NGO-PHI Edition 26 Talking about Child Grooming and Legal Perspective

With the background of increasing visibility of Child Grooming, and the publication of a memoar Broken Strings which became discussion theme both online and offline and its correlation with the criminal code, Ngobrol Bareng Yaphi (NGO-PHI) edition 26 invited Laili Nur Anisah, S.H, M.H,  senior lecturer at the Legal Faculty of Universitas Widya Mataram (FH UWM), Romo  Ernest Justin, S.J., S.Psi., M.Hum, psychology lecturer at Universitas Sanata Dharma, Bernadeta Maharani Yunita Sari a student and youth organization activist became resource people in a discussion moderated by Dorkas Febria.

At the beginning of the discussion, Romo Ernest said that Child Grooming started with a process of preparing the child(ren) and the environment. People had to be aware that grooming was not limited to children. Based on literature, what happened mostly was sexual grooming for children. The definition of a child was those below the age of 18 years old, and if we wanted to broaden the definition, those above 18 years old were not children because they could make their own decision. And grooming targeted not only psychologically but also physically, such as giving presence. In the case of Aurelie in the book Broken Strings, grooming was committed by an adult to a child.

It was impossible to connect Aurelie’s case to the law that applied then, because in 2008 the law was Child Protection Law and the old Criminal Code, as well as Electronic Information and Technology Law, and these laws did not mention Child Grooming. Yet, we could not separate it from Child Protection Law because there was article about sex and harassment, as well as tricks. So such case as written in Broken Strings was harassment. That was the idea presented by Laili Nur Anisah.

Other resource person, Bernadeta stated why was there so much revelation about Child Grooming phenomenon, as many children lost the parent’s figurekarena, as happened with their friends. When interacting with adults, children thought that adults offered validation such as love just like parents, which allowed for grooming to happen.

Dorkas asked the question that there had been attempts to target victims, as in the case of Aurelie. In psychology, what would be the objective of grooming?

Romo Ernest explained that it was a subtle message, because they used the general pattern in day-to-day living. One key thing, the perpetrator exploited vulnerability. They (victim_red) had high level of vulnerability, they did not have good relations, for example with parents. From a number of films,  one could see the consistent pattern that children were vulnerable individuals. Aurelie had her vulnerability. There was a film that depicted in detail a woman who experienced sexual violence when she was a child. The family did not see that it was risky but there was vulnerability. A 13-year old girl grew but parents were busy working and she had younger siblings. The adult in the film was a sports trainer. "We could see the pattern of vulnerability progression. There was emotional needs unfulfilled which may looked ordinary. If we talked about the law, the logics of the enforcement agency was “why did the child allow it", said Romo Ernest.

To relate to that statement, Laili suggested that the Law Enforcement Agency had to know that even if the child knew, was the child capable, before that child became an adult. As happened in the case of Aurelie, aged 15 years and a man of 29 years of age. The Law Enforcement Agency should know that what happened was not suited for such age group.

With regards to consent, Laili said that in the Law on Child Protection, child’s consent did not apply, because the child was a minor. In the Law on Sexual Violence, not only the consent of children but also people with disability was not applicable, the case could be reported, not only by the victim(s.

With regards to grooming, Bernadeta told a story about what happened to her. She felt lucky because not long afterwards she realized that she was a victim. At one point, she blamed herself for what happened.

With regards to grooming process, Romo Ernest stated that it was important to look a series of activities that perpetrator did that were not logical. Why victim felt guilty? It should have been the perpetrator who felt guilty. Perpetrator developed what was known as Traumatic Bounding between perpetrator and victims. There was a string emotional bond in the research on victims. Victims called perpetrator a generous parent. Perpetrator acted as surrogate parent. The string emotional bond between perpetrator and victim led to the child being desensitized. The child’s sensitivity disappeared. When violence happened, the child felt guilty and that happened so often.

Why Religion was often Chosen as the “Sheep’s Wool Caterpillar "?

Romo Ernest suggested that the strong dynamics with regards to grooming and violence was trust and grooming in child and the environment happened when the perpetrator built trust with the environment or parents. He was a trustworthy figure that could be accepted and trusted. He built trust with the child.

If we looked back at that trust, why religion? Because religion talked about trust. In religion, there was a strong dynamics about trust. Perpetrator placed himself in relations to the child and the environment of adults. Cases overseas were similar with the same strong dynamics. Religion had important role because there was trust in it.

Was the legal punishment different or in general the same?

Laili opined that in the Law on Sexual Violence, perpetrator used trust and authority, hence the punishment would be more severe. For example, the incidents happened from the most senior officer to the lowest level. This indicated that a person saw another first by looking at who that person was, whether that person was older. People with high position gained more trust. "In my research at Islamic religious schools: being religious meant that a person (child) should fear someone more superior. What a religious leader asked, I should obey. Thus, the rational reasoning became blunt. Wait, you are not obedient to the religious teacher. That happened in some Islamic schools. If there is punishment, then it should be very severe," she said.

Laili insisted that Law Enforcement Agency was part of the community being exposed. The law was a dead thing unless the law enforcement agency enforced it. If law enforcement agency was reluctant against those who had superior position, then the law would just move round and round.

Deta, on the other hand, suggested that in parents like her parents who did not pay attention to children’s needs, children searched for validation but they went to the wrong people or the wrong way. They escaped into the night life. That was just venting out in order to find value, to find a place where the child could be accepted, understood and acknowledged. They went to the wrong place, for example in the church some children became victims.

Laili talked about the new criminal code, particularly with regards to convergence with the law on sexual violence, which indeed should be integrated. That was to say the new criminal code referred to the law on sexual violence and vice versa. Article 411-416 was in the law on sexual violence. That meant the law enforcement agency had to look into the law on sexual violence. But if it only looked at the criminal code on its own or the law on sexual violence on its own, then there would be discrepancy. If one intended to look back at the theory, then the legal culture had to be established first. But if the law enforcement agency remain fixed to the letter, then it would simply become blunt.

With regards to the rehabilitation of the victims, one could see that the law on sexual violence was textually, not contextually, comprehensive. This had to do with what institution had to be responsible for rehabilitation of victims or rehabilitation and restitution. And there should be funds to help victims, whether that came from philanthropy, State or local budget for victims’ rehabilitation and compensation. Ideally, the law enforcement agency confiscated the perpetrator’s possession for auction, for example the court decided on 30 years, then the court could decide for twenty years behind bars, and ten years was replaced in exchange with funds from such confiscation. Not all criminal acts led to restitution, for example in te case of human rights. (Ast)