“Our forgiveness is part of the abuse cycle.” – Grace Tame, The Ninth Life of a Diamond Miner
Alex Case was 14 years old in 2005, when he was groomed online by Jeffrey Corfe, lured to his house and raped. Corfe was 44. Those are the bare facts of the case.
The other bare fact is that, last week, after pleading guilty to a single charge of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16, Corfe was handed a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years. That means he will be doing no prison time.
Case came forward on the day of sentencing, surrendering his right to anonymity, to tell his story and expose his ongoing trauma in the hope that it will help — him and other survivors. I know this because I know him, having worked with him during the criminal process in a background supportive capacity. I know he is a brave young man, still trying to understand what happened to him and how to live with the consequences.
The case attracted considerable media interest in Melbourne as it made it way through the courts, because Corfe is better known as “Joffa”. Here is how Nine News reported the sentencing outcome: “Collingwood superfan dodges jail over child sex abuse”.
It is a phenomenon so universal that we are conditioned to not notice it: perpetrators — whether alleged or convicted — are routinely elevated by the media to the highest extent of their accomplishments, while their victims are reduced to the lowest.
What is the relevance of Corfe’s status as a “superfan”, or the social utility of including in news reportage of his crime — as Nine did — of a photo of him barracking at a Collingwood game in full club colours? It has none, but it humanises him.
Tame again: “Nothing is harmless in the hands of the harmful. Every offering of forgiveness enables them, and endangers the rest of us. Every philosophical attempt to rationalise their behaviour. Every over-egged humanisation of their character.”
Her point is that perpetrators of child sexual abuse are calculating, intentional actors, “among the most sophisticated narrative manipulators”. They take every edge we give them, and use it — not against us, but against their helpless victims. Their grooming is of everyone.
Corfe’s sentencing judge in Victoria’s County Court told him that if he had not pleaded guilty he would have got a serve of two years and four months, with half of that non-parole. However, his plea entitled him to a discount — effectively down to zero.
The judge, as he was required to do by sentencing practice, took into account a range of mitigating factors in Corfe’s favour. These included the assumption that his crime was a one-off in an otherwise blameless life; his “good character” and “significant contributions to the community”. Father Bob Maguire had provided a reference, speaking highly of Corfe’s support for his foundation and care “for the needs of the less fortunate”.
Corfe benefited also from the hard circumstances of his poor and violent upbringing, his current poor health, and a psychologist’s assessment that he is at low risk of reoffending.
The judge wasn’t blind to what Corfe had done, calling it “depraved” and noting the long-term impact it was likely to have on his victim. Nevertheless, he considered it to be on the “mid-to-lower level of the spectrum of child abuse”.
None of this is to say that this case or that judge should be singled out for particular criticism; objectively Corfe got a light sentence, but nobody who wasn’t in the judge’s shoes is in a position to second-guess his verdict and insist that it was manifestly wrong. That’s why we have appeals, if needed.
The problem that the case illustrates — as quite frankly does every other case of child sexual abuse that I’ve professionally encountered — is that as a society we are not taking the problem seriously. Child sexual abuse has distinct differences from sexual violence perpetrated on adult victims. The law provides a stark difference: a child cannot consent. That simply reflects that we ostensibly recognise that sex with a child is always wrong.
Our response to the endemic incidence of child sexual abuse in our society belies that apparent seriousness. Despite the child abuse royal commission which exposed the problem in institutional contexts, actually that is only a small part of the problem. Most of this abuse happens in private homes, perpetrated by trusted family members or friends.
Children who report remain routinely disbelieved; the system continues its rush to afford accused perpetrators every advantage it can offer.
Tame and many other advocates have been calling for a recognition by governments and courts that the mechanics of child sexual abuse are unique: uniquely sinister, uniquely consciously amoral, uniquely destructive.
Among other things, the criminal justice system’s standard responses to criminals — that their crimes are aberrations, that non-recidivism and rehabilitation are safe assumptions — are inapt to the fully conscious behaviours of child sexual predators.
We can rationalise and forgive if we choose. We’re not the ones paying the price.
The rape of a child is considered “mid-to-lower level of the spectrum of child abuse”. What the f…? Jesus wept…
.. mid-to-lower level of the spectrum of child abuse..
We can rank child sexual abuse? I am 82, female and have never suffered sexual abuse as a child or adult. And I am outraged, absolutely furious.
This is Australia in 2023? Completely unacceptable.
There are, tragically, substantially more heinous crimes than the one described above.
Not to victims, in fact, ranking makes those who suffer from abuse deemed the lower end of the ‘scale’ are made to feel they shouldn’t be broken because others had it worse, there is nothing benign about this for victims
Sadly, you are both right.
You’re correct – while more horrific acts may have been and are perpetrated, it only compounds – it does not in any sense lessen the horrific nature of what the perpetrators commit, Therefore there should be no hierarchy of disgust or punishment for those monsters. All are equally deserving of the highest penalty possible with, in the case of imprisonment, never to be released.
There people out there who torture and kill children for gratification. It is a horrible fact that is hard to live with. It would be completely unacceptable not to rank their crimes as far more heinous that Corfe’s.
Maybe phrases like ‘lower level of the spectrum’ need to be rethought, but it is important to make distinctions.
The crimes may be compounded by more horrific acts, but that does not alter the fact that ALL of them are gross violations of the agency of vulnerable human beings.
Therefore, no gilding of the lily – ALL perpetrators are monsters and should be dealt with to the utmost degree.
I don’t necessarily agree with the leniency of the sentencing decision here, but I feel that you and Tame are fundamentally wrong about this. Humanisation of criminals is never the problem, and never can be the problem – because we all see what dehumanisation of criminals does in places like the US. Neither should life factors or prospects of rehabilitation be dismissed in sentencing. Statistics simply don’t bear out the notion (one that, contra your argument, is actually already widespread and normalised in our culture rather than the contrary) that child sex abuse is a “special” crime or that offenders can’t be rehabilitated. There are certainly issues around excusing acts deterministically (“he was poor/victimised and thus couldn’t help but offend” is a fallacy), but a lot of the rest of this piece is a distraction. Of course media reporting of a celebrity’s offending will be given prominence and framed as such; we probably wouldn’t be discussing this specific case here and now if it wasn’t for the identity of the offender. The answers lie elsewhere: effective, funded preventative services (where are they, after all these years?); a humane and, yes, humanised criminal justice and rehabilitation system (which, yes, might well move away from lengthy prison terms); and reform of various laws that can allow victim-survivors to speak publicly and reduce the retraumatisation of testifying and being cross-examined in court. Until people start advocating for these concrete policies that experts are calling for, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels and shouting into the void on this topic.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Just plain wrong, in fact. I applaud your humanity, your compassion and your concern. But you are wrong.
Paedophiles are not sick, nor the victims of a hard upbringing, nor morally weak or lacking in empathy. They are predators. They live careful lives, with a calculated sexual modus operandi. I know from personal experience, both as a counsellor for adult survivors, and as a father, that this is the case. They will lie, obfuscate, confuse the issue and manipulate to cover their tracks, but they are calculating determined predators.
They operate in predictable ways very similar to those who engage in “coercive control” to brutally dominate, abuse and enslave their victims. For example: Some years ago a psychologist working with convicted serial abusers in prison asked a group of them a question; “How long does it take to put someone completely under your control, to the point where they are ‘enslaved’?”
The group sat down and spent some time debating the finer points of their experience and came up with an answer, “2 years, minimum.” Among themselves, with like minded and experienced peers they could drop any pretence and work out what they considered the optimum time frame to remove someone’s autonomy, separate them for family and friends and reduce them to abject dependence. 2 years. That’s the kind of long-raange planning it takes to engage in that kind of crime.
Paedophiles are, generally, no different. They plan, prepare, groom, manipulate and destroy the innocence of children. That’s why their crimes have such long term damaging consequences. They are determined criminals, wrecking families and children, with the kind of premeditation of any large scale ‘organised’ crime.
A few facts: –
Most paedophiles do not commit offences.
Most child sex offenders are not paedophiles.
Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by a close family member or acquaintance. Those perpetrators are at relatively low risk of reoffending.
There is a subset of perpetrators that attract a lot of media attention and are at high risk. These are adult males targeting child victims who are strangers, with not just a few but 10s or 100s of victims. It is more likely that their attraction is to boys than girls (although being gay is not a risk factor for paedophilia). They engage in extensive psychological grooming. They usually have a combination of paedophilic disorder and psychological issues that enable them to ignore the distress their behaviour causes (for example callousness arising from psychopathy, or extreme cogntive distortion).
These are the predators that you speak of. They are at extremely high risk of recidivism. You are right, these individuals will intimidate, deny, obfuscate, minimise, and/or feign remorse and response to psychological treatment. If you were treating them you would need to have access to independent facts to distinguish them from those at lower risk because they would probably lie to you. The only intervention with good evidence for this group is antilibidinal therapy. You can debate whether this group are born that way or choose to be evil. The evidence is probably the former. There is no doubt that children need to be protected from them. However a gaol term will not protect children when they are released.
With regard to Corfe, things may have been missed in his recidivism risk and the assessment of his culpability. The fact that his victim was a stranger, and a boy increases his risk. There was extensive psychological coercion over a prolonged time – another risk factor. This also suggests that his behaviour was well thought through and not impulsive. It suggests a high degree of planning. It seems unlikely that it was his only offence. His role as a superfan might actually serve as a grooming technique.
I think the court may have got this wrong (I don’t know all the facts) because a lack of expertise. I agree too much weight was placed on prior good behaviour. Volunteering in churches can have a sinister aspect. In taking childhood adversity into account, its relevance, not just its existence should be examined. I’m not convinced that Corfe engaged in coercive control though. He definitely groomed, but it doesn’t sound like he acted in any way to maintain domination over his victim.
As someone who works with victims (I do too, as well as assessing and treating offenders), I suspect you (&I) work with those who have been more damaged by their experience. It would make sense that they are the victims of more serious offending, and/or have other adverse events in their life. I’ve found that the severity and nature of the trauma is very relevant. The response of trusted care-givers is very relevant. Those whose families blame them or believe the work of the above-reproach-priest have much worse outcomes than those with families offer an appropriate and supportive response. The consequences of being sexually assaulted on one occasion by a stranger is very different to experiencing prolonged sexual abuse in a context of coercive control or a supposedly virtuous person. And that isn’t to minimise the former. But, out of respect for the victims of the latter, and out of need to offer proportionate restrictive interventions (or punishment) we need to acknowledge that not all crimes are the same.
But it is important to remember that punishment does little to reduce the risk to the community, and may in fact increase the risk. Offenders will be traumatised in gaol and usually leave with more mental health issues. This will increase risk of recidivism. Unemployment is a risk factor for recidivism. Being on the front page of the paper makes it hard to find a job. Homelessness is a risk factor. Sex offender registers make it harder to find somewhere to live.
There are child sex offenders who should never be released from custody, and who deserve a painful death (although I strongly believe that it is not our place to deliver the latter). Corfe is probably not the latter. I can definitely understand the sense that he should have served time.
With respect to your dissertation, it fails in the last sense that Corfe’s behaviour is minimised.
He groomed and lured the child to satisfy his own lusts. That to me in a just world would lead me to volunteering to unlatch the trapdoor.
What seems to be conveniently overlooked is the fact that Corfe’s victim will be “doing time” for the rest of his life.
An interesting article, particularly in light of the abuse and worse that Grace Tame has been copping simply because she is attempting to challenge the sexual abuse of children. I suspect our reluctance to take child sexual abuse seriously is another example of the brutality of our dominant culture (to which I belong) which Cathy McGowan has mentioned she came to realize during her terms in Parliament.
I strongly suspect that the people who rail and target Grace Tame are either perpetrators or sympathisers, and should be themselves the subjects of intense police scrutiny.
The “superfan” tag is an early red flag. The creation of a larger than life “out there” persona is essential to deflecting attention and discouraging unwelcome interest. Sir (!) Jimmy Savile wrote the playbook.
The evidence is that large numbers of people do not actually wish to penetrate the under-aged but think it quite OK if important people feel the urge.
I believe you misspelled Saville’s title. Shouldn’t it be ‘Cur’ Jimmy ?