Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige
Even considering the potential "unreported" cases, the difference is incomparably worse. The truth is, there's probably a significant amount of unreported cases in Japan, but same can be said of UK and US, and even with that considered, it's still a massive gap.
|
A very massive gap indeed. From the UNOCD data, sexual violence against children in Japan ranged from a high of 5.8 per 100,000 in 2003 to a low of 3.2 per 100,000 in 2009. It climbed from 3.2 in 2009 to 3.4 in 2010.
Compare the above to Germany, where the rate ranges from a high of 19.8 per 100,000 in 2003 to a low of 13.7 per 100,000 in 2009. Curiously, there was again an increase between 2009 and 2010, from 13.7 to 14.4.
Sweden presents an unexpected contrast. The rate of sexual violence against children there ranges from 37.1 per 100,000 in 2005 to a "shocking" 73.6 per 100,000 in 2010. The footnotes point out that there has been changes in definitions and/or counting rules, which may explain the alarming spike. Back in 2003, Sweden's rate of sexual violence against children was a more "normal" 5.2 per 100,000.
So, right away, these figures highlight something of great concern whenever we look at these studies. The UNOCD wisely makes this very clear in its footnotes to the data:
Quote:
|
"Please note that when using the figures, any cross-national comparisons should be conducted with caution because of the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in countries, or the different methods of offence counting and recording."
|
With the above caveat in mind, refer back to the many concerns highlighted by respected organisations in the Reuters report that started this thread. It is the contention that Japan is not defining and not treating such crimes the way some other countries do. By implication, the suggestion is that these numbers are low in Japan not necessarily because "Japan is a safer place because of easy availability of kiddie porn", but simply because they are not treated as seriously as they would be elsewhere.
It comes back to what
SeijiSensei had correctly observed: There is an extremely high chance of selection bias when we look at such data. I would very much hesitate to definitively claim that "more porn means less sex crimes".
But, of course, the converse is also true: "More porn doesn't necessarily mean more sex crime." In the end, we just don't know for sure, and have to rely more heavily on local knowledge of the circumstances of each specific country when passing judgment.
And, as for "moral education" classes, they're pretty common. I had those too, at pre-primary and primary school. In my case, the focus was on Confucianist virtues, though of course they weren't packaged as such in the textbooks. There was, for example, material about filial piety, that is, how we should show respect for parents and elders. How we should be honest and not steal, for example. They aren't moral education in the sense that we weren't taught moral philosophy, and we certainly didn't debate major moral questions.
And there was certainly no mention at all of sexual morality, be it in a Confucian context or not.