PAEDOPHILIA is a terrible crime, regardless of whether one perceives it as arising from a psychiatric disorder. Such attempts at mitigating sexual abuse of children by adults are contemptible, for the outcome is indisputably traumatic for the child victim. Therefore, when law enforcement agencies find it difficult to measure the prevalence of the problem in the country because of the absence of a legal definition for the term “paedophile”, this is, at best, disingenuous and at worst, a dereliction of duty. For, in countries where it has long been treated as a crime, despite its psychiatric links, prosecution has proceeded unhindered. Courts in the United Kingdom, for example, seek to establish aggravating and mitigating circumstances to justify judgments. Indeed, insanity has allowed for leniency towards paedophiles but history has shown that once released, repeat offences are inevitable, and sometimes escalate to murder.
It is then unreasonable to assert that confusion for want of a legal definition can result in near paralysis, albeit with regard to data collection. The fear is this confusion will spill over to enforcement. For example, wondering if “disseminating, downloading and collecting child pornography” should be considered paedophilic activities. Surely, the assumption is that there should not be child pornography at all. The production of it is a crime and, necessarily, it follows that possession, distribution and downloading such illicit material is a crime. It does not matter whether it is intended to feed salacious, base fantasies. Would it not be the same as possessing stolen or contraband items? Possession is here indisputably illegal.
As to the victim’s age, the excuse is simply lame. All sexual abuse, including touching a young child inappropriately, is forbidden by law. If the predator is a juvenile as well, it remains a crime to rape. Then, there is the country’s legal age of consent, which does not comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is wrong for any adult to cite difficulties in definition as an excuse. Paedophilia is an odious perversion. Even claiming it, in mitigation, to be a psychiatric or psychological disorder, does not in any way excuse the accused. There can be no reason for treating the crime with less than earnest conviction. The Dark Ages have long gone and, furthermore, science has shown that children are not physiologically nor mentally designed for sex. That adult deviance should in any way justify sexual assaults on children is simply erroneous. When paedophiles are guilty but plead insanity, then put them in an insane asylum. If the law deems it fit to protect the public from substance abuse by putting to death drug traffickers, why is not the same degree of consideration applicable where child safety and welfare are concerned?