|
“…the public definition of behaviour
as deviant is itself changeable. It is open to reversals of political power,
twists of public opinion, and the development of social movements and moral crusades” (Gusfield, 1972: 72).
What we as a society consider to be deviant changes over time, and is dependant on such factors as social, economic, and cultural
values. Bhurgra (2000), defines deviance as “…behaviour
that contravenes the norms of society” (67). When looking specifically to the notion of sexual deviance, it must be noted that the categorization of certain acts as paraphilic is a product of Western culture, as the view
of these activities as deviant is not a universal phenomenon. For instance, in
Papua New Guinea sexual activities between men and boys was common and even considered
a right of passage by that society, which is in direct opposition to the Western concept of pedophilia. According to Bhurgra, our classification of sexual deviance and the resulting treatment is based on a punitive
social framework that does not take into account diversity and cultural evolution (2000).
It is obvious that it
is not only how define sexual deviance changes over time in place, but also how we choose to react. In the early nineteen-nineties, several high profile cases have brought this issue to the forefront of the public consciousness.
Christopher Stephenson, Megan Kanka, Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy, and Polly Klaas; all
highly publicized cases of child sexual homicides committed by strangers. The
fact that this is a relatively rare occurrence, and not indicative of the norm in terms of sexual crimes did not prevent the
emergence of a moral panic surrounding this issue (Petrunik, 2003a; 2003b). As a result, new legislation was enacted
both in the United States and Canada, focusing on the management on these individuals and the protection of the public.
These high profile cases represent the extreme, yet they are instrumental in determining
how the public conceptualizes the ‘Sex Offender’. As a result, these
rare incidents instigate public outrage and media attention (Critcher, 2002), and yet the more common incidences of intra-familial
family abuse are relatively ignored. They are even used as justification for
new legislation, such as registration and notification, which are then made requirements for all Sex Offenders, not just those
extreme cases for which it was based on (Petrunik, 2003a; 2003b).
|
