Thursday 17 February 2011

Appealing Perverts

So there is a fuss, because the Judges have ruled that sex offenders must be allowed to appeal against their lifetime inclusion on the sex offenders register.  The Home Secretary will comply, although she claims not to want to, so will make the right as limited as possible.  The People are in uproar, apparently (or it may just be the Mail, it's difficult to tell).

The thing is, the Judges are absolutely right.  Those who object point to the abhorrence of allowing people who  have committed appalling acts their full freedoms, of allowing them to move freely and undetected in our society.  They point out that these people rarely reform, that there is something seriously (and often irrevocably) wrong in their make-up. And they are right, too.

Where the objections to this move fall down, in my opinion, is that they fail to note the non-sequitor in holding up these cases to show that no-one on the sex offenders register should ever be allowed off it.  There are two reasons.  First, and foremost, is the objection that the criteria for inclusion on the register are far wider than just these singularly disgusting individuals.  As we have seen, they are wide enough to include a teenager who sleeps with their teenage crush a little earlier than is legal.  It is not enough to argue that the criteria should be adjusted to exclude such "deserving" (or maybe, less undeserving) cases; it would be an impossible task to set out a perfect distinguishing line.  There needs to be a mechanism for looking at the offender later in their life and asking why they were convicted, whether they are (genuinely) still a risk, and whether the limits on their freedom imposed by inclusion on the register are still necessary.

The second reason is a more philosophical one.  I know, and understand, that these people rarely reform.  But there is a world of difference between rarely reforming and never reforming.  If we accept that there is a non-zero possibility that these people will one day reform their soul, understand that what they did was wrong, and find the personal strength to change, then we must allow a route for them to demonstrate that this has happened. By all means set a very high standard of proof indeed (although not an impossible one).

If you do not accept this, if you take the view that there is no possibility of reform whatsoever (which, as an aside, would imply that you take a non-Christian outlook on life), then by all means object to the possibility of release from the Register.  However, logically speaking, you should also object to them ever being released from prison.  In practice, no official register is ever going to completely prevent a predatory rapist or paedophile from meeting up with women and children, so if nothing can be done to change them then there is only one option.

The right outcome, therefore, is to allow someone's inclusion on the register to be reviewed, but (given that the known likelihood of reform is low) to set a very high bar indeed for any such applications, and to take into account the nature of the original offence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript:
The reason most of the Twitter links in the above post don't work is that @Wokingite/@Spiderplantblog received a number of death threats following the opinions she expressed.  Now, I disagree with her on this subject, as is clear from the above, but she was speaking from the heart and simply saying what most of us think.  Certainly, the above is my considered view whereas my gut reaction is much closer to hers.  She had an absolute right to express them, and to threaten her for her opinions is contemptible.


Voltaire was spot on, and it is a great shame that most people will have no idea what I mean by that reference.

29 comments:

  1. "The right outcome, therefore, is to allow someone's inclusion on the register to be reviewed, but (given that the known likelihood of reform is low) to set a very high bar indeed for any such applications, and to take into account the nature of the original offence."

    Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P, I think your first argument makes sense, but your second does not:

    I know, and understand, that these people rarely reform.

    I am unsure of the truth of this. There will be those who commit one single crime, are imprisoned and never do it again. I expect such persons are not unusual, particularly amongst adults who have a sexual relationship (=abuse) with a child from their mid-teens onwards. Other cultures have regarded such relationships as entirely normal.

    The trouble is, until someone is dead, it is hard to see whether someone has really reformed. When the sex abuse cases came out last year, the Catholic press ran various articles on the causes of paedophilia. It's pretty clear that our understanding of this problem is contradictory and inadequate. Some regarding paedophilia as a set sexual orientation, as fixed as heterosexuality. Others have seen the problem elsewhere.

    The difficulty here then is that as we do not understand this condition, it is hard to see how we can be sufficiently morally sure that the person is no longer a threat.

    If you do not accept this, if you take the view that there is no possibility of reform whatsoever (which, as an aside, would imply that you take a non-Christian outlook on life)

    That makes it sound like it is a moral problem. My suspicion is that it is more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Julia.

    Albert - I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that I'm wrong to suggest that reform is possible, or to suggest that it is rare.

    I start from the point of view that we are all morally capable of realising that we have transgressed and deciding to resist temptation in the future. The moral aspect of the problem lies not in the existence of temptation, but in the inability to resist it. We all face temptations (myself included, although emphatically not of this type) and must all learn to resist whatever temptation it is that distracts us. I find it philosophically difficult to accept that there is a class of people with a temptation that they are humanly incapable of resisting.

    To this possibility of reform, I add first the widely-published view that those convicted of the most serious sex offences, especially those involving children, do find it immensely difficult to change their ways. Now, I do not know myself whether this is true, so have to take this on trust (which is slightly out of character for me, but I have no insight, knowledge, or ability to question it). Second, I add the practical point that it will be very difficult indeed to establish whether a person has truly reformed. OK, they may say that they have, but lying and deception are often an integral part of the original offence - so something more is needed. Offhand, I have no idea how one might prove this, but it would be quite arrogant of me to extrapolate from my inability to think of a way to do this, to the conclusion that no-one could ever devise an adequate way.

    So I reach the conclusion that some form of appeal should be possible, but that the bar should be set exceptionally high.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P, yes I can see that what I wrote was not sufficiently clear. The problem I think is this: the harm done to a child by a paedophile is so great and the recidivistic behaviour of the perpetrators so common, that the burden fo proof rests massively on those who wish to remove people from the register. I think we need to know the possibility of a successful test first before we can talk about removing people from the register. The fact that hindsight shows reform is more common than we might think is not a sufficient reason, on a case by case basis to change the present position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. XX (which, as an aside, would imply that you take a non-Christian outlook on life)XX

    So what?

    You think that bunch of choir boy botherers are the ONLY Moral arbiter in the world?

    "Wolfsheading" and the "Blood eagle" work perfectly for this kind of scum. And NO. A leopard does NOT change it's spots.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FT

    You think that bunch of choir boy botherers

    You think that's a fair or truthful description of the Christian tradition? And even if it were, is a mere ad hominem the mode of debate of a reasonable man?

    ReplyDelete
  7. the burden of proof rests massively on those who wish to remove people from the register.

    I'd agree wholeheartedly.

    I think we need to know the possibility of a successful test first before we can talk about removing people from the register.

    Well, at the moment there is no incentive to discover a test of this type. If a valid test might allow people to be released, if they satisfied it, then people would be motivated to carry out the research and develop one. So it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

    You think that bunch of choir boy botherers are the ONLY Moral arbiter in the world?

    No, I don't, nor did I say that. I said that the view was, in my opinion, incompatible with a Christian outlook. Nothing in that sentence implies that a Christian outlook is the only one. Calm down, read the sentence again.

    As for your two suggestions, I have no idea what "wolfsheading" is, and have no desire to find out. Medieval-style torture is not appropriate for anyone, regardless of what they have done. I will never be persuaded that their crimes are so heinous that I should drag myself down to their moral level.

    I will not become evil in the name of stamping out evilness. If you would, then shame on you.



    As for "choir boy botherers", I think Albert has dealt with that one. The point of this post was that we get nowhere by assuming that all members of a group are the same as a few individuals that we have arbitrarily selected from it in order to support our argument. You've just done exactly that, so I'm guessing the point went straight over your head.

    Do feel free to prove otherwise, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well said P. Among the things that make it hard for paedophile to reform is that when we degrade others, we always degrade ourselves. That is why it is absurd to deal with evil by evil. Cf. the Psalm which says "Those who make them are like unto them."

    ReplyDelete
  9. XX patently said...

    I have no idea what "wolfsheading" is, and have no desire to find out. Medieval-style torture is not appropriate for anyone, XX

    NOT "torture".

    "Outlawing" would be another name.

    No person may give food, aid, shelter, comfort, or even company to a "Wolfshead".

    They are literaly "outcast".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Witholding comfort & company; fine by me.

    Withholding food; accepted as a form of torture.

    Witholding aid & shelter; on the borderline, dependent on the context and details.

    The "Blood Eagle"; clear, serious, and utter degrading torture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No person may give food, aid, shelter, comfort, or even company to a "Wolfshead".

    What is the aim of such treatment? As far as I can see, "outcasting" someone simply facilitates his being pushed annonymously, into a new community, where excused from the moral need to take responbility for his actions by the assumption that "a leopard never changes his spots", he will certainly abuse again.

    Besides, if "a leopard never changes his spots" it is hard to justify the moral indignation against a paedophile that you show. After all, if he commits his crimes out of some sort of necessity, he has ceased to be a moral agent. And if that is the case, your actions (but not his) are gravely unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I certainly can't see what all the fuss and bother was about. My thoughts on reading the reactions to this judgement were that those making public statements on the subject (and that includes the Home Secretary), simply hadn't understood what the judges had said which, by my understanding, was that it was wrong not to allow any possibility of an appeal.
    Surely these people must realize that there is a vast difference between allowing someone to appeal and that appeal being upheld.
    To refuse the possibility of any appeal means that all those involved in the justice process were 100% correct in every decision that they made and that every circumstance remains unchanged. Surely it is reasonable to allow a criminal to go before a court, even if only to hear the court say that in their view absolutely nothing has changed and that the appeal is disallowed.
    A lot of fuss about nothing at this time!

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ English Pensioner,

    If I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am, as I understand it, the ECHR has indicated that after fifteen years on the Register, the entry should be reviewed, i.e. can be subject to appeal.

    Now Patently insists on there being a high threshold, but I pose the question that what more can be shown after fifteen years than that the individual has a clean record. As I understand it, they can test for the presence of inappropriate responses but these tests could never guarantee recidivism will not occur. Therefore to set a very high bar does not appear feasible. Furthermore, by opening the window ajar and the legal expertise of these offenders, allegations of discrimination and violation of human rights are going to mount a challenges to the appeal procedure.

    "Blood Eagle" is murder, not torture, P. To what depths did this blog go while I was away?

    But, as FT demonstrated (I know I harp on about this, but because of evidential difficulties, those in control ignore it), emotional damage inflicted by others is inadequately recognised in law. People live with GBH internal scars every day of their lives with no opportunity for redress. Emotional damage should be a tort like nervous shock with a high threshold of proof. If they were subject to these civil actions beyond a three year limitation period, perhaps sex offenders could appreciate how they have seriously 'screwed up' victims' lives; preventing them from having a healthy approach to sex, curtailing their childhoods, preventing them from trusting others, presenting them with dilemmas and anguish they have an inability to resolve and giving them guilt feelings in the relationships with their own children. I could continue, but as I won't, please dwell on the fact that the victims have to live the rest of their lives with the knowledge of what happened to them and how many may not have believed them at the time or turned a blind eye. Yet sex offenders may soon walk away fifteen years later. Is the fact that occasionally a perpetrator of such a crime is less than eighteen years old when he commits the crime really a mitigating factor to allow appeals if such behaviour is a character trait? The age limit to define under age sex is there for good reason and young girls and boys need more protection than old men in my opinion.

    The Register is to protect the Public. Is any miscarriage of justice in that there is an erroneous entry so grave as to warrant an automatic review at fifteen years? It all seems far too lenient to me, and bizarrely (well, not so bizarrely) I agree with Albert in many respects.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If they were subject to these civil actions beyond a three year limitation period, perhaps sex offenders could appreciate how they have seriously 'screwed up' victims' live

    A very good idea.

    what more can be shown after fifteen years than that the individual has a clean record

    That, of itself, would not be enough for me. That would have proven that the individual was not a risk (/not caught) while under the control imposed by the Register. They need to prove they are safe without those controls.

    TBH, I don't know how you would prove it. But at the moment (as I discussed with Albert) there is no incentive to find a way. If we find out how to show they are safe, then we might find out how to tell that they are dangerous - or what made them dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  15. and bizarrely (well, not so bizarrely) I agree with Albert in many respects

    What so bizarre (or not so bizarre) about agreeing with Albert?

    ReplyDelete
  16. She is placing herself at risk of being put on the Register of People Who Have Agreed With Albert.

    Worse still, once on, there is no way off the Register.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Patently,

    It is the dangerous ones that tell you they are not dangerous that are the dangerous ones. Ipso facto. I agree a fifteen year clean record is not enough, but what more can they reasonably demand? As you point out, how can they prove they are safe without those controls? On these grounds, should there be the right to appeal? I suspect that it will come down to the seriousness of the offence but I am not sure give the nature of these paedophiles, that it should. You are right; there is no perfect distinguishing line, so should they attempt to find one if they cannot even define what cautious approach is? I doubt the ECHR had this right as lip service undermines the credibility of the system.

    Albert,

    Rofl!

    Well, I could say that the underlying foundation of many of your views arise from a belief system for which there is scant evidence. I am not saying this is wrong in any way but this, in itself, is 'strikingly unconventional' in our secular society. :-)

    ::[Popcorn anyone?]::

    ReplyDelete
  18. At the risk of rising to the bait (you'd be disappointed and probably worried about me if I didn't), I would say there is endless evidence for theism, and there is literally no evidence for the fundamental meatphysical claim entailed by atheism (even if it is true, there's still no evidence for it). It's just that whereas theism is upfront about it's metaphysical claims, atheism isn't and most people these days do not know enough about theism to know what atheism entails. Secularism (as an ideology) meanwhile, is just the latest manifestation of the degenerate medieval philosophical system known as nominalism. Recognise the errors of nominalism and you'll see God in everything.

    ReplyDelete
  19. P.S. P, what happened to your extremely interesting post about cars?

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are right; there is no perfect distinguishing line, so should they attempt to find one if they cannot even define what cautious approach is?

    Is it not exactly these cases that the Courts are for? Where Parliament cannot hope to define the line, but can only set the hurdle that must be cleared (i.e. to prove they are no longer a risk)?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Albert - I deleted it. I do have standards... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I deleted it. I do have standards... ;-)

    Oh dear. I was only joking when I said it was dull - it was dull, but I was only joking in saying so - because you had started by saying it would be dull for types like me who think cars are dull anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is it not exactly these cases that the Courts are for?

    I don't think courts have a good track record in that sort of thing - especially when someone waves a banner with "human rights" on it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Albert

    Recognise the errors of nominalism and you'll see God in everything. Those two statements could be reversed. It is expedient for Government not recognise religion, and so everyone is treated in the same manner.

    ..theism is upfront about its metaphysical claims. Yes, 'claims'. Evidence?

    .. degenerate medieval philosophical system Can you elucidate on 'degenerate' and 'medieval' as I suspect you may be letting emotion enter the argument.

    Enough. I am not convinced about endless events being evidence of atheism or theism. They happen; the good, the bad and the ugly.

    @patently

    Precisely, but the Courts have to be seen to rely, quite properly, on expert advice. Have the experts dictated a review after 15 years? The experts appear to be the ones that claim offenders do not be 'cured'. Experts are not always reliable and those that are not reliable become known to the 'wrong' parties and/or Panels become disillusioned by not making decisions. The cost of all this too. Let's all throw our hands up and declare "The difficulty here then is that as we do not understand this condition, it is hard to see how we can be sufficiently morally sure that the person is no longer a threat." and go home.

    ReplyDelete
  25. M - that's an argument for reforming the Court system, not for disallowing appeals on a subject that the Courts currently find difficult.

    Anyway, an expert who claimed that the subject was now safe would be subject to cross-examination in the light of a differing opinion - exactly what the Courts are meant to be good at.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Measured,

    Can you elucidate on 'degenerate' and 'medieval' as I suspect you may be letting emotion enter the argument.

    Considering that I think the high point in philosophy was the 13th Century, I don't think I was being disparaging on that one. Nominalism really arises in the teaching of William of Ockham 1288 – c. 1348) and is therefore Medieval. As for "degenerate", nominalism is literally degenerate since it denies genus.

    I am not convinced about endless events being evidence of atheism or theism.

    I'm not talking about events, I'm talking about the classical arguments for theism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Albert,

    I am in a less combative mood now that I have eaten and broken the backbone of the case I am writing up. Oh, yes, backbones. Your point about denying genus, as in evolution, is inspired, though possibly not precisely what you originally intended or how I read it. It was good though.

    I cannot disagree with Medieval.

    Are we back to St Aquinas for classical arguments for theism? I suspect the Bible is fairly central to the argument.

    Patently,

    The parties are instructed to agree to instruct a joint expert as this saves on the Court's time and money. The Court Service is in an invidious position and possibly does not have adequate resources to resolve all the conflicts that occur fairly.

    This is a classic Hart Devlin debate, an individual's interests vs. society's at large.

    I am not around tomorrow so have fun without me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Your point about denying genus, as in evolution, is inspired, though possibly not precisely what you originally intended or how I read it. It was good though.

    That's not precisely what I meant this time either, but I do admit the degenerate pun came later. I believe nominalism is genuinely degenerate when it comes to human thought.

    Are we back to St Aquinas for classical arguments for theism?

    Yes, though not only him.

    I suspect the Bible is fairly central to the argument.

    No, the Bible doesn't feature. See here. Also I would include at least one Islamic argument, as well as non-classical arguments.

    ReplyDelete