elf of the means requisite for the protection of children from
contamination in the course of such a prosecution. When we take a
comprehensive view of the harm that may be done to children by sexual
offences committed against them and by the consequent legal proceedings,
we shall find, in my opinion, that from the legal proceedings arises a
notable proportion of the injury.

The examination of the mental condition of the child-depraver is a
matter of the utmost importance. In cases in which we find that the
offender is suffering from some pronounced mental disorder, such as
progressive paralysis (paralytic dementia), senile dementia, or an
epileptic disturbance of consciousness, there can be no doubt as to the
existence of irresponsibility; but it must never be forgotten that in
the early course of such diseases, these sexual perversions often make
their appearance at a time when no other definite signs of the brain
disease have as yet appeared, and that for this reason the conviction of
innocent persons--old men, for instance--on account of sexual offences
against children, often occurs. Kirn,[125] who in the Freiburg prison
had under observation six old men at ages from sixty-eight to
eighty-one, all convicted for sexual offences against little girls,
states that in all of these there were intellectual defects, and in
several of them pronounced symptoms of senile dementia. The psychiatric
expert must examine all such cases with the utmost care. We may also
express a wish that judges were not inclined to regard themselves as
experts in this field, of which, as a rule, they have no expert
knowledge whatever.

Cases in which there is no definite mental disorder belong to a
different category. Fritz Leppmann, to whom we are indebted for the most
comprehensive studies in this field of inquiry, comes to the conclusion
that there is no such thing as a truly congenital sexual inclination
towards children. Such inclinations often appear, indeed, in
congenitally tainted or weak-minded individuals; but he considers that
we have no right to speak of the perverse impulse as being itself
congenital. Even if we admit this, and refuse to recognise the existence
of a congenital perverse impulse towards children, still we have to
admit that certain opportunities and conditions may not only lead to the
committing of sexual offences against children, but may also induce
paedophile tendencies. And the fact cannot be contested that this d