Another paedophilia scare

The latest paedophilia story has sent the media into a hysterical frenzy.  As usual,  the ritual indignation drowns out any sensible debate on the issue.  The case raises a number of questions.

What did Paul Reeve,  one of 10 or so people on the sex offenders register but not barred from working with children,  actually do?  Why did the police consider that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute him,  yet added his name to the register after cautioning him?

If someone is enough of a danger to the public to have their name put on a register,  why are they not dangerous enough to be prosecuted?  Why is it that a case that would not stand up in court is still enough to condemn someone with the label "sex offender"?

Is it that the police investigations have discovered so may paedophiles that they just don't have the resources to prosecute them all?  Or is it that they have used such a broad definition that it captures anyone who happens to access a child porn site?  Even if there is not enough evidence for a court case,  the police still need to be seen to take action,  so are they prosecuting the sharks and simply adding the minnows to the register to show that they have done something? Does the sex offenders register contain a lot of harmless bozos who were just surfing for porn?

Would it be easy to come across a child pornography site by mistake?  For example,  many people  are turned on by dressing up, or seeing others dressed in school uniforms.  One of our most successful nightclubs in recent years is School Disco,  where adults dress up in school uniforms for sexual excitement.  There are companies that make adult school wear and web sites where you can see young women dressed as schoolgirls.  (No,  I'm not going to give you the links but if you do a quick Google,  you will find plenty of examples.)  This Wikipidia article describes the school uniform fetish as  "one of the most widespread clothing-oriented fetishes worldwide".

So if thousands of people are into this stuff and start searching the net for it,  could some of them come across a real child porn web-site by accident?  How many of the people who love places like School Disco find themselves crossing the line and fantasising about real school-children?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions.  The whole debate about paedophilia is surrounded by media noise and secrecy at the same time.  I still don't see how people can be put on a register as being a danger to children without being convicted.  In many ways, being put on the sex offenders register is worse than a short jail sentence.  The stigma stays with you for life,  yet you can be added to the list without a fair trial.  To me, that doesn't seen right but I admit that I don't know much about this area.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong if someone can explain  the logic to me.

Comments

[malthebof]

I totally agree with your posting. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, then putting someone on a register cannot be justified.
This basis of our legal system must remain innocent until proven guilty.

[Chris]

I believe you have to "accept" a caution, i.e. admit that you did it. This helps the police increase the number of solved crimes without actually punishing people. (Of course the police wouldn't mention the sex offenders register when they were telling him to accept the caution and stay out of court)

[Ken]

Yes, Chris is right, you have to admit the offence to be given a caution - although many blogs I read speculated that people accept these just for the sake of any easy life and keeping out of court (which I can well imagine).

What is more worrying is that in the wake of the Soham murders, it was recommended that police keep records of allegations of sexual abuse against minors for their files, even if insufficient evidence was found to prosecute, etc. That's far more worrying...