Paedophilia, Child Sexual Abuse and Preventative Policy-making in the UK, the USA, Germany, and the Netherlands: Lessons from a Critical Empirical Study

• In Event: Critical Criminology 3: Labelling, Harms and Community Responses

Abstract

Effective policy-making relies heavily on the availability of good data. This presents challenges when working with ‘hidden’ or difficult to reach populations, and these challenges are magnified many times over when emotionally charged behaviours, such as actions grouped under the umbrella of child sexual abuse (CSA), or morally unconventional (and for many, unacceptable) thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are concerned. This project (now in its writing-up stage) steps into one such contested space with a critical, evidence-based approach. It is based on extensive empirical work in four countries (the UK, the USA, Germany, and the Netherlands) with ‘minor-attracted persons’ (MAPs) and those who work with them and treat them. The category of MAPs includes both 'paedophilia' (clinically defined as the attraction to prepubescent children) and the attraction to older minors. The project asks: how do these four countries develop CSA prevention policies? What are their differences, and how are these perceived by relevant stakeholders (professionals and MAPs)? What pertinent lessons can be learned from MAPs themselves? Two types of in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted: a) diary-based interviews with MAPs; and b) semi-structured interviews with professionals working in the broader field of CSA prevention across various disciplines. The strengths (and original contributions) of this project lie in its critical, comparative, and interdisciplinary approach. This includes shedding light into an extremely hard-to-reach population (MAPs) and looking at CSA prevention through a social constructionist lens. By adopting an evidence-based approach to the conflation between attractions and the actual commission of CSA, this project argues for a critical approach to CSA prevention, the (perceived) risks that the population of MAPs present for child protection, how they perceive their identities and self-manage risk, and how certain discourses might lead to narrow-minded approaches, which could then act as risks for various types of harm.

Author

• Maria Sklavou, University of Sheffield, UK