It exists, and that is why we must talk about It

These questions are understandable and deserve a serious answer. For victims, testimonies from perpetrators can be particularly confronting. Someone who has waited in vain for years for the perpetrator to acknowledge what they did now sees someone else taking responsibility. Someone who was manipulated may recognise painful echoes in the perpetrators’ words. There must be room in the public debate for the emotions this evokes in victims and bystanders. But the discussion also touches on two broader questions: do we dare, as a society, to talk about perpetration? And are we genuinely prepared to offer perpetrators a second chance?

Targeted approach
Part of the discomfort at hearing the testimonies lies in how recognisable the perpetrators are. They are not necessarily people with a psychiatric disorder, such as a paedophilic disorder or a personality disorder, but people who struggle with problems that we sometimes wrestle with ourselves. Think of loneliness, problems with intimacy, struggling with one’s own traumas, being unable to control one’s own emotions and impulses, or escaping into addictions. The reflex to justify harmful behaviour, so that we do not have to face our own responsibility, is also human. Of course, these are not excuses, and these vulnerabilities do not in themselves explain abuse. The vast majority of people who are lonely or who were themselves mistreated do not commit sexual abuse.

Nevertheless, we must dare to acknowledge that, in certain people, a combination of such vulnerabilities, circumstances and choices does lead to abuse. Not to justify the abuse, but so that its causes can be addressed in a targeted way.
In addition, there is a conviction that once someone is an offender, they will always remain one. The call to simply let perpetrators rot in a cell for years is louder than the willingness to think about the role of guidance and treatment in preventing new victims.

Nevertheless, both scientific research and our daily practice teach us that even people who have committed particularly serious offences can indeed change their behaviour. Some begin to question their own behaviour themselves; others need a punishment, with or without specialised care, to do so. We are not naïve about this, however: not every perpetrator can or will change.

“But if we assume that they do not want to change or seek help, we raise the threshold for those who are considering it.”

Moreover, social exclusion can further increase the problems, and thus the risk of offending. After all, what can we still expect from someone who has no hope and fears being treated solely as a monster?
Taking responsibility requires that someone faces the facts and acknowledges the consequences of their behaviour. For that, there must also be a prospect of what a person can then do to change, and of how that person can subsequently be reintegrated into society. That prospect is insufficient today.

Justifying
Talking about perpetration does not take away the perpetrator’s responsibility. It does offer us insights into how abuse arises, which factors contribute to it, and how repetition can be prevented. “Het bestaat” therefore opens the way to a societal debate that above all confronts us with the uncomfortable, harsh reality that child abuse exists.
And that is precisely why we must talk about it: to break the taboo and the silence, to learn to recognise warning signs better, to encourage people who commit violence, or fear they might, to seek help in good time, and above all to prevent new victimhood.