Mick Hartley

Carol Sarler in the Times argues that we should make up our minds whether to treat paedophiles, like Gary Glitter, as criminals or as mentally ill:

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?

But this is surely a false distinction. In so far as an action is viewed within a moral framework and the perpetrator as an active and responsible agent, then the action can be judged good or bad. A different framework, as used in the increasingly powerful and important psychological/neurological world, looks at the reasons behind the actions, and the degree to which people are, as it were, at the mercy of forces beyond their control. Inevitably the two views interact. The moral everyday view is essential for the workings of justice in a liberal society. The psychotherapeutic view – badly discredited by its misuses in, for instance, the Soviet Union – nevertheless has its place in assigning responsibility in certain situations: the generally-accepted cases of schizophrenia, for instance, where the person is deemed not responsible for their actions. The more extreme proponents of the psychotherapeutic view might argue that, when it comes right down to it, all actions are determined by factors we can't control, and the more we find out about human psychology, the more we'll discard the old "moral" point of view. There are very good reasons, however, for rejecting such a vision. As I said, a liberal society just can't function like that.

So, where does paedophilia come in? Well, it's hardly a choice that anyone makes, to be sexually attracted to children – but then again, they can choose whether or not to act on those desires. There are no cures for it, which makes its categorisation as an illness less plausible. It's a pathological condition, basically. We also know that paedophiles have a tendency to view their problem as no problem at all, and to believe that they're introducing willing children to the joys of sexual activity – to be, in a word, predatory.

So what to do? Well, we struggle on as best we can. Paedophilia is, no doubt rightly, viewed with particular horror, and most people would prefer that individuals like Gary Glitter be permanently monitored, yet it's no doubt also the case that others – those, say, who've slept with 14-year-olds in the belief that they were older – may be unfairly targeted. It's a complex business – not helped, I think, by simplistic distinctions between "mad" and "bad".

Update: there's also, I'm sure, an unspoken assumption behind articles such as this in the broadsheets, about paedophilia: they want to distinguish themselves from the tabloids. Illness, then, is somehow a more sophisticated label than the crude demonisation of the Sun or the Mail and their "evil perverts" language, and offers the hope of some kind of redemption. While we can happily sneer at the crowds targeting paediatricians, or laugh along with Chris Morris, I don't think we want to dismiss the views of the simple-minded proles too quickly.