The difficulty in convicting someone is that the evidence has to go beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened. An inherent difficulty with proving sexual offences, particularly historical ones, is that forensic evidence is often lacking and we rely on witness testimony and corroboration to be able to prove things. It can be a lengthy and frustrating process and success is never guaranteed. I subscribe to the opinion that I would do everything in my power to try and prove an offence but at the end of the day, all you can do is gather the facts. It is not my place to judge people, that comes down to those members of the public charged with being a jury. I don't envy them that job.
I would suggest that proving a man microwaved his hamster is a lot easier than proving someone is a paedophile, particularly when you take into account the fact this man admitted his offence whereas the majority of paedophile's are aware that their sexual preference is prohibited and despised and they learn very clever ways of concealing their desires.
A frustrating area to work in, but also fascinating and rewarding. I do not condone vigilantism.
|