The latest issue of Free Life Commentary ("Hunting Paedophiles in England: Present Madness, Future Shame, 17th January 2003) has attracted a number of replies. Normally, I either respond privately to replies or ignore them. Doing the latter is a disgrace for which I have already apologised at some length (see Free Life Commentary, issue 80, 28th November 2002). The former, though, is often a poor use of my readers' time and effort. They reply to a public message and get only a private response.
Therefore, I will begin a new custom, of quoting and responding publicly to the more typical or interesting replies. How I do this the first time does not necessarily set a precedent for the next. But I think it useful to omit passages that I do not think need a formal reply, and to make light and silent corrections to quoted text. Perhaps in future, I will simply quote all postings in full. Perhaps I will simply publish them without a reply. I do not yet know. Certainly, I will only discuss an article once. Unless there is compelling reason to break the rule, I do not have the time to enter into detailed public discussion. I apologise for this, but must eventually draw a line so that I can move to another subject.
I will normally not give the names of correspondents. If any of you, my Dear Readers, wish, however, to be named, please do say in future replies.
First Reply
One of my readers replies as follows:
...I am once again amazed and puzzled by your approach. You appear to argue... that sexual intercourse with children 'ought to be made a crime' and you list reasons why.
What amazes me about your argument is that any rationale as to why you think such acts should be a 'crime'—ie warranting legislation to make it an indictable offence....
However you do not give any reason as far as I can see that such acts are morally wrong. That is they are offensive and wrong for their own sake and not merely for certain pragmatic reasons that may follow as a result.
Is it not morally wrong for intercourse with a 'child' on any grounds, or on any occasion? Furthermore, is it not at the same time an offence against the parents (and family) of any such children? Also, since the family unit and sexual relationships are all part of a God-given order, this would be offensive and sinful in the eyes of God the Creator too.
Please elucidate. Thanks
Second Reply
Another replies as follows:
Transgressing the age of consent (whatever it is) to be an absolute offence, with conviction necessarily involving prison.
...[t]he involvement of the criminal justice system has made a complex and sensitive situation worse. Where the child has been a willing partner and is clearly very fond of the partner, seeing their partner sent to jail for something that was so good, seems highly likely to produce quite severe and long-lasting psychological stresses in the child—and this ignores the effect of prison on the older partner....
I... would suggest that a criminal prosecution should be required to demonstrate 2 things (in addition to sexual activity): the presence of force, either physical or mental, or undue influence; and that the prosecution is in the best interests of the under-age party. In the absence of adequate evidence to this effect, the [Crown Prosecution Service] should refuse to prosecute and the case should be transferred to a 'Child Court', where the principal object is the well-being of the under-age party, rather than the punishment of the older party.
Third Reply
Several years ago I was staying at a ski chalet with two policemen. In the course of dinner time chat they mentioned they mentioned that their wives were employed by the County police force expressly to locate members of the public at random to identify paedophiles via the Internet. At the time it struck me as appallingly agent provocateurish, but since then it has become much worse. I imagine all police forces have a team of such people. Their husbands incidentally virtually frothed at the mouth over the concept of such vicarious paedophilia.
If one follows the logic if there is any of the argument, then how can there be any sense in happily allowing men, and presumably women, to log onto obscene pornographic sites with impunity, and not claim that their actions must make them more inclined to rape? I doubt that it does. You could argue that the sexual relief might indeed make them less likely to do so. Do Jeremy Clarkson's efforts lead to more car crashes?....
You might also have discussed 'abuse' whatever that ridiculously vague word can mean. Clearly the public think that all such identified cases must mean vaginal or anal intercourse, but do they? Has anybody done a little research through court papers to establish a percentage? I remember my grandfather insisting that at the age of four I kissed him goodbye. He had a walrus moustache which was like being scrubbed by a door mat, and I dreaded the time to say goodbye. Was that abuse?
Fourth Reply
[having an age of consent varying according to the moral development of each child] would... be extraordinarily difficult to implement without appalling extension of State power.
...I'm left with the default position of supporting the imposition of arbitrary age limits by State power, and a suspicion that defensible philosophical consistency might only be achieved by having a single legal age of responsibility below which everyone is treated as a child (i.e. unfree) in all matters and above which everyone is treated as fully adult (i.e. free) in all matters, but I'm not at all happy with such a position.
Fifth Reply
What I am curious about is that, according to press reports, over 1,000 people have been arrested for downloading child sex images, a crime whatever the excuse. This has included 'police officers, social workers, judges, probation officers, teachers and politicians. Yet only 30 or so have been arrested. I wonder how decisions will be made about who will be and who will not be prosecuted are being made.
Responses
I will begin with the first reply, which is the most critical. I do not think we shall agree on how to regard the legal status of moral judgements, so I will do no more than outline my own view, and let the disagreement stand.
That an act is morally wrong is no reason in itself for passing laws against it. The purpose of the criminal law is not to enforce morality, but to punish and therefore deter attacks on life and property. Given a framework of just laws—which we do not currently have, it is to be noted—all criminal acts will also be immoral. But not all immoral acts will be illegal. For this reason, I do not need to say whether I think having sex with children is in itself immoral. Even if I thought it was, it would not automatically follow for me that there should be laws against it. That is why I took the approach I did. If having sex with children ought to be made illegal, it must first be shown to involve harms that can be reasonably quantified.
Turning to the use of a religious argument, it may be that having sex with children is a breach of the divine order. But, again, this is no reason for the criminal law to intervene. All offences against God will doubtless be punished eventually by God acting in His capacity as supreme lawgiver and judge. But such offences, I repeat, should only come within the scope of human law when they can be shown to produce quantifiable harm to the lives and property of other individuals, or clear and immediate harm to the existence of the whole community.
The second reply makes a point that I should have made myself—or that I did make, but not explicitly. This is that not every case of child sex can meaningfully be called an assault. Quite often, the child itself makes advances, and the adult is guilty at best of weakness, not of rape or even seduction. Very often, there may have been a seduction. Even here, though, the consequences of intervening may be far worse than of leaving alone. Again, I should have said something rude about the "child welfare" agencies. These have acquired the most terrifying and unaccountable powers to destroy family life and to drive what would might otherwise be moderately unhappy children into the blackest despair. It is not enough to say that the powers of these agencies are open to abuse. The powers themselves are an abuse.
Of course, these agencies are bureaucratic institutions, and are subject to the same general laws of expansion as any other. Those employed within them have an interest in believing—and getting others to believe—whatever will enlarge their status and income. Therefore the continual hysteria about offences that are never clearly defined. Here, I can only refer my readers to the final paragraph of the third reply. Words are continually given the blackest colouring and then applied to actions that often are barely grey. This is to be expected. What would be the fate of these institutions if it became generally accepted that hardly anyone actually needed their services?
My response to the second reply is not to impose another set of bureaucratic procedures in this most delicate area—even if it is a better one than we presently have. I would simply have the authorities end their inquisition. By all means, let them intervene in cases where obvious and indeed scandalous harm is being caused - but not otherwise. We do not live in a perfect world; and after two centuries of failed attempts to make it that, we should accept that living with imperfection is often the least bad option available to us. Let us end the inquisition. Some children will doubtless be made more unhappy than they would otherwise have been, had there been some scheme of pre-emptive intervention. But millions more will be happier and healthier not to have their elders reduced to nervous wrecks every time a kiss or embrace is offered.
I go further. Whenever institutions are established that bring strangers into close and loosely supervised contact with children, these will inevitably attract the worst sort of sexual predators. Look at the reference made in the fifth reply to all those people in positions of authority. I once had dinner with a former Special Branch officer who had been assigned to minding politicians. He assured me that a certain Member of Parliament—still alive, and so not safely to be named—routinely used the boys' home in his constituency as a brothel. He got the choicest boys, and in return ensured protection to the management. I also know that the Palace of Westminster is crawling with prostitutes of all ages. Of course, these important men will never normally be prosecuted. They are too well protected by virtue of their positions and contacts.
The opening paragraphs of the third reply need no explaining. At the very least, what a waste of the taxpayers' money this sort of operation represents. As to the fourth reply, I wholly agree with it. As said, a perfect world is not on offer. We need to draw a line somewhere to mark a different legal status for adults and children. Wherever it is drawn, there will be injustice and at best absurdity. We can simply hope to draw a line that minimises the injustice and absurdity. I said in my original article that I have a vague suspicion that 14 might be about that age. But this is not something I will press, because I do not really know.
There are my responses. If I have not replied in full detail, at least I have quoted extensively from the replies to my original article—making about a third of the present article—and so my defects can be seen. I am inclined to write my next article about the general status of children. Doubtless, that also will draw many replies. Then again, I may write about something else entirely.