Hi Chris,
I'm afraid I have no better answer than yours and Frannie's basically: the last social taboo (so far) indeed.
I'd just highlight, fwiw, that this situation focuses the full force of public reprobation (the other side of self-esteem or self-righteousness, previously scattered on many issues such as prostitution, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, etc.) on this single one, and conversely offers it as the main target to antisocial drive -- the only sacred place left where sacrilege can occur, the only absolute law left to be transgressed. This places the child in a spot which is more protected and more dangerous than ever at the same time.
It reinforces an ambiguous sacralisation of childhood, increasingly separating children and adults into two different worlds, with only highly controlled protocols of relationship between them. In some places smiling at a child, not to mention petting his/her head or hugging, which was very natural decades ago, becomes suspicious. I've seen people getting uneasy with the Gospel passages where parents bring their children to Jesus that he might touch them.
Ironically this sacralisation / idealisation / separation of childhood can be traced back to old Christian roots, via modern developments such as mandatory education, prohibition of child labour, which resulted in making childhood longer, well over puberty. To an extent sexuality is acknowledged both sides of the border but not across it. And here the taboo (about teenagers especially) seems to be stronger than it was. I wonder how the American public reads/watches Lolita or The Night of the Iguana nowadays.
Where I live we have seen the progression of publicity about child molestation in the last few decades as a mostly American trend and influence. Of course cases of child abuse and sexual offences were always there, but publicity has increased and that cuts both ways. It causes both healthy and unhealthy fear. Gives much opportunity (including to children, which may be construed as another form of psychological abuse) for destructive defamation, too. There was a huge trial recently in Outreau, France, where dozens of people were "preventively" incarcerated because the word of (manipulated) children was "taken seriously," as the current motto goes. Several months and a few suicides later it proved to be an empty file.
In spite of influences we live in very different cultural settings. Nobody here except a handful of far-right extremists would advocate the restoration of death penalty for any crime. Most responsible leaders try to think necessary repression along with prevention and rehabilitation (in different proportions of course). I hope this enables us to deal with this painful issue less hysterically and less damagingly.
What I meant is that even though we may have no answer (and even if we had theoretical answers that would not change the facts, at least not quickly) we must accept the questions (admittingly kind of egg-and-chicken questions as you put it) which crime, and especially publicised crime, poses to society. I think they point to a dangerously idealised view of childhood, sex, and individuality. To which I might add "security".
In Bergman's movie Through the Mirror there is an incest scene, and when finally the victim (a boy) can talk about it he only says "now I know everything can happen". That's the world we live in, but that's not the world we're taught. We try to make the world we live in look like the world we're taught, which is certainly borne by "good motives" but has the side effect of overdramatising any instance where it doesn't, hence increasing the resulting trauma. The more the 99 sheep look safe the more the hundredth one feels lost. But reality is not so simple. Sooner or later most of us have to learn the hard way that "everything can happen," and that 100 % "normalcy" is, after all, a pretty rare exception.
Just rambling, and sincerely hoping that nothing of the above hurts you.
