So, maybe some form of isolation could be the answer to keep the paedophiles away from their chosen victims, children. Do I hear the cries, unfair, inhuman?
Maybe, it does go a bit far, but if it could save the life of one more little Sarah, it would be fully justified.
The repeated condemnation by Ray Fleming in recent editions of the Bulletin regarding the name and shame campaign by the News of the World, protests and violence by local communities in the UK against suspected or known paedophiles, does highlight a particularly tricky question. As the whole issue is charged with emotion, and rightly so, as there can be no more emotive subject than the abuse, mental and physical torture, and even death of children at the hands of probably the most vile monsters at loose in society, what to do with them is a knotty question, to say the least. To place these abusers of the most vulnerable section of society in prison, or a mental institution for life would seem impractical, especially when considering the quoted tens of thousands known offenders. If the name and shame campaign of the News of the World only makes a lethargic government do something it will have been worthwhile. Who would want to live in close proximity to known paedophiles? And not knowing who is specifically a convicted party does not help very worried parents. T hat these child abusers may be driven underground is a logical answer, but underground or aboveground, the danger is constantly there. Society deserves and needs full and comprehensive protection. In ancient times lepers were placed in colonies to separate them from the non-afflicted to avoid the spread of the disease, and in modern times a similarly draconian method is used in Cuba, where Aids sufferers are placed on a separate island away from the main community. In fact, in any hospital today, a patient admitted with a contagious disease would be put in isolation, and rightly so.