The topic for the week is one of those 'what could be easier' questions, except that it's about the people involved.
On one hand, it's thought that after someone's sentenced, they should be given the chance to get on with their life. The other side is the one who will safeguard children, particularly if the individual has been convicted of committing a crime against a child.
I think to me, safety of children always should be first because People can change, but that doesn't mean that they do.
Does not imply that rehabilitation cannot be accomplished.
But where a person has committed a serious sexual offence against a child, society has a responsibility to be very vigilant, no matter how many years have elapsed.
A reflection that I often have is on the measurement of change.
Being sent to prison does not necessarily wipe out the danger one can represent to society, but rather it is a way to legally demonstrate that that danger has been paid. It also doesn't take away the trauma that victims have faced.
The truth is, there are crimes that can cause scars lasting for decades.
Years of rebuilding trust and confidence and a sense of safety are the years that many survivors spend. That's why many people don't want convicted sex offenders to have unrestricted access to kids when they are freed.
I don't believe all cases need to be handled in the same manner.
The justice system has a tendency to deal in categories but humans aren't.
Some criminals really do go to treatment programs, are responsible, and exhibit changed behavior over a period of many years. Others refuse to take any responsibility, admit no guilt, and persist in the "game of control" beyond their prison term.
It's not necessarily a good idea to tackle those two situations as if they were the same.
Which is why I feel it should be based on the professional assessment and continual monitoring of the situation, and not automatic assumptions.
The situation is even more challenging when it involves their own children.
Children want to be connected to their parents - sometimes severing all ties can cause further hurt. But, the first question should never be what the parent wants.
The main question should be "What is safe and healthy for the child?
If the experts decide that it is safe to have contact under very close supervision, then contact may be an option. However, where there is significant risk the child's well-being must prevail over the access of the parent.
I also believe there is an uncomfortable fact to be acknowledged.
Forgiveness and trust are two different things.
Forgiveness can be done by the family, the society or even by the victim themselves. But forgiveness doesn't always bring back trust.
Trust must be earned, and as to child sexual abuse, many will never again feel comfortable giving their trust.
It's a natural reaction.
The consequences are too dire.
There are things a child can do that will affect their life forever if they make one of those "mistakes".
For me it's all about responsibility.
Rehabilitation should be believed which is a principle of a civilized society. Praising and encouraging people to change and improve themselves.
It is also important to acknowledge that the protection of children is one of the most critical societal functions, So I think protection should be the top priority if both of these values are in conflict at any point in the future.
While adults can come back from disappointing, children deserve every possible safeguard we can give them.
As for safety, it's not being cruel, it's being responsible.
Image is Generated With Chatgpt
