Dear Sir,

In my opinion, Martha Dismont, of Family Centre, is so very wrong when she states “naming offenders has not been shown to be the best method of keeping the public safe”. (RG front page, October 9, 2015)

The answers to questions asked in regard to collecting data for this subject are often affected by bias, lies, the need to justify and cover-ups.

Any figures that are made to show “naming offenders” does not work are riddled with inaccuracies.

What is known is that child molesters offend again and again, after they have paid their debt to society, or spent time with a “shrink”. On The Oprah Winfrey Show, one repeat offender confessed that nothing changes or stops an offender’s urges. Nothing. The failure to change their ways is legendary.

Just how many times do we have to read that a repeat offender has filled another child’s life with terrible nightmares, after having paid his debt to society, seen a “shrink”, been “treated” and been let out, supposedly “cured”?

This has been shown to not work in any meaningful way, but some people still recommend it, while our children continue to be traumatised or, worse, murdered by paedophiles.

And how silly to say “naming and shaming does not address the root of the problem”.

Of course, it does not. Who said it was supposed to? Naming names is only one tool that we should have to help to protect our children.

For me, a child’s right to innocence comes before any adult’s right to stay in the murky shadows of our community, leaving him free to pursue his terrible desires.

As for educating people to recognise and prevent child sexual abuse, in my opinion, that is a great step forward.

Sincerely,

MARK EMMERSON