Rabbi Chaim Rapoport writes:
I have stated my opinion in numerous
public forums that paedophiles, as all criminals who constitute a threat
to society, should be incarcerated in jail, if necessary – for life,
the primary reason being: to protect their potential victims from abuse.
I have likewise stated unequivocally that victims and those with
knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse in the Jewish community must
report such cases to the legal authorities in order to ensure that the
victims are fully supported, the criminals are penalized and society is
protected. I decry those people who exhibit a grotesque lack of sympathy
or attempt to belittle the trauma suffered by victims, or, worse still,
perversely portray the predators (and their active or passive
accomplices) as the victims and cruelly penalise and ostracise victims
and their families. I support institutions that are designed to help
victims. I myself have been instrumental in setting up support apparatus
for victims and have asserted myself to help them in every possible
way. Now to the issue at hand:
The case of Mr. Levy and Ms. Goldsobel
(both of whom had previously come to me for counseling) went before a
Crown Court jury on two occasions. Ultimately verdicts of not guilty on
all rape charges and any other charges relating to post-16 activity were
entered on the court record. The court was however satisfied that
sexual conduct had started before Goldsobel was 16 and that it followed
as a matter of law that she could not have consented to that activity,
regardless of whether she had been a willing partner. Yet, when
sentencing Levy, the judge stated explicitly that he does not constitute
a threat to society.
From a Jewish perspective, even if the
woman was over the age of 16 when (as the defendant claimed) a long-term
consensual sexual affair began, the relationship undoubtedly
constituted a transgression of Jewish Law and arguably an ethical
misdemeanor. It was in this context that I stated in court that the age
of legal consent is somewhat arbitrary, because whether a girl is 15 or
16 does not mitigate the religious misdemeanor and cannot truly be
determinant in deciding whether the relationship was exploitative in
nature. A clandestine relationship between a 16 or 17 year old girl and a
man some ten years her senior may well be exploitative and constitute a
breach of trust. Therefore, even according to the defendant’s version
of the events, the woman was correct in not allowing the matter to be
ignored and when she consulted with me, I offered her empathetic advice,
encouragement and pastoral support. It is for this reason that, even
before the case came to court, I counseled the defendant on penitential
and spiritual ‘rectification’ and prescribed measures for his continuous
ethical and religious rehabilitation, including the provision of
financial assistance for the sexually offended.[...]