed to abuse
While all the forms of abuse I mentioned above are illegal, there is a form of legalised and licensed abuse. I refer to certain TV, video games and Internet sites. Children from a very tender age are subjected to hours of all sorts of violence presented to them as entertainment by myriad TV stations. Many video and computer games also glorify violence. Pornography is freely available on the Internet. Children do have easy access to it independently of what parents think.
It is a pity that while parents say that they want to shield their children from abusers they let TV, the Internet and video games baby-sit their children with the danger that they will corrupted by nasty content that is easily available.
RSS
Comments
I have read some of the posts and noticed that some of you have accused the Church of shuffling churches to priests to escape from the Law. It is true, in the past there has been alot of incidents involving Priests/Nuns and Children. However, instead of Just pointing fingers at the Church, how many more families have Consensual or Non-Consensual Sexual Bonding between Family Members?
We need to bring out these persons not to do any more harm to poor defenseless children no matter the rank, no matter their Social Role and no matter Position one might have, these need to be taken for Immidiate Mental Cure
It is now known that Malta was no exception to this rule. However local parents have no idea who these Maltese priest child molesters are. It might well be that parents are unwittingly entrusting their children to the care of such vile and perfidious criminals.
The protection of children should take precedence over all other considerations. Wasn’t it the Good Lord who once advised evil-doers that it would be far better if they adorned their necks with mill-stones and got themselves drowned rather than harming his little ones?
I know you were joking (even though his tragic end is nothing to joke about). However, Alan Turing's case was as follows: He was forced to choose one of the following: life imprisonment or chemical castration - all just for being a homosexual.
That is why he committed suicide. Also, bear in mind that homosexuals in prison during that time were given a much harsher treatment by fellow-inmates (to put it mildly).
If I understand you well, you seem to imply that some paedophiles can't help being paedophiles. I tend to agree to a certain extent. However, that's as far as my agreement goes. Let me explain.
First of all, the comparison with homosexuality does not apply in this case. Homosexuality has been decriminalised. However, homosexual (or heterosexual) acts with minors haven't.
I don't believe that paedophilia will ever be accepted legally. We have certainly gone beyond imprisonment as punishment, and have moved towards imprisonment (or other forms of institutionalisation) as a means of protecting others.
While it is true that some paedophiles can't help being so, so do some serial-killers. However, while science is helping us in understanding them, others still need protection from them - in the case of paedophiles, the minors.
So while other forms of containment for serial-paedophiles might be considered in the future, I don't believe (and certainly don't wish) that paedophile acts will ever become acceptable.
(No need to answer, was just kidding.)
Child abuse is a difficult and sensitive issue, and we are just amateurs in discussing it.
16 makes sense to me too actually.
They also carry an interesting article about alternatives to prison: http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/04/15/prison-justice-alternatives_cx_rd_06slate_0418alter.html I used to receive Forbes magazine and it always struck me as very conservative so articles such as these in such a magazine are a breath of fresh air.
I don't like however your idea of chemical castration. Some time ago I read a short biography of the brilliant mathematician Alan Turing. He was chemically castrated (by being given female hormones) for 'grossly obscene' acts (homosexuality) in the 1950s. What he engaged in then is perfectly legal now. He developed terrible side effects and ended up committing suicide.
As for the 25%, well I've heard even higher figures. What matters is not urges but inhibitions really. It's similar to violent impulses, a lot more people have them than act on them, otherwise I suspect the Kappara roundabout will be littered with corpses by 9 am :-)
@ Joseph Schembri: being sexually mature does not mean that a person is emotionally and psychologically mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. Some girls may be sexually mature, by your definition, by age 10 or 11, I would not think that they are mature enough to be in a sexual relationship even if they can have babies. What would you consider to be a reasonable age of consent?
Anyhow, the three articles I mentioned are but a drop in the ocean - anyone who is more interested can google for more info. (Still, studies on paedophilia are in their infancy.) The scariest part of the feature is the finding that 25% have the predisposition to become offenders....thankfully not all do.
There was another feature in last Sunday's Times that suggested chemical castration but i only just discovered it today, the feature i mean.
How I wish that God didn't make us such biologically complicated creatures and then gave us a brain to discuss ethics and the democracy to say what we want. (I'm not suggesting that God made a mistake, just that i wish life was more straightforward.)
Fr Joe, what's the topic of the next blog?
I have no definite opinion about the register as of now but I tend to regard it with suspicion. Why does present day western society consider one particular crime more abhorrent than all others, even serial murder? Why not have a register for all crimes?
I see nothing BIOLOGICALLY wrong in a man who is attracted to a sexually mature female. Sexually mature as in the ability to make babies. It is what nature dictates. That is why I am in favour of lowering the age of consent from our abnormally high 18 years. There is no disorder in desiring a sexually mature woman even if she is below the age of Man made laws. There is nothing pathological if sexually mature people desire each other and go on to act out those desires. Rape, which to me means that one of the individuals objected to the act, is another thing as is acting out desires with sexually immature persons.
Also note that the article you referenced is about research done on convicted sex offenders only, which is an obvious bias in the research. What about the ones who are too clever to get caught? We know very little about them.
Indeed a register can be open to abuse, which is precisely why access needs to be controlled and limited.
and here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4597374.ece
The latter is a column by Minette Marrin, a respectable writer commenting on Gary Glitter, in the Sunday Times (UK) published last Sunday.
This will make you hot under the collar because the writer says "If we accept that paedophilia is an illness - and there are reasoned voices who say that it is - then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia." see it at :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4575628.ece
And i agree with M Muscat about how the register might be misused. Child sex abusers create fear in us and we'd want to hound them and punish them even if they're not doing any abuse.They'll become scapegoats for frightened parents. It'll be like the Inquisition again. And yet, as a responsible parent i say, what do we do with offenders? Maybe it's time for science to give us answers.
@Therese Vella: You made some very, let me call them, 'Bold' statements. Perhaps you can substantiate your claims by giving us the source (perhaps an internet link). Having said that it is often reported that meddling do-gooders and court proceedings have a much bigger negative impact on some young children than the alleged abuse itself.
No one has mentioned the other abuses, physical and emotional. The Maltese have a penchant for beating their kids.
As for kids being exposed to too much violence and anger on TV, what about roles models who are arrogant brats? Children learn attitudes and values from such programmes.
And the noise levels of the said programmes - just stay in the next room while your kid is watching his TV and wait till the noise freaks you out.
Research shows that pedophilia can be traced to a different type of brain activity than "normal" and is actually present in 25% of adult males. This means that, in time. it will be ruled out as a crime just as homosexuality was. The DSM considers it as a mental disorder but one that cannot be cured.
25%! That's one in four. Scary.
Has anyone seen the film The Woodsman? Please do. It gives an insight on the mind of a young sex offender who goes out on parole after serving his sentence and his massive struggle not to give in to the internal pull towards a little girl.
Good point about the police certificate (kondotta). But does this certificate indicate the crime committed? I ask because I really don't know. If it doesn't, then it is no good in this case for the following reason: People committing a crime should be given a second chance (and employment if they are reformed). However, people who commit crimes of child abuse should still never be employed with children. The risk would be too great.
I know what you meant, but if, as I think it is likely to be, each page of the register has several names on it, the school (or other institution) authority can't help but see the other names.
The only way this can be avoided is to have only one (or a few) person with access to the register to check for anyone querying on an applicant, and not having every school, club etc see all the names in the register.
I wish to assure you that regardless of our disagreements on other blogs, I'm not picking on you. We are basically in agreement, though we might differ on some details.
enough to make me raise an eyebrow. Either the investigative methods in use are seriously biased against the victim or else a lot of people are making false accusations against the Church. The latter situation of course begs the question.
That said in my opinion there are two factors at play here, apart from sensationalism that attract more negative attention towards abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy. The first is that priests are members of an institution that claims moral stewardship, thus making their abuse all the more abhorrent
Secondly is the dismal way in which the Church has so far handled sexual abuse cases, all too often seeking to protect the perpetrator more than the victim, and indeed failing to take appropriate steps to contain perpetrators, such as not reporting to the police. Yes there have been some apologies but that's hardly enough. And let's not forget physical and emotional abuse that also hapens at the hands of members of the Church.
Also in my professional experience sexual abuse accusations are very rarely, if ever made spuriously, yet the Curia Response team has only, although I stand to be corrected on this one, found ground to proceed only in something like 25% of alleged cases. This figure alone is (cont)
What I recommended was, of course, inspecting the particular register entry regarding only "the applicant for the advertised post" not anybody else's
Good point about the condition in the application form. I think that actually, due to data protection, that condition would be legally required. However, I still think Mr Tortell's suggestion is valid, since when checking personally about the individual applicant, the authority (by which I understand you mean the school, club etc authority) could still see the names of non-applicants in the register.
One very useful and unexceptionable measure would be the inclusion of a condition in the forms of application for sensitive posts that would empower that authority to inspect any possible entry in the paedophile register regarding the applicant for the advertised post.
Yes indeed. Two main types of abuse of the register I can think of. The first is hate crimes against perpetrators and the second, due the familial nature of much sexual abuse is revealing the identity of the victims. And Malta being what it is there are bound to be names of people we know on the register. The stigma of being known as a sexual abuser could also actually thwart the attempt to treat offenders. They have been known to strike again out of spite at being ostracised by society.
Actually I find this a very good idea. The only "downside" is that it would certainly require more resources than simply the distribution of a register. However, the upside is that it will close (as much as possible) the doors to abuse.
As far as helping abusers goes, well I am all for it. Considering that a sexual abuser usually has multiple victims, who get progressively younger in age as time goes on, then if we can contain and help these people we are reducing the number of likely victims. A counter-argument to this might be the gut reaction of let "let them burn" or whatever but consider that by helping the abuser we are actually protecting children.
Some may consider this too early and in many ways it is sad that we need to talk to our children about these things. That said prevention is better than cure and its not unknown for infants of 3 months to have been sexually abused. Also consider that 30% of females and about 25% of males have at some point been subject to some sort of sexual abuse. these numbers alone should warn us of the seriousness of the situation.
Another factor is the quality of the relationship betwen caretakers and children. A one off incident that is immediately dealt with need not be too harmful. Its interesting to note that one of the most important factors in recovery from abuse is not necessarily the severity of the abuse but the reaction of those disclosed to. People can work through the abuse in a much shorter time than it takes to come to terms with not being believed by a trusted person such as a parent. Again this is all highly simplified bit I thought some general principles would be useful for the contributors to this blog.
That said there are many other factors to consider such as use of force, coercion, threats etc in which case age gaps become irrelevant.
As far as the register goes I would agree in principle, so long as it is done with strictly controlled access and extremely strict confidentiality.
That said research and experience show quite clearly that the best protection against abuse is education, education then some more education. Children need to be taught from a very young age (3-4)what is right and what is wrong. This is their best protection.
Consent by someone under the 'age of consent' has no validity at law - sexual intercourse with a 15 year old who gave her consent, and why not, even requested the sex, is still 'statutory rape' in most countries. However, I seem to remember that the courts here some months ago simply wrist-slapped the 'statutory rapist' because the under age girl had consented and was a willing partner!
I hope you did not find offense at my previous post, which was not intended as a personal attack. I also follow your posts in the Times blogs, and while I too do not always agree with everything you say (who does?), at least your posts are usually well thought and intelligible.
Regarding minors, I agree that this is a complex issue. Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds, but you have to draw the line somewhere. That is why the law sets an age defining minors. Knowledge of the law means that one would know that sex with people under that age would be illegal. Of course, the court should make some leeway for different cases (like for instance, where an 18 year old dates a 17 year old), and unless I am mistaken, courts usually do take these things into consideration before judgement.
And to be clear, my comment assumed that there is a significant age difference between the two persons.
The age of consent could of course be questioned, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, particularly in view of the problem of teen pregnancies.
The reason why sex with minors (along with indecent fondling by strangers, etc) is a criminal offence is that at such a young age, there is no way that the minor would be giving his/her informed consent (which is what makes it an abuse). That the monor "consented" is no justification at all, as is equally irrelevant the fact that the adult promised payment and the minor accepted.
And yes, fondling the thigh of a minor is a paedophile act.
Meanwhile I think that people on the whole are making too much fuss about sex abuse of children and the punishment or lack of, of perpetrators. Some months ago a foreigner ( not African!) was sent to prison for two or three years for abusing a boy. On reading about it I found out that the female magistrate had given this poor sod this sentence for ''fondling the thigh of a 15 year old young man". Who as it turned out had asked the foreigner for some money and only went to the police after said money was refused! Please stop this witch hunt as now I am getting nervous about touching my own children!
Unless one post was deleted, I only see two posts mentioning priests (and one of them actually speaks favourably of priests). In any case, I agree with you that one must not assume that all or most priests abuse children. However, if anyone would want to discuss exposing priest child abusers, it's still on topic. That said, priests are human too, so one should never generalise.
Notwithstanding, I have no grudges against the Church per se or against our religion as the people who committed those acts were obviously going against the teachings of the Church itself and of Christ.
If there were to be a register available to the general public, i'm sure that some people would take the law in their hands and make life a living hell for child abusers. I imagine people would say: "They deserve it, " but in so doing, we'd be creating new abusers - those who think they have a right to punish child molesters. Think, also, about the molester's family, how would the Maltese treat them? Who knows, if the court and prison do not get to reform wrong-doers, maybe society at large will.
Also, regarding violent cartoons & films, yes - very true. You know what's worse? Not being able to lock the channel even though the TV provider says you can. I am a mother and have tried several times to lock some channels but my son always finds a way to unlock them. I called the company in question but was not given a satisfactory reply. Technology, in my house at least, is letting me down on two accounts: by giving me unwanted rubbish and by making it impossible to shut it out.
1. All institutions dealing with children (including schools, clubs etc).
2. All parents whose children attend such institutions (upon request).
3. The police, social workers and probation officers.
The list could easily be made electronically and made available to the above (and only the above).
What I don't agree with is that such a register be made available to just anyone. People shouldn't leave very young children in the streets unattended anyway.