Who was for sale?
Okay, so this story is pretty unedifying all round. But surely, the judge is confused:
Judge Alexander said: “This is not a usual case. You [the defendant] were bought off by the child’s parents, who received £18,000 from you in order not to go to the police.
“That is reprehensible behaviour on their part. But you complied with that position.
Unless I’m missing something, the defendant wasn’t bought off, rather he bought off the parents in return for their silence.
It’s easy to judge here. And I hope that I wouldn’t have taken the 18k. But, but… I don’t know, I wonder if I would have found excuses as to why it was the right thing to do?
Category: Ethics 11 comments »
March 15th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
It appears the judge had his mix all talked up.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Sending a child molestor to jail solves nothing, except to keep him out of circulation. However, in jail he will probably attempt to rape younger prisoners, who are human beings too, although some times that is forgotten. A child molestor should be treated, if possible, and if not, should wear some type of monitoring device. As to accepting the money, why not? That families of victims receive cash seems as rational and as irrational as punishing child molestors and other criminals. Society loves to punish, but is disturbed by (and perhaps secretly envious of) those who calmly pocket the cash.
The harm done to the child will not be repaired by punishing the molestor, while the cash paid to the family may make the child’s future easier and more pleasant.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Funny judge.
What if instead of 18k it was 180k or 1800K etc? For almost all of us, isn’t there a number which would have us cave in? So, it’s immoral, but there are no end of situations you’re going to have to face, the outcome of which might be immoral and in some of them, even knowingly you’re going to pick the convenient, immoral way. When the stakes are reasonable, hopefully we all will act in a reasonable way, but the others . . .? It always depends.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Apparently it was the child who eventually “blew the whistle” in this case after a period of trying to deal with what had happened between him and the molester. Paedophilia is, unlike many other sexual deviations, harmful to other people, and in particular directly to children. I tend to agree that punishing such people with terms of imprisonment seems to serve no good cause. It certainly will not bring about a “cure” or even ensure that further offences will not occur on release from prison. One thing seems certain, and that is, those who unfortunately through no fault of their own, are afflicted with this condition are not fit to live in society as it is presently structured. What to do about this I cannot presently say. However that being the case; in my opinion the parents had a moral and social duty immediately to bring the matter to the attention of, presumably the police. By not doing so they allowed a dangerous person to continue offending and bringing misery to perhaps many other young people. For some, all the money in the world cannot expunge the shame of what they had to endure. To accept money and take no action, is surely tantamount to prostituting the child.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Don,
Read your comment and have a reply.
But first, we weren,t given much to work with. Let’s assume a child was molested and the parents found out, confronted the abuser (why not go directly to the police?) and he (or was it a she, which in my mind might make a difference) buys off the parents. In my above comment I say the amount of money offered might make a difference. The money could be significant to the family, more so than getting vengeance. The harm has been done and as everyone agrees sending the abuser to jail probably won’t change anything. If the option was to take the money or have the creep castrated I’d probably opt for the latter.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:48 am
Ralph,
You are right we were not given much to go on in this case. It was not until I read a report of it in ‘THE TIMES’ of March 16th that I decided to express an opinion. The victim was male aged 4 years. Abuse continued over about a year by a teacher who was a friend of the family. After a period of four years subsequent to the abuse and the cash payment made in respect of it, the child complained, to whom is not made clear.
I do not think this is a matter of revenge more one of common sense. You state that the harm had been done. If this were just a one off case which could not possibly be repeated again or elsewhere I might be inclined to agree that a cash payment may be worth considering. However Paedophilia such as it is, seems to entail over a long period of time repeated attacks on different victims. So the cash payment leaves the Paedophile free to pursue his desires in other directions. It may bring the matter into sharper focus if you substitute compulsive homicidal offender for Paedophile; the sooner they are arrested the better.
The offender in this case, who also had a collection of child pornography on his computer, has not been imprisoned, but put on a three year sex offenders’ treatment programme. You mention castration; unfortunately this does not always dampen sexual ardour or the ability to perform the sex act. I feel sure that conditions like Paedophilia, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, are far deeper embedded in a person than just the genitalia.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Don,
Thanks for the response.
I had a dream which I’m pretty sure came about from this topic. It involved a granddaughter who was missing, partially my fault. I ran around like a madman looking for her. She turned up perfectly fine. What I got out of this is that (my) talk is cheap. A lot more digging into my psyche and probably anyone else’s to get an honest and meaningful answer is needed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I don’t think that it is morally wrong to accept the money, after all the family may have all kinds of justifications for accepting it. If it was to pay for a vital operation for example this would be very difficult to resist. However there is a tremendous satisfaction in being able to refuse such a ‘gift’. It reinforces the fact that some values transcend wealth and is a metaphorical powerful statement against the paedophile’s actions especially if many people know about it. By refusing the money it would solve many ethical dilemmas and the family may experience greater peace of mind in the long term.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Becky: I think it would be morally wrong to accept the money and then betray the man to the police. I cannot get away from the thought that to accept money at all is tantamount to prostituting the child. I believe the main issue here is that the man should have been immediately reported to the police thus ensuring that he was checked before he was able to subject other children to a degrading and psychologically traumatic experience. The poor chap needed treatment not payment, and that I understand is what he is now receiving.
March 28th, 2010 at 7:27 am
To prostitute the child you would have had to have allowed the abuse to take place and then taken the money. I believe this is what is known as ‘causality’, or cause and effect.
The scenario described implies that the abuse took place with noones consent, only the intent of the abuser. the deed was done and some may view the ready cash as a kind of compensation payment. Personally i couldn’t take the money as it would be a horrible reminder of what had happened to the child but it is only money, a form of energy and it could be justifiable to some to take that and use it as they see fit.
March 28th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Re:-Becky Humes 28th March.
Whilst the parents did not agree to the abuse when it came to light they were prepared to overlook it in exchange for money. Is this not to sell something basely for unworthy ends, which is a definition of prostitution? They may well have used the money for the child’s benefit but this was at the expense of other children with whom the abuser was free to continue his practices. This is one of the unworthy consequences of their prostituting action; another being a failure in their duty to the abuser, to ensure he, hopefully, would receive treatment for his condition. In my opinion The actions of the abuser toward their child should have been drawn immediately to the appropriate authorities.
It also occurs to me that if for instance the child perhaps had received a first class and rewarding education by virtue of the money received he would probably have been sickened to the core were he to become aware of the manner in which it was all made possible. Speaking personally I think I would be.