h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A friend is a primary school deputy headmistress in Falkirk. All the primary schools in the area received a visit from the police this week.
They were advised to:

1) Increase the height of all school fences
2) Increase supervision in the playground during breaks
3) Ensure no child walks home alone (how?)

The school where she works has no funds to pay for any of this and the council have given an initially negative response.

The reason for the police visit? A known paedophile has moved to the area. He is regarded by the police as representing a severe risk. But they can't say who he is or where he lives.

Now, I can't say I know a lot about paedophilia or the law regarding paedophiles, other than that I've heard there is a high risk of paedophiliacs re-offending. As I see it, you can't make a heterosexual man fancy men, you can't make a homosexual man fancy women and you can't make a paedophiliac go against his nature. These people are wired differently IMO and don't regard what they do as wrong.

So what can society do? Do we warn people about them? Do we lock them up? Or do we go for the current approach where the rights of the paedophile outweigh the rights of children?

I didn't read that post (because I had the misfortune of watching 'The Wright Stuff' a couple of days back) and am respondoanswering the title.

1) Most paedophile's are known to, and commit in, family circles.
2) There seems to be an asumption in the popular press that all paedophiles will reoffend.
3) See the Brass Eye special.

Tough issue! Here in the US, most, if not all, states list the names and addresses, and sometimes provide photos of convicted pedophiles, along with the offense of which they've been convicted, on the internet, freely accessible by anyone. Momentum for this was generated after a little girl was murdered by a convicted pedophile who moved in next door, unbeknownst to the girl's family. I personally like this, and I think my feelings are shared by most, but not all USAans. Some violence has been done to a few pedophiles as a result of the information being so readily available to everyone.

I tend to agree with your assertion that pedophile's brains are wired differently from those of non-pedophiles, but I don't agree that they don't regard what they do a being wrong! Not wrong to rape and murder a little girl????!!!!!! Get real! Get serious!! They're pedophiles, not idiots!

Not all paedophiles are murderers though. Many don't see what they do as rape either.

They see it as loving the child. In their mind, they're giving the child love. Its strange and

As for naming - its a risky approach. There's a chance that vigilantism against the person may happen. I'd rather the person was never put in the vicinity of young children in the first place.

I have to admit being torn on this one: between revulsion and the need for even-handed justice.

If the authorities via education, therapy and punishment have done all they can, is it a justifiable risk to allow these people freedom?

Should we treat it as an incurable mental illness and institutionalise them?

What I can't understand,(although I'm not privy to all the facts obviously), is this guy is released into the community but the police assess him as a "serious risk" and feel compelled to warn schools. Is it over-zealous policing?

I thought police were meant to warm the area if a peadaphile came and lived in the area?

I'm a little sceptical on how reformed these kind of people are. Given the current prision situation, I can't imagine much education goes on. Given the appalling state of mental health care - I doubt these people are getting the right type of help.

And then there's the question: Can a lepard change his spots?

Padophiles don't se what they're doing as wrong.
Locking them up doesn't achieve anything.
Telling people that a paedophile is in their locality breeds fear.
Most paedophile actions are in a trusted environment (I speak from experience) not a random bloke down the street.
Making an issue of paedophiles does more harm than good (again I speak from experience)

Adults shouldn't have sex with kids. If adults do have sex with kids the worst thing we can do is make a big deal of it. Kids don't give a toss, it's the adult reaction that makes it a 'bad thing'.

Again, I speak from experience.

depends how old the kids are. I remember reading a few cases in the US about 15 year olds sleeping with older people. The 15 year old is obviously fine with the relationship, but its their parents who are not.

Not much I think you can do - apart from keep offenders from children.

If a 15 year old isn't well versed in the mechanisms of sexual action one has to wonder what the parents were doing. A paedophile couldn't take advantage of a 15 year old because the 15 year old would be sexually mature. If they were emotionally immature one would have to blame the parents.

I'd coninue but I'm busy sneezing.

There is a simple answer - don't free paedophiles.

As Roymondo says most abuse takes place within the home environment, and predatory paedophiles are actually very rare, or that at least is the claim. Having shaken hands with 2 predatory paedophiles, I wonder sometimes.

If the police are concerned enough to be issuing warnings, then it is a fair bet they expect this guy to re-offend, I have to say that I am more concerned about the rights of a child, than the rights of a paedophile, but once the question of whose rights are more important starts to come into play we are wandering into the preserve of the media.

I don't think publicity is the answer, we've all heard about the paedeatrician being attacked in Southampton, it never does to under-estimate the stupidity of the populace.

what about tatoo-ing "Paedo" on their foreheads?

Now that is an interesting idea, and it might even work. They used to brand thieves and murderers and prisoners. Tattooing is not nearly as painful.

It does seem to be that paedophiles tend to offend within the friends/family group - but...

it happens enough that strange children are abused - the murder, from what I can gather is often a "side issue" (either accidental or to make sure the offender can't be identified)

Speaking as the mother of two primary school aged girls I have to say that if I thought the police were concerned enough to warn the Gruesomes' headmistress - I'd be joining (or forming) the group that is putting pressure on having the offender removed from our vicinity. We, and plenty of other people here, have moved to the village precicely because of the child friendly environment and accessible school (and yes, it often involves letting the girls walk a fair portion of their way to school - they are learning independence and responsibility that way)

I have read on several occasions (verious magazines, newspapers and websites - no I can't give references) that paedophiles can't be lumped into one bunch. What we see as a paedophile could just be someone who believes that children reach sexual maturity at, say, 10 or 12, rather than the local age of consent (it differs from country to country). These types of paedophile are equally disgusted as anyone else at someone who has sex with a child under that age.

I'm another believer that your sexuality is a result of your own personal wiring rather than your environment - I am prepared to believe, however, that if you were brought up by a paedophile who convinced you that what s/he was doing is "just love" you might also tend that way. But then you also might not.

er... I appear to be waffling. Suffice to say: I firmly believe that the rights of the children come first. Even while I acklowledge the nimbyism that my post outlines.

I'm inclined think that if someone is released into society then they've served their time and should be treated as such. If they're considered too dangerous for that then they shouldn't be released into society.

Is it possible its not actually considered at all likely that they'd try to snatch a kid, and that the police are trying to cover their arses just in case?

but one kid is one kid too many. For people who have done their time for just about every other crime (against adults) I can see the point. But one kid...

Possibly I'm coming at this from an over-reactive over-protective mummy angle - but... so what? If there is even a smidgeon of doubt - release into society should not be an option.

Or the people releasing him can have him come to live with them.

(or her, of course)

Referring to the original post, I wonder how far police advice is going in the area.
I would have thought that most schools already do a pretty good job of protecting children within the school premises. If the police feel that extra precautions should be taken, more to the point to look at areas where children may be out alone e.g. play areas, routes to shops.

Generally I think people are getting too paranoid about possible danger. Our local (village) Playgroup is wanting to fence their outdoor play area such that nobody can see in. Some mums are anxious about the group walking across the recreation ground to play equipment - in case someone runs up & snatches a child.

I don't agree with naming paedophiles & informing the local residents. We should all anyway be aware of keeping children safe & empowering them to behave in a safe way. There's always the possibilty of a first offence in any community.

Still unsure about how to penalise offenders & the question of release. I suspect it needs more research into how they can be prevented from re-offending.

don't get me wrong - I am totally in disagreement of wrapping children in cotton wool and not letting them experience life.

I am, in fact, an advocate of letting children walk to and from school unsupervised (which happens, from what I have seen, an awful lot more here than in the UK)

We were recently in Sheffield during our Autumn holidays - their kids were all still at school. I was greeted with cries of from my parents, the neighbours and the woman in the paper shop when I sent the gruesomes off to the playpark, with 50p each to buy some sweets at the paper shop. To come back when they were hungry.

They were out for about 2 hours, and people said I was "brave"

What's all that about?

OK, coming from that perspective you might also like to know that the Gruesome Twosome are girls aged 8 and 9.

So... If I KNEW for sure that a paedophile with the MO of having snatched an 8 or 9 year old girl for his own purposes was in that area I would have furnished one of them with a mobile phone too and a warning not to talk to strangers.

But I'd have to know he was there, wouldn't I? And in order to prevent me having kittens if a passerby stopped to say Hi (and probably to ask the Gruesomes why they weren't at school) I'd be better off knowing who it was.

There is being nanny-state cotton-wool minded and there is being sensible, isn't there?

Teasswill: >Still unsure about how to penalise offenders & the question of release. I suspect it needs more research into how they can be prevented from re-offending.<

Castration has been seriously proposed and seems to have much to recommend it, given statistically high recidivism rates of pedophiles. It offers freedom from incarceration for convicted offenders while reducing likelihood that they'll become repeat offenders.

Tattoing someone who has committed a crime such as paedophilia will just allow for vigilantism to occur.

The fact that the police were worried enough to talk to the teachers is worrying in itself - although its not a bad idea for teachers to be always careful. For instance, if a child is waiting for a parent, they should always ensure the child stays inside school grounds til the parent comes. If the child goes home with someone unrecognised, they should check who it is.

Precautionary measures are always the best thing. But it's the idea of paedophiles offending within the family which is the most worrying.