Hamlet
You make some interesting points, BUT we know from experience that attempts to ‘safeguard” some groups in our “progressive” society invariably leads to other groups being vilified.

Hence we have “Australians say no to violence against women” days ( but not Australians say no to violence against everyone)

We have Govt bodies & a hosts of NGOs ensuring that some races/sexes are only referred to/portrayed in a positive manner while we have a free for all on others.

We have such bodies as the Dept of Community Services stomping with jackboots over parents in the interests of the safeguarding the higher “good” of the child.

All very appealing to damn lawyers & damned princes but not very healthy for a society.

Horus,

I did not mention 'groups' as perpetrators of sexual crimes, of all kinds, can come from all 'strata' and groups within our society. These crimes are carried out by individuals, and in some cases by groups of individuals.

I am aware of the British case of the doctor who went far too far, based on a wrong methodology, that in itself required a 'diagnosis' that bordered on an act not far removed from sexual abuse in itself. I am also aware of the abuses of 'recovered memory': the idea of which I have heard described by one of Australia's leading forensic psychiatrists (sorry, I cannot name this person here) as being problematic, as the difficulty in sexual abuse cases isn't repressed memory as much as trying to have the victim put the memory intro perspective so that they can still lead a meaningful life.

We must be aware, not by means of witch hunts - anyone who has read Miller's 'The Crucible' will know what I mean - of the possible perils. Being aware and accusing anyone and everyone are two very very different things.

I am also aware, thru the story told by an old mate of mine from Queensland, of the dangers of community knowledge of 'sexual offenses'. There was a man in a fairly small country town in Queensland who was caught in an act of 'animal husbandry' with a chicken - yeah, gross.

He was taken to court by the police, and found guilty: his children, however, was subjected to years of torment at school of being described as the children of the 'phantom fowl 'f**ker of XXX'.

Of course you could argue that if he didn't want his children victimised in this way he should not have done the deed, however, no one does anything illegal thinking that he, or she, will get caught.

So the idea of a 'register' in itself, not a deterrent either.

Barbara is clearly someone with a big heart and more courage. She is the type of person needed in our society.

I must also question though Barbara's claimed rescidivism rate. Until such a released offender is deceased they may still re offend. As such statistics are meaningless. I'm not prepared to risk my children on such statistics by accepting the release of sex offenders at all.

On the other hand I have also seen an in house sex offender register used Australia wide in a large profession where that register was kept by management but every State or Territory had access to it and blank an individuals future without them ever knowing. They just get told they didn't get the job. That's the least of their troubles though as people with access also talk.

Things have changed a bit since then in that some governments are requiring "blue cards" etc to prove the applicant has been cleared. Supposedly. We have seen also the failings of that system. For example where someone who has not been caught yet is involved in the register.

These registers are enormously dangerous, not only to sex offenders but to you and I as if there is one secretly kept register you can be certain there are many more covering many other issues. Even to the extent of political affiliation and you all know those records are kept.

If such registers must be held they must be public, all registers to give the individual at least the knowledge they are known to all.

Family members are the main offenders so it is the trust we place in those people that needs scrutiny first. Again though families tend to cover it up and ignore the person who suffered.

I can only suggest such people remain in jail. One chance only, no release. Anything else to me creates more misery and it is the person attacked who has to wear all this. Yes others do on their behalf but they are where we should focus our attention, not on people who knew what they were doing and persisted.

From my reading of the article, Barbara was not saying the recidivism rate of all child sex offenders was 5%, merely that this was the rate for a particularly effective treatment program. Her point was that this human perversion can be treated.
Barbara is right, if there are effective ways to treat these men, then we should be using them and funding them, now.
No matter how terrible the crime, to dehumanise the criminal and deny them any compassion is a dangerous path. How do any of us know, for sure, that if our own childhoods had been different, and our life circumstances much worse, that we would still never be capable of doing terrible things?
I am not religious, but it always surprises me how the followers of Jesus - who preached forgiveness and the searation of sin from sinner - are often the most vicious in their condemnation. Surely compassion always has a place?

I wonder what the recidivism rate of all child neglecters is though, because from my reading of Barbara's account of her early life, the prime contributor to her downfall was neglect by her mother and grandmother - the main carers in her life.

There is reason to believe that child neglect (which is child abuse) places many children needlessly at risk in many aspects of their life including from sexual predators.

By all means do something about child molesters, but let's put the big spotlight on child neglect, which harms thousands of children daily in Australia.

Ena, agree about Barbara's comments relating to a specific program.

My point was "At what stage can you declare a success or failure rate?". Seems to me while any such offender is still alive then the statistics drawer is still open. They may not reoffend for the first 2 years or whatever figure was used but what about beyond the period defined?

This simply proves, yet again, that statistics mean little. I'd like to see the 5% statement refined to "rescidivism occurred within 5% of cases during a period of X years following first being treated".

As to dehumanising the criminal, I'm afraid they did that to themselves, and their victim(s) and families, and friends and society. You forgive them if you can but please do not ask others to simply because you want to. As I see it they have revoked their own rights to be a part of any society and belong with others like themselves, in jail for life.

There are many acts of violence in our world and many receive punishments greater than child sex offenders. To me this indecency is a unique attack upon innocence and there can be no excuse. The risk of reoffending cannot be taken over and over again in order to save those children who do fall prey to reoffenders.

Any such attack is unacceptable. Full stop.

This crime is a uniquely dreadful attack upon trust which takes away a young persons dreams, future, everything really. It is a rare person like Barbara that can face life after being attacked.

Focus on those who are offended against first please. If there is any room for compassion after that, then do what you feel is right. I have none for such people.

Imagine if you will the feelings and thoughts and restrictions on a persons life when their attacker is released. I see no fairness in such an arrangement, do you?