Child abuse scandal is not confined to the catholic church.

Amen to that. Sadly, paedophiles will target those occupations and professions which they know will give them access to children. Let us hope that now selection boards and so on will have rigorous procedures in place to screen these people out. And if that fails - because someone will always slip through the net - those in authority will act swiftly and justly to deal with any abuse. Any cover up, anywhere at all, is disgraceful.

I don't think it actually has anything to do with religion and spirituality.
Its an institutional problem
Unfortunately Child sexual abuse goes on all the time and perpetrators come from every walk of life and always have! We are now much more aware and people are more prepared to talk about it. "Stranger abuse" happens but most sexual abuse is done by family members and family friends!

The big "scandal" is when it is known about but not handled appropriately by those who try to cover it up to preserve the reputation of their organisation or to protect an individual perhaps on the basis of something like an old boy network.
Maybe the persistance of the scandals in Ireland had a lot to do with what, I understand to have been for generations, the generally repressive nature of the church's attitude to anything sexual within the Catholic psyche which made talking about such things impossible.

Agree completely, Nelliemoser, that the real scandal is how badly the Diocese of Chichester handled the accusations. It is appalling that it is the victims who have to pursue justice in a case like this.

As MiceElf said abusers will take any role which give them access to children. The clergy is just one of them. Some go into the caring professions whilst others simply make themselves popular neighbours or even husbands/partners of the mother. Any situation in which they can become trusted. It's then very difficult for the victim to complain.

The scandal is not only that the children were abused but that the institutions hid it to protect their reputation. The people who made the decisions to protect these people should be punished as they were complicit in the crimes by having knowledge of them and not doing anything to protect past, present or future victims.

Bet they won't be, vampire.

I know. It is to society's shame that we care more about the reputation of our institutions than the safety of our most vulnerable members.

I don't think any member of the catholic hierarchy has been charged with any criminal act.

Indeed they haven't. Neither have various high leaders of the scouts or headteachers or sports coaches. In exactly the same way that rail chiefs are not charged with corporate manslaughter or the CEs of construction companies charged with GBH after workplace accidents. Throughout society the powerful flourish and the weak take the flak. It shouldn't be so, but it is.

Well said MiceElf.

It happens in all areas of society, teachers, private instumental teachers, those in charge of children's homes.. IMO the punishment should be harsh and no one should be protected whatever their position. I think it is moving that way at last.

I am very vindictive. I have no problem them being in solitary confinement except that first I think they should spend two minutes alone in a room with some other prisoners who are fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers whilst the prison officers are called away to deal with something. Of course they can't be killed because then someone would have to serve time for murder but they could have an 'accident' or two.

vampire I agree 100% that criminals need to be punished, which should for those who pose a danger to others, be a long prison sentence and with minimum facilities other than that required for rehabilitation.

I do not agree with your view that others should beat a prisoner up. That debases those people.

I have reason to be so vindictive. I don't think it debases people to do what others would like to do. There would be no compunction to take part but I bet there would be a lot of volunteers.

Paedophiles are dispicable creatures who don't deserve to breathe the air that other's breath. They destroy lives and never change no matter how much rehabilitation and therapy they have. At least this way they understand that there will be painful consequences before they get their safe cell.

I think there might be quite a lot of unofficial retribution taking place in prisons, VQ. Both Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley were attacked when the prison officers were 'busy'. I think Ian Brady has been in solitary confinement for his protection throughout his years of imprisonment.
'Proper' criminals hate 'nonces'.

IMO society can be judged by the way it treats its poor, sick, elderly and imprisoned. I would not harm them but I would restrict their priveledges and make their lives uncomfortable.

Then feel free to judge me lacking because I would harm them. Not kill them...that would be too easy....but I would make the suffer.

But like I said before I'm vindictive.

Rule 43 (segregation for their own safety) prisoners are often treated brutally by officers and prisoners. Officers will deliberately 'out' the sex offenders and child killers, then turn a blind eye to assaults.

When I ran a sex offender treatment group on a person wing, one particular officer would shout over the tannoy 'all the nonces to the television room for groupwork now.' The prison officer who had been 'trained' to co-work the programme with me and another therapist would bring in his copy of 'The Sun' and read it throughout the session! Our complaints fell on deaf ears until sex offender treatment became mainstream in prsons and more officers realised that this sort of behaviour only served to reinforce to child abusers that they were not safe in the company of adults. What an own goal!

That should say 'prison wing' not person wing. iPad has a mind of its own!

When we are considering appropriate punishment for sex offenders (vindictive or not) does the actual nature of their offence make a difference?

Two people could be on the sex offender's register but one could be a 20 year old man who had consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, another someone involved in hard core sadistic child pornography.

Surely there's a difference!

Yes, a 20 year old man, if he is assessed as having 'normal' development and the context of his relationship with a 15 year old girl indicates an ongoing relationship that would not necessarily end when she reached the legal age of consent, will not need anything like the same level of treatment as a 20 year old who had coerced a 15 year old by pretending to her that they were boy/girlfriend. Using sadistic 'child pornography' (abusive images of offences against children) would be an aggravating factor indicating the need for extensive treatment. A sex offender who undergoes treatment and intermittent testing for effectiveness of the intervention has to demonstrate a 'treated profile' which means the risk of reoffending is satisfactorily lowered.

A 'normal' boyfriend who does not raise that level of concern would show a treated profile in a very short time, often by having one to one discussions with a psychologist or specialist worker in which he shows whether he has learned what the issues of concern are and can demonstrate he has a realistic and achievable plan to behave responsibly in future.

Am I right in thinking that if a boy of 15 has a sexual relationship with a girl of the same age no action would be taken against him (or her)?

Yes, that's right Greatnan. If it's not abusive, common sense is applied.

I only feel vindictive to those who abuse not young men and women who have boyfriend/girlfriend relationships.

I can understand why so many people feel like you do vampirequeen.