Interestingly, in this case the defendant was "only" given 7 years (ie will serve a maximum of 3 1/2) despite the fact that "on the face of it" it is a more serious case, which shows the value of pre-sentence reports.

Timothy

I think you have things turned around somewhat. It is probably true that most abusers have been abused. It is certainly not true that most abused become abusers.

Statistics about the frequency of abuse are rather dodgy. I know a woman who is a clinical psychologist who specializes in sexual abuse. IIRC, she told me that something on the order of 1/4 of woman have been sexually abused and something on the order of 1/10 boys have been sexually abused.

Yes, the scars do last forever. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can't live relatively happy, productive lives.

It is my impression that in the UK, a "life" sentence can result in release in 15 years or less. Is that true?

Here in the colonies, at least in my state, a life sentence is simply that, life behind bars with no parole: the only way out is in a box.

Please note that I made that very point in my post. Of course there are many counter examples, but they are noteworthy because they are not the norm.

Timothy

Timothy:

I disagree. We tend not to see the counter examples because we don't know they were abused in the first place. Sexual abuse is grossly under reported and many survivors do live happy and productive lives.

I agree that we see only the tip of the iceberg, but that goes for both the preceding generation as well as the one that follows.

Let's face it, the stats aren't conclusive either way, and can easily be twisted to confuse cause and effect. But whatever the majority, we both agree on two things:

1) It is perfectly possible and reasonably common that abused people go on to have healthy and happy lives.

2) It is unfortunately also common for those who are abused to go on to abuse others in a similar manner.

I guess it doesn't matter whether it is 70/30 or 30/70, there's a lot of both.

I worry for and about the second bunch.

Timothy

On a separate, but related matter, whilst the government is keen to limit access airside to all those with any sort of regular criminal past (theft, tax fiddling! etc), it doesn't seem quite so fussed about pedophiles.

One such pedophile pilot, recently convicted of making/possessing pornographic images of children, resigned immediately following his guilty plea and sentencing. He had until that time been working for a major British airline. A few months later, however, he is known to have been employed by another British company in a similar role. One can only assume that his conviction and entry onto the sex offenders register is of no consequence as far as obtaining a CRC at basic level. Should someone with this history be permitted to work in a capacity where there will inevitably be the potential for contact with minors and which (rightly or wrongly) is generally regarded by the public as respectable and trustworthy?

Funny old world :-(

concernedone

Although it is, of course, a worry that a paedophile should ever, under any circumstances, be near children unsupervised, you can take some comfort from the fact that nearly all paedophilia follows an extensive period of grooming, over several encounters, during which the child is made to feel safe with the paedophile, and the paedophile persuades the child that it's "their little secret."

Although brutal attacks on random children on first meeting do take place, they are very rare and are perpetrated by a different personality type to the "groomers." (odd though it may seem the groomers, on the whole, seem to be very gentle, non-violent types.)

All I am saying is that you have to multiply the risk of a paedophile being employed in a position where he doesn't have ongoing exposure to the same child with the small risk that that particular one is an attacker rather than a persuader.

Timothy