A SECOND CHANCE
Whilst reading The Guardian Online this morning, I came across a rather interesting article. It's about rehabilitating paedophiles. In 2002, the Home Office set up three pilot schemes based on a similar model from Canada.
The whole idea behind the project is that we should stop dehumanizing these offenders and that any effort is a good effort, if we can, to a certain extent, stop the offenders from committing the crime again.
I have mixed feeling about the program. Though I cannot discount the merit of such effort, I can't seem to erase the images of those sexually abused children from my head. These kids are scarred for life! Should we not put more effort and time on the children instead? To hell with these sick, psychotic mother#$%&*@!!! What about the victims???
But on a more assertive plateau, I have to admit that I am a firm believer of preventive action. It's all about mitigating risks. Interestingly enough, one of the volunteers talked about "restorative justice". It means that the community accepts a responsibility for the reintegration of offenders - on moral grounds and to prevent further victims, some of whom could themselves become paedophiles. "If I can stop anybody harming a child, then that's of value to me," said the volunteer.
If we think about it, we neither have the resources nor the time to monitor every offender and potential offender. And let's face it, Sungai Buloh prison is already crammed like a sardin can and we can't possibly chuck all these offenders in there and wait for them to rot and die. Crammed and overpopulated prisons pose a different set of problems. Think Carandiru and you will know where I'm coming from.
To give credit to the program, statistics have shown that none of the 25 convicted paedophiles at high risk of causing serious harm has committed a new sexual offence. Without the program, the risk of offending in this group, within a short time of leaving prison, is assessed at 60% by the Home Office.
Pretty commendable figures. However, I'm still not hundred percent convinced. Assimilating these offenders back into society is not without its risks. However, if we sidelined them, it's as if we're shoving the problem under the carpet and it's only a matter of time before the stench and foulness ruin the carpet.
It's a fine balancing act; On one hand, I do not want to dehumanize anyone. But on the other, I do not want to have individuals, who can potentially threat the safety and well being of my loved ones, to live in my community. I have always been taught to not have any prejudice against anyone. But, under these circumstances, am I allowed to discount such values? It's a question that I still ponder upon.
Yes, "sedangkan nabi maafkan umatnya...". But I am not a Nabi! I'm far from it!!
I'm still thinking...
The whole idea behind the project is that we should stop dehumanizing these offenders and that any effort is a good effort, if we can, to a certain extent, stop the offenders from committing the crime again.
I have mixed feeling about the program. Though I cannot discount the merit of such effort, I can't seem to erase the images of those sexually abused children from my head. These kids are scarred for life! Should we not put more effort and time on the children instead? To hell with these sick, psychotic mother#$%&*@!!! What about the victims???
But on a more assertive plateau, I have to admit that I am a firm believer of preventive action. It's all about mitigating risks. Interestingly enough, one of the volunteers talked about "restorative justice". It means that the community accepts a responsibility for the reintegration of offenders - on moral grounds and to prevent further victims, some of whom could themselves become paedophiles. "If I can stop anybody harming a child, then that's of value to me," said the volunteer.
If we think about it, we neither have the resources nor the time to monitor every offender and potential offender. And let's face it, Sungai Buloh prison is already crammed like a sardin can and we can't possibly chuck all these offenders in there and wait for them to rot and die. Crammed and overpopulated prisons pose a different set of problems. Think Carandiru and you will know where I'm coming from.
To give credit to the program, statistics have shown that none of the 25 convicted paedophiles at high risk of causing serious harm has committed a new sexual offence. Without the program, the risk of offending in this group, within a short time of leaving prison, is assessed at 60% by the Home Office.
Pretty commendable figures. However, I'm still not hundred percent convinced. Assimilating these offenders back into society is not without its risks. However, if we sidelined them, it's as if we're shoving the problem under the carpet and it's only a matter of time before the stench and foulness ruin the carpet.
It's a fine balancing act; On one hand, I do not want to dehumanize anyone. But on the other, I do not want to have individuals, who can potentially threat the safety and well being of my loved ones, to live in my community. I have always been taught to not have any prejudice against anyone. But, under these circumstances, am I allowed to discount such values? It's a question that I still ponder upon.
Yes, "sedangkan nabi maafkan umatnya...". But I am not a Nabi! I'm far from it!!
I'm still thinking...
posted by Ms O at 9:49 am
<< Home