Clearly you know very little about this problem.
This kind of hysteria makes it virtually impossible for child sex offenders to seek help.
The most effective way to protect children is self-referral.
When SafeCare in Perth started, 60% of its clients came voluntarily for treatment and help and they were completely unknown to authorities.
You are under the false illusion that the criminal justice system protects children and that by increasing penalties, you protect more children. This is blatantly not the case. It only drives the problem further underground. Les than 6% of cases reported to police end in convictions. And these at the highest imaginable price for the child victims. Then, with inadequate treatment progreams in prison, the offenders come out the same as they went in - a risk to children.
Assisted self-reporting is the only viable solution to intra-familial abuse and possibly all child sexual abuse.
Please, update your thinking on this issue.
As a survivor of child sexual abuse I realized long ago that treating the contaminated water coming out of the tap without trying to turn the tap off - treating child sex offenders - is a never ending task.
Punishing offenders does not work. Treating them does. But you do not know that because you have not informed yourself about state of the art treatment programs, the best of which has a recidivism rate of 2%.
From a survivor of child sexual abuse

I agree with you that assisted self-referral offers the best possibility of a good outcome with sex offenders. However we still have to deal with those who do not enter treatment. When sex offenders have done their time without accepting any treatment, or indeed without even acknowledging that what they've done, then they remain dangerous.

I think the point was imprisonment does not change pedophile behaviour and does not protect children, so we are in agreement on that.

Treatment programs are essential. But nobody can force an offender into them. Nobody can force an offender who is under the illusion that he's done nothing wrong, that he should change his behaviour. So we must have some way of dealing with this population that does not permit them to continue offending.

I don't think that acknowledging these undeniable realities will in anyway inhibit the rehabilitation of those offenders who self-refer.

The cause of child abuse is very obvious. When children loose a natural parent, they are in a group with a horific risk of abuse.

Background:
We know smoking 'causes' cancer. Smoking increases the risk by 120%.

When children live in households without BOTH NATURAL parents, the risk of child abuse and neglect increases by 2,600% ! ! !

That's not twice, that's 26 times the risk ! ! !
(Citations available PartTimeParent@pobox.com)

To protect children, protect their relationship with BOTH NATURAL parents.

The most dangerous household for a child is a "mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" household. Not a loving step-parent not the NATURAL FATHER, but some other blow-in.

Cunning pedophiles don't become school teachers now-days. They romance a single mum and get her and access to the bedrooms of her lonely and vulnerable children.

But if the natural father is still allowed to remain in the child's lives, the pedophile stays well-clear... But he knows the natural father will probably find out, and the perpetrator will recieve very very rough justice from the real natural dad! A Dad's love is the greatest love of all... Trust me, the pedophile won't be capable of abuse again!

The other situation is the struggling single mum... How much easier it would be if natural dad could share the load? Most natural dads WANT to protect their kids... that's why the divorce court is full of "custody disputes", instead of "you can have them disputes".

Finally pedophiles target emotionally vulnerable children... fatherless children have a yearning for their natural father, and if he is not around, they crave 'father figure'. These are the vulnerable children so attractive to pedophiles!

Look at the news, every time there is a horribly abused or murdered child, the baby-in-the-suitcase, for example... they are almost always from "single mother", or "Mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" households

Protect children from abuse.
Don't give DOCS and the "nasty feminists" more power. By removing dads, they are making the problem worse, not better.

Simply protect children's human right to live with BOTH NATURAL PARENTS.
Research available
PartTimeParent@pobox.com