With impeccably spun timing, while Gary Glitter hunkered down at Bangkok airport to avoid police interrogation at Heathrow, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, took to the airwaves yesterday to announce new initiatives to prevent paedophiles from travelling as “sex tourists”. Snatch their passports, she cried. Ground them for five years. Nail their filthy feet to the floor.
Her plans, no doubt, resonated with public opinion. In announcing them, however, she reinforced a largely unacknowledged muddle at the heart of all debate on the subject of paedophilia: is it an illness, or is it a crime?
At the moment, galvanised by the desire to be as punitive as possible, we mix and match. When it suits us to invoke the idea of uncontrollable urges, we do exactly that - look how readily the tabloid press appends “sick!” to any mention of child abuse. On the other hand, when it suits us to argue for the throwing away of keys, as befits any rotten but otherwise common criminal, we do that instead. The truth is, it's time to choose.
If we accept that paedophilia is an illness - and there are reasoned voices who say that it is - then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.
If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.
This has been the fundamental principle of justice, at least within crime and punishment, that has stood us in reasonable stead since Magna Carta. Now, just because one particular category of behaviour is exciting public consciousness - pressing, as it does, all the right buttons such as “sex” and “children” - is collective gut revulsion really enough to challenge copper-bottomed, tried, tested and trusted legal tradition?
We already have 30,000 people on the sex offenders register; people who paid the decreed price for their offence and now will spend the rest of their lives paying again. This sounds as titillatingly vast a number as it is meant to sound - although closer scrutiny shows that it certainly does not mean 30,000 icons of unparalleled evil are out on the loose; among those whose details are kept and lives monitored for ever, a great many are included for nothing more dreadful than slightly under-age, consensual sex. But never mind. Keep the figure high and the hysteria higher still.
Increasingly, on the back of that hysteria, authorities of law and order expect Brownie points for imposing yet more restrictions, clampdowns and controls - and, thanks also to the hysteria, they are permitted to do so without attention being paid to the anomalies thus created.
Take, for instance, a man who had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl or boy. If caught, and especially if force were involved, he would expect a severe sentence - at the end of which, he would emerge into the light of day and have his every movement monitored for the rest of his natural life. And so what, you say, shedding not a tear.
Quite so. But if that same man had broken every bone in that same 14-year-old child's body, he would similarly expect a severe sentence - at the end of which the prison gates would slam behind him and he would be totally free.
By the same token, Gary Glitter might deserve not a jot of our concern. None the less, in his disinclination to chat with a police officer at Heathrow, presumably before being added to the sex offenders register, he does have a point. For had his crime been other than fiddling with little Vietnamese girls, had he instead been convicted and imprisoned for, say, drug smuggling or a gang-related killing spree, he could return to Britain without a shred of further official intervention in his life.
It is, of course, understandable that there is a fear of recidivism; few of us really believe that the Vietnamese girls were Glitter's first victims. But recidivism is rife in almost all crimes, and the law does not allow for the pre-emption of the next occurrence; when a released armed robber returns to his trade, with the accompanying risk to the lives of innocent people, he will be punished after the event, not in case of it.
Further, until that time, he will not be spied upon - in part because we do not have the resources, but in greater part, I fancy, because we would consider perpetual surveillance and control an unacceptable step towards a police state. In short, we sacrifice potential future victims of the armed robber's gun for a system that we find morally more palatable.
Harder to sacrifice Glitter's potential future victims? Of course. Putting children in danger outweighs almost any other consideration - except, perhaps, the danger of the precedent set by singling out one identifiable group and excluding it from the principles of law that apply to all others.
The solution, therefore, is either to declare all those on the sex offenders register to be unwell and apply open-ended treatment, compassionately, according to the severity of their condition - or to declare them criminals, take our several pounds of flesh and let them go. Mad or bad. But we can't, in conscience, have it both ways.
So you pick.
I'm old enough to remember the scourge on homosexuals.This is the worst crime ever they said.,the public wanted them castrated.
You telling me that thai authorities did not know about child prostitution,consider going after those people who did the enticing and earned the cash from holidaymakers.
michael savell, eastbourne, uk
Rob, from Singapore, you say "one of the aspects which holds us apart from animals is being able to restrain ourselves." So enlighten us - what are the other aspects? Sticking to that one only, you have defined a lot of humans as animals and vice versa.
Tony, London,
Carol, the choice you present is a false one.
A crime is a breach of law. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder which, if acted on, can lead to breaking the law. Not all sufferers act on their urges, though. Nor do all paedophilic offenders meet the clinical diagnosis for a disorder.
A Sweeney, Sydney,
This article reflects the mood of the general public in my opinion. People can be high and mighty about offenders getting what they deserve, but when it comes to this sort of crime, they seem to want to add more and more restrictions to these people after they have completed their sentence.
John, Milton Keynes, England
Good article till the last paragraph. But ethical dilemmas are not solved by picking the front-runner in a close race, but by considering all the principles and the results of applying them. Prosecuting Glitter for possessing images protected nobody, but snatching his passport might have.
John Le Geyt, MAIDSTONE, UK
Nick of Camberly says that a leopard never changes it's spots so Glitter should be put in an asylum. The rate of re-offending for sex offenders is less than five per cent so it is obvious that most do not re-offend. Paedophiles can change, and most do. Let's not ignore this reality.
Jerri, Chiang Mai, Thailand
The issue here should be not if someone has these un-natural sexual urges (through no choice of their own) but rather that they act on them. To do so indicates a lack of any social or moral belief system. We must differentiate. The former has no choice in his tastes, the latter is reprehensible.
Andy, Cork, Ireland
Your statement startled me, for one reason;
The connotations of being "bad" imply that, peadophilia, in this case, is something we all really want to do, in some part of our psyche, and the 'paedophile' is 'naughty' and rebellious enough to do it. If this is the case, us humans are truley flawed.
Aruna Muthoo, Colchester,
This is the first article I can recall reading that approaches this difficult subject with intelligence rather than hysteria. I am dismayed to read so many comments that seem to completely miss the point of the article, but then the people of our country are so well drilled in making monsters.
James , Wigan, Lancs
The key issue here is repetition.
Underage consensual sex with a 14 year old , not repeated with another 14 year old in 10 years, is not like molesting an 8 year old.
The first may be criminal, but it's not mental illness. If punished, the slate must be wiped clean.
Define mental illness!
Rhys Jaggar, Leeds, UK
It is both an illness (an inappropriate sexual urge) and a crime (imposition of inappropriate and often forced sexual conduct). Given that it shares both characteristics it is appropriate to use measures which are appropriate to the relevant circumstances . You can be mad and bad!
P Taylor, Rugby,
A victim of a paedophile myself ( I was 4 & 9 at the time), I was upset by the comments that Gary Glitter had 'fiddled' with those young girls. I was 'fiddled' with & at 39 am still dealing with the consequences. I respect the article & can be objective, but object to lessening the impact on lives.
penny, middx,
Why does this have to be so black and white? People who are mentally ill commit many crimes which are also committed by those who are simply bad. These people are assessed on an individual basis, and penalised or helped accordingly, it should be the same in the case of peadophilia
Ceri, Belfast,
Tom Foster is right. This illness/crime split is a false dichotomy.
james, sussex, uk
Excellent article. At last one journalist has the courage to stick her neck out and speak common sense, instead of allowing herself to fall victim to the general hysteria. The mentally ill are not criminals. You are mad OR bad, but never both. A credit to The Times.
J Baker, Singapore, Singapore
Career robbers don't obsessively destroy defenseless children. Whether sexually preying on kids is illness or crime is problematic. Pedophiles (like serial killers) are sociopaths who have forfeited their right to freedom & it's society's job to see that they not be allowed to put children at risk.
Cathy Hansen, Ruckersville, Virginia, USA
If it is an illness, it is not similar to schizophrenia. Surely one of the aspects that holds us apart from animals is being able to restrain ourselves, otherwise rape would not be a crime either. For this reason it is also a crime.
Rob, Singapore,
Please don't dininish the severity of the crime perpetrated on these young girls by calling it 'fiddling'. What exactly do you mean by this and would you have called it 'fiddling' if it happened to your daughters? Put yourself in their position.
Thomas Kerr, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Great article. My vote goes with 'mad' - let's say mentally ill. Often paedophiles cannot understand or accept their actions are wrong in some way. As with many other crimes there is a mental instability. Whilst our "tools" are better than medieval times for these issues there still much to learn
James Stanworth, Tainan, Taiwan
None of the comments so far has addressed the question: what is the difference between paedophilia and violent crime? If we jail someone for five years for a violent crime, and then let them go free, why do we treat paedophiles differently? Perhaps we should be harsher on violent criminals.
Elisabeth, London,
A very well reasoned and argued article and a refreshing change from the hysterical , tub-thumping populism with which jacqui smith hopes to win (much needed) votes. The proposed travel restrictions are dangerous because the state could then apply them to all, for without further legislation.
Bruce, St Martin, France
Same sort of argument about homosexuality until recently.
Paedophiles find pre-pubescent individuals sexually gratifying. I do not.
I cannot imagine how I could chose to feel this way..
If different sexuality is caused by ilness, what ilness causes heterosexuality?
John Bowman, Sarlat, France
He should be punished ten times over, and again !!!!!!!!!!
ian payne, walsall,
The criminal punishment is to deter the others; the treatment of is to protect the innocents.
Of course we can, and should have, it both ways.
Boris, London,
All evil deeds could be considered an "illness". The answer is either hang perpetrators lock them up or treat them. As long as they are separated from people who conform to the law I don't care which. Human rights should always err on the side of the conformers and not aid criminals, as occurs today
David Smith, Stourbridge, UK
I'm afraid this is woefully ignorant of the re-offending rates of sexual predators. Let's not shy away from that term, that is what they are. Would you let your children spend time with this man? Would you be comfortable if he were living on your street or in the vicinity of your child's school?
Katie Hartwill, London,
Good point, if this man had been put in a system and allocated the appropriate treatment earlier he may not have entered Asia to persue his crimes.
Andy, Cheltenham,
I am amazed and upset by this article.....does this woman have children of her own? Why should we differentiate?The crime is evil, be it mad or bad, the worst possible crime and therefore should carry the most severe punishment.A name on a list?No wonder they re-offend if that's the only consequence
claire, malaga, spain
I have greater concerns about public order, and the way by which tabloid newspapers are pursuing paedophilia. It has become a symbol of modern neurotic Britan. Parents are being encouraged to be paranoid and hyper-protective of their offspring, who are condemmed to live isolated lives.
Keith McGill, Wellington, New Zealand
Excellent article. And unsurprising to see several commenters(eg William Ilkley, Mandy Brisbane, et al) completely miss the excellent point that recidivism happens in all crimes, and we don't apply the same measures to potential future victims of armed robberies, or those who beat children up.
Danny Callaghan, London,
Ian
That is a ridiculous comment. An AK47 is not a criminal offence in itself and neither is photographing it or distributing said photo's. Unpallatable as it is, this article is correct and so is Sean.
Tony, Bristol, England
The principle in the article is valid though many would say that paedophile 'criminality' is qualitatively different. That even after their 'punishment' these people statistically pose a much higher risk to a very vulnerable section of the public than the 'man in the street',
P Smith, Rugeley, UK
My son was jailed and is now "a monster" after sending indecent images of children to women he talked to on the internet after becoming addicted to the shock factor. His "controversial" medication was ignored by all though two independent experts (medical and legal) say it was a factor. Life ruined
Name withheld, Cheshire, UK
Ian from Portland, Glitter was never convicted of child sex offences in Britain, indeed he was never even tried for them. He was convicted of possessing pictures of children on a computer.That is like saying that someone who has a picture of a AK47 on their computer should be assumed to be using it.
Ian, Stoke On Trent, England
This is not a binary question of "mad" or "bad" - human behaviour, however distasteful, does not unpack so neatly.
With such a low rehabilitation success rate, it is a "life" sentence, for which the initial period is incarceration followed by close monitoring.
That is not a police state.
Iain , London, UK
Very well said, Sean.
Tikhon Savrasov, london,
If a paedophile asks for help BEFORE committing an act that hurts anyone, give it. If not, they should indeed be doubly punished - for the crime itself, and for knowing they were a danger but not acting. Even if they only know once right at the critical moment, they can choose not to act.
Name withheld, London,
Does anyone think that the fact that Paul Gadd was adopted at birth and never knew his natural parents, is of any relevance?
Peter, Medina Sidonia, Spain
J.Batey, she would probably want an adequate system to control the said paedophile and others to prevent it happening again as she has argued in her article.
David Cooper, Leeds,
Rose, I think your reactionary comment has rather missed the point. I really enjoyed this article-although don't know if I'd be as impartial if I knew a paedophile was living near my children. I think the problem is thought that many simply cannot/refuse to comprehend that what they're do is wrong.
Catherine, London,
What a strange article. The distinction between a criminal act and a mental illness is particularly asinine. If paedophilia is a mental illness it is to the extant that the sufferer finds prepubesecent children sexually attractive. Acting on that attraction is a criminal offence.
Tom Foster, London, UK
he should be given the death penalty, No excuse.
imagine if you were raped by him would you say the punishment is enough? never. He has to be locked up for life or hanged.
meetha
meetha lund, gothenberg, sweden
Perhaps there needs to be a change in the law to re-dress the views on inter-generational sex
Peter, Luton,
There are thousands of people in prison who should be treated for a mental illness but who are not.
CS is suggesting is a get out of jail card for paedophiles, something which is not afforded to others who need it.
They are rightly punished and are rightly kept on record.
kim, london,
A very good article, particularly since some would shut down the "debate" by glibly reverting to the views of the lumpenproletariat. In this and all cases, the rule of law must apply. For the Home Sec to issue a diktat about one case is, I suggest, contrary to due process.
Jack Bloxam, Edinburgh,
I'm not talking specifically about the Gary Glitter case, but in general. The sentence for a crime is not a "price" for the crime. That would imply any crime is ok if you are prepared to accept the sentence. That is just an extension of whatever you can get away with is morally right
Name withheld, Manchester,
If you battered a 14-y-o to the extent that you broke every bone in his body, you'd probably get a life sentence and then, like all lifers, you *would* be monitored officially when you came out of jail.
Lyn, Birmingham,
First they came for the paedophiles. I wasn't a paedophile, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Islamic terrorists. I wasn't an Islamic terrorist, so I said nothing. But when they come for me, using laws & legal precedents designed for paedophiles and terrorists, who will speak up for me?
Sean Hunter, Glasgow,
Here in Australia, lots of us are wondering why he would return to Britain when he knew he would be placed on a sex register. Without an explanation from him, this action alone does not appear to be rational, so he is mad!
F Rasmin, Brisbane, Australia
The great irony is that Thailand refuses to let Glitter stay in their country yet Bangkok is the world's number one destination for paedophiles. They make huge sums of foriegn cash out of the trade. Glitter will end up sueing the press and probably will win a substantial amount.
J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom
Schizophrenia can take away the sufferers ability to control his actions. Paedophilia does not, it just provides an urge to act. They are fundamentally different. No-one with paedophilic desires should be locked up just for having those desires. When they have raped a child it's a different matter.
Steve, Altrincham,
Hi, interesting article, The fact that we have not come up with a definitive answer shows that the law cannot account for this kind of thing. This crime is emotionally charged with revulsion by the collective conscience and as a consequence positions it outside rational application of law. Debate...
mark griffin, Newport, Gwent
The reason Gary Glitter will be hounded when he returns is because it sells papers. I agree with the article. In the last few years we have stopped accepting that the prison sentence is the punishment , and demand a lifetime of misery and unemployment for wrong doers, particularly the wealthy ones,
Jonathan Bagley, manchester,
I wonder how Carol Sarler would feel if it was a child of hers who had been the victim of a paedophile.
J. Batey, Durham, England
a very good article. well said. it is maybe typical of the british nanny state big brother approach that you now have this conundrum. i had not previously considered it but you are correct, if a criminal then he has paid thats it.
peter jones, moscow,
Psychiatrists admit they are sometimes confronted by an individual who can only be described as evil - not criminal, not insane.
Such is the nature of paedophiles.
My opinion : only the death penalty serves the interest of victims - past, present & future.
Research rehabilitation vs recividism!!
Trish, Durban, South Africa
The answer is that our principle of law and the main focus should be on protecting children. Full stop. Whether that means a nice prison, with work, or another place with therapy, or something else, is a separate question.
Michelle R, London, UK
Whether we like it or not this is a sexual orientation - albeit a heinous one. However, as in all aspects of sexuality everyone has a choice whether to control them selves or give in to it. In cases like this then the abuser has a simple choice - learn self control or go to prison.
Denise B, Oldbury, West Midlands
paedophilia can be both and illness and a crime. It can be recognised as a "sickness" and therefore as a society we have to offer support and treatment. However, if that paedophile then decides to trangress the sex offences law he should be punished as a criminal.
g scott, epping, uk
thoughtful piece - thank you for this analysis. the usual loons will display all the hysteria you might expect in the comments - but nice to see a bit of clear eyed analysis for once!
elemjay, London,
Paedophiles are the new witches/papists/Trotskyites/Goldsteiners. Societies need deviants to rail against. Not that I doubt their existence or the measure of their crimes (you see I'm joining in now; Stop it!). They faded into the background in the Al-Quaeda hunt but that proved too obviously bogus.
Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales
To have the urge to commit peodophillia is the sign of a sick mind, to act upon those urges is choice. Crime and punishment is complex but peodophillia is fairly unique in that it is recognised as being incurable, hence the need to monitor those who have offended. Right or wrong, I have no sympathy
Doug Bates, St. Albans,
Paedophillia is a recognised personality disorder. In that sense it is an illness - F65.4 in the ICD-10 Classification (WHO) and is in the same 'class' as pyromania and kleptomania.
It does not make them mad in the legal sense as they are fully aware that what they are doing is wrong.
rj, Jersey,
we know what soicety thinks about glitter and others like him.
we should not 'hound' him but then it's a cheap easy target for news!
It is sickening to see home Sec. Jackie Smith jumping on this bandwagon flexing muscles-if he had money he would be a lord- sort out knife crime-or something plea
mike, oxford, uk
Once again the argument is for the 'doer' not the 'done-by'.Society reacts emotionally when it's offsprings are abused, a natural reaction and whose to say we're wrong. Paedophelia is looked at as the most heinous of actions and the publics reaction is lock them up not cure them, quick and effective
Mike Cole, Hayling Island, England
That said, it does seem to be an anomoly to isolate one type of criminal with an uncontrollable urge to commit an offence from many others who are equally dangerous and driven by their urges but do not commit such emotive crimes.
Unfortunately I don't have the answer.
Good article.
rj, Jersey,
The plain fact is that many Paedophiles are recidivists and will continue to abuse children here and abroad and we have a duty as society to protect these children. Whose human rights are we concerned about?
martin, lyon, france
It's all very well to argue rationally and make a distinction between illness and crime, but paedophilia doesn't seem to work that way. Whether it is a crime or not, the vast majority of paedophiles do reoffend, and the nature of the crime, picking on the most defenceless, must be accounted for.
Elke Smalley, Frankfurt, Germany
Given human diversity, it is inevitable that a small proportion of mankind will have desires that, if acted upon, produce behaviour that is unacceptable to the majority. We may thus categorise the desire as 'mad' and the behaviour as 'bad'. Which is irrelevant. Animals kill the outsider. We don't.
Gordon Cardew, NORWICH, Norfolk
With child sex ,it's a crime for sure , but they can also be ill , so no it's not a choice of mad or bad, they are bad but most likely both.
however the criteria for sex offenders clearly needs some common sense applying.
eric, boston, uk
gary glitter has continuinally committed peadophilia. It wasnt a one off thing. He was found in posession of child pornography in his computer. He went to Southeast asia and did the most despicable things. He he had done it contunually and showed no remorse. To me, he is MAD and BAD
Rose, Bristol,
I PICK
if the subject has committed the crimes tribunals charged him, he is a criminal. he is suffering a sort of illness, but, before, during and after committing the crime the person is lucid
and conscious. absolutely can not compare to a schizophrenic.
indeed I agree to treat them clinically.
edoardo chioni, Rome, ITALY
How can you put a illness like schizophrenia in the same category as paedophilia, gary glitter can sleep and eat and not need medication to survive, schizophrenia is a catch all name for a cluster of mental disorders, when under stress they exibit simptoms that go along with the diagnoses,
Mary, Stockport, Cheshire
Semantics - whether paedophilia is 'crime' or 'illness' - a ridiculous basis on which to decide whether society should protect children from the known dangers. Sometimes freedoms conflict, language is inadequate and justice systems must evolve. Safety of the vulnerable should never be compromised.
Mandy, Brisbane, Australia
Very good article and totaly correct. I do wonder, however, given the false allegations of the Michael Jackson case, about the quality of the Vietnamese court system, and the quality of witnesses against Glitter, considering the sums of money the victims could receive.
Steven, London, UK
This is simply wrong headed. There is no reason to think that free choice of individuals is always acceptable to the rest of society. In that case, the dichotomy between mad & bad is simply false.
william, ilkley,
Excellent article.
Well thought out. Well expressed. Way above average.
Bart, Netherlands,
The desire to have sex with children is a type of sickness (moral? mental?) but how one deals with that desire is an individual choice. If I had the urge to mess with little children & felt I couldn't control myself, I would walk into a police station & say "lock me up." That would be my choice.
Lilly, London, England
You forget that Glitter has been convicted of child sex offences TWICE. After his release in the UK, he chose to reoffend, and commit a crime far more serious than before. Yes give him his freedom in the UK and don't hound him, but also do everything possible to prevent him doing it (yet) again.
Ian, Portland, OR, USA
Very good article and I hope the Government will think about what it says.. Paedophiles need treatment - as do anyone who has an interest in child sex abuse but have not been apprehended and therefore not labelled paedophiles also need treatment - which should be free and available to all
sylvia macpherson, wickford, england
A leopard never changes it's spots, put him in an asylum
nick, Camberley, UK