Can You Give a Proof That There Is No Risc?

This is a typical incorrect question. The hidden idea behind is that until the pedophile cannot prove that his relation cannot cause even potential harm, it is correct to send them to jail for years.

But it is not correct harm somebody (by sending him into jail) simply because he cannot prove that his behavior doesn't cause harm. It is the job of the other side to prove that a certain type of behavior causes harm, and not only in some exceptional cases, but with high enough probability, to justify such obvious, real harm like imprisonment as reaction.

If this question is not used for the justification of imprisonment, but by parents, for making a decision to allow such a relation or not, the situation is different. But, nonetheless, also the parent has to take into account the harm which may be caused by the interruption of a relation. Thus, he has not to ask if there is a risc, but if the risc is greater or smaller compared with the risc caused by his intervention.

Thus, to give an answer to this question is not a good idea. Instead, it is necessary to make it clear that the question itself is nonsense. The shortest and simplest way seems to be a short comparison, something like

Oh, you can prove that there is no risc allowing your children to play soccer / ride bicyle / anything else they do?

After this, it is clear that the question at least has to be modified - reasonable is only a request to prove that the risc is below a certain, well-defined probability.

Can you give a proof that the risc is below a certain probability?

Again, to justify imprisonment, the other side has to prove that there is a great risc of harm, because obvious, real harm to other people has to be justified.

But nonetheless this is already a more reasonable question. Of course, now it is necessary to talk about the value of the risc which may be neglected. For the justification of imprisonment, the risc for harm has to be comparable with the actual harm caused by imprisonment, thus it has to be great. For an interrupt of the relation is has to be greater than the harm probably caused by such an interrupt.

If this is accepted, it is possible to show that the remaining risc is small enough. Indeed, if we use the security requirements necessary for medicine as a standard, it may be compared with an old, well-known natural medicine.

• We have observation of animals - the bonobos are the closest neighbours of the human, and sex between different age groups is common among them.
• We have observations of other cultures where sex with children is or was common over long periods of time without any observed harmful outcome.
• We have also statistical observations (for example Baurmann 1983, Sandfort 1994) in current Western society. Of course, it would be nice to have more statistics, but the available results are clear enough.
• And we have the failure of the very powerful "sex abuse industry" to establish any harm caused by consensual relations.

Thus, the answer is positive. We can prove.