Drug dealers and burglars have victims too

To summarise your recent Mailbag correspondent (‘It’s your lot’, April): “Sex offenders are scum and should be denied a voice. How very dare they have an opinion or dissenting view? Big tough men can bully sex offenders, as they are morally superior and God has appointed them judge, jury and executioner.” Sounds reasonable.

The writer makes the point that all sex offenders create victims, who may be damaged for life – to which I would add that the damage may be intergenerational. So, no argument there. Behind every criminal act is a reason. But reasons are not excuses. If we explore the reasons for offending, we will never be able to prevent crime, and yet there is no moral equivalence in crime. In my career, I’ve bagged and tagged many young people who have taken deliberate or accidental overdoses of illegally imported, manufactured and supplied drugs. Many lives cut short, families ripped apart, to line somebody’s pockets.

You cannot compare the victim of a drug supplier/distributor to the victim of a sexual abuser or a rapist. Yet preying on an addict to sell your commodity is a form of abuse. Making money out of somebody’s vulnerability, which nationally has huge rates of morbidity and mortality.  

Violence against the person is demeaning and demoralising. Even in the absence of a sexual element. Again, these victims are often left physically, emotionally and spiritually scared for the rest of their lives. These victims lose their confidence. They may become fearful, withdrawn and isolated. They may be unable to work to support their families, and their relationships may break down.

As for robbers and burglars, maybe your correspondent has never been robbed or burgled, but either event can be traumatic or cause psychological damage that ensures for many years. Victims are left afraid in their own homes and afraid to leave their homes. The victims of such acquisitive crime will often remain hypervigilant for the rest of their lives, causing huge mental and physical harm. Goodies stolen may have been of huge sentimental value, perhaps a gift from a partner now deceased.

It is also worth noting that sex offenders have a much lower rate of recidivism than any other cohort of criminals. I would never seek to minimise any crime at all, and the overall damage to individuals and to society is very hard to quantify. But when so many people are now being convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one person, there is a tiny possibility that sex can be weaponized by the accuser.

We are now told that every accuser must be believed. Which is akin to a presumption of guilt on the accused. If the accused has the temerity to defend himself, he is accused of heresy, gaslighting, pathological denial. For some, the least bad option is to plead guilty to ensure a much lesser sentence than if convicted by a jury. The law and justice are not necessarily synonymous. Ultimately, to rush to judgement stymies any form of rational dialogue, and the hierarchy of offences is self-assuring but illusory. To paraphrase that notorious jailbird, Oscar Wilde – we are all in the gutter, but some of us still look at the stars.