CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
4.2.1 Child-on-child sexual offending conceptualised as criminal behaviour
The category of child-on-child sexual offending as a crime included statements made by the educators in which they explicitly expressed that this type of behaviour was criminal.
Furthermore, the rights of perpetrators were discussed, and punishment for this type of behaviour suggested.
Educators from all three focus groups agreed that this type of behaviour was a crime.
Focus group one discussed the issue once, focus group two, four times and focus group three, three times (N=8).
A: ... do you think they are experimenting or do you think it is a crime?
FGl(5)(p.5) No, it's criminal
FG2(l)(p. 3) A crime ... because they are taking something away from that girl.
It's a crime.
FG3(3)(p.2) I feel it is a crime if one is forced to do something. There must be an agreement and besides a girl of eleven years old is statutory rape.
Focus group three was the only group that raised the fact that sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 was defined as statutory rape, without me asking them
explicitly (N=2). I raised this issue in the other two focus groups and focus group two indicated that they understood the concept of statutory rape. Focus group one seemed particularly confused about the issue of age and consent, and none of them indicated that they knew that sexual intercourse under the age of 16 was viewed as statutory rape. These educators were under the impression that an age difference between the boy and girl determined whether or not the incident was abusive. Although they were not explicit in exactly how big the age difference should be for it to be abusive, it seemed that it was approximately four or five years. According to Davis & Leitenberg (1987) an age difference of between two and five years is considered a significant enough age gap between children in considering whether sexual behaviour between them is abusive or experimental.
In addition to this, one of the educators seemed to think that if a girl is older than a boy is then it is always abusive:
FGl(l)(p.6) If the girl is older than the boy then the girl is abusing the boy
Focus groups two and three have received additional training from organisations such as Life Line and a teacher training group associated with the Child and Family Centre at the University of Natal (Pietermaritzburg). This may account for the fact that they understood the concept of statutory rape. On the other hand, focus group one had not received any additional training. The fact that one group did not understand this concept is rather concerning and indicates a dire need for additional training to be given to educators, especially those from traditionally disadvantaged schools. This group in particular expressed a need for additional training. On a number of occasions during the focus
group, these educators asked me for my advice and help regarding issues such as this (N=6).
Another way in which child-on-child sexual offending was viewed as being criminal was by some of the educators briefly discussing what types of punishment a child sexual offender should receive for the crime of sexually abusing another child.
Focus group one in particular spent very little time discussing punishment. One possible reason for this is the fact that these educators teach at a school for mentally retarded children where this type of behaviour is common among these children. An explanation offered by the educators was that these children do not understand the difference between right and wrong (N=2). For this reason the educators may find the behaviour more
"excusable" and thus less of a crime. Focus group three also offered the explanation that children often do not understand this difference and that this may be a reason for their sexual behaviour (N=3). It is possible that the educators in focus group three were
normalising the behaviour by viewing it as a consequence of a lack of understanding rather than as criminal. In this way, the behaviour is seen as more acceptable and it becomes possible to explain the behaviour.
The types of consequences for this behaviour offered by the educators included:
counselling for the perpetrator (group 1, N=l; group 2, N=3), being expelled from school (group 1, N=T), sent to jail (group 1, N=l) or reformatories (group 1, N=l; group 3 N=l) and taught right from wrong (group 3, N=l).
Focus groups two and three expressed the opinion that the punishment should be severe, and this issue was discussed twice in group two and once in group three. Focus group two had particularly strong views on punishment. Castration as a form of punishment was discussed three times by the group with great intensity.
FG2(1) (p. 12) I only want one thing to happen, it doesn 't matter how old -
castration ... because his penis is a problem so they just have to cut it off, because it's the problem.
FG2(3) (p. 12) But their right, everyone is talking about their rights because everyone has their rights. Even a perpetrator is having his own rights.
A: Do you think too much right?
FG2(l)(p.l2) Yes!
FG2(3)(p. 12) Too much rights!
The issue of perpetrator rights was also discussed with intensity (N=6). Two of the educators in particular in group two seemed to think that perpetrators of sexual abuse had too many rights, and that these rights were inappropriate in terms of the crime they had committed.
The issue of punishment was generally agreed upon within the groups, however the severity of the punishment differed between the members of the groups. For example, in group two, two of the educators were emphatic regarding a severe punishment, with a preference for castration as appropriate for perpetrators. In other words, the opinions of these two educators polarised on the severe end of the continuum. However, the third member of the group disagreed and tended to polarise on the opposite end of the continuum by suggesting that perpetrators should be allowed to explain their behaviour and receive counselling.
There was also a shift in focus to the vulnerability of the perpetrator when an educator from focus group one suggested that removing a perpetrator from his/her home has a negative effect on the child, and that instead they should receive treatment in an environment that is close to the home:
FGl(3)(pl2) I've been attending psychological workshops where it was said if a child is taken away from home the child feels separated from the family and siblings and the problem might get worse ... although the child is receiving treatment they must be kept close to the environment he/she is used to. Because if they are taken away it is a problem.
It is interesting to note that the well being of the perpetrator was emphasised, with no attention given to the vulnerability of the victim. In groups two and three the fact that the perpetrator and victim are generally known to each other, was raised eight times. In view of this it is surprising that in group one, greater concern was offered to the perpetrator.