Sir, Carol Sarler suggests that paedophilia cannot be both a crime and an illness (Opinion, Aug 21). Why not? Clearly it is some kind of problem of the mind, but equally clearly any civilised society must protect helpless children by declaring that an individual’s failure to control this problem is a crime which will incarcerate the perpetrator for however long it takes.

Medical treatment might resolve the difficulty, or if such treatment is not possible or refused, then protection of children must take priority over other considerations and incarceration becomes necessary. Further, governments must make sure that this is widely understood because it is a governmental responsibility to discourage the turning of bad urges into actions.

Roy Atherton

Wrelton, N Yorks

Sir, Carol Sarler’s article appears to lack understanding of how sex offenders are successfully managed in the community. The risk of sex offenders reoffending is based on a combination of static factors that endure and have their origins in an individual’s personality and upbringing and dynamic factors that can compound or reduce overall risk. Unemployment, homelessness, family breakdown or consumption of alcohol and drugs are all factors that are likely to increase the risk that sex offenders pose to others.

Police and probation officers trained to deal with sex offenders in the community daily do an heroic job monitoring sex offenders’ dynamic risk factors and ensuring that appropriate steps are taken to protect us all from harm. Often these public protection officers are the only people that sex offenders can rely on.

These arrangements allow us to take a more nuanced view of sex offenders in our midst, neither condemning them to a life of custody and enforced mental health treatment nor blithely waiting for them to reoffend in some misguided view that they should be left to get on with their lives without monitoring or help.

Incidentally, the article is wrong about those who brandish shotguns or commit acts of grievous bodily harm. Asset confiscation orders and serious crime prevention orders both offer the police and other law enforcement agencies substantial powers to curtail the activities of those intent on committing serious crime.

Chris Miller

Detective Chief Superintendent

Hertfordshire Constabulary

Sir, If “mad” reflects a degree of biological (eg, genetic) causation for patterns of repeated antisocial behaviour, then most of the “disorders of adult personality and behaviour” (as in the World Health Organization classification) are examples of madness.

If “mad” reflects delusions and significant disconnection from reality, then most offenders would not qualify. “Bad” is also difficult to define but can be used to describe the behaviour rather than the causes. Unfortunately for those seeking a simple and rational approach, many individuals are both “mad” and “bad”, whatever definitions are used. If society recognised this, we could be more flexible in how offenders are managed — many of those on the criminal justice pathway need more medical and psychological help, while some of those on the mental health pathway may benefit from more constraints.

Dr Jonathan H. Dowson

University Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge

Explore Letters

• Feedback