Protecting Our Children from Violence and crime

Part-1

The recent incidents of rape, attempted rape, sexual abuse and murder involving children specially  the brutal rape and murder of 8-year-old Ramisa Akter in Dhaka’s Pallabi area on May 19, 2026, in Dhaka and other parts of Bangladesh have shocked the conscience of the nation and sparked widespread public outrage across Bangladesh. Referring to the growing number of such horrifying incidents, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed described the situation as a manifestation of deep social degradation and moral decline. Speaking at the “BSRF Dialogue” organised by the Bangladesh Secretariat Reporters Forum at the Secretariat Media Centre on May 24, 2026, he said, “This is actually a social degradation; social reform is needed. Our society has been affected by some bad cultures. The level, frequency and nature of rape are going beyond our limits of tolerance.”

These are not ordinary crimes. They are among the most brutal forms of violence because they target children who are physically weaker, emotionally dependent, socially powerless, developmentally immature and often unable to recognize danger before it is too late. When a child is raped, murdered, silenced, threatened or exploited, the crime is committed not only against the individual child but also against the family, the community, the justice system and the moral foundation of society itself.

According to data cited by Ain o Salish Kendra, between 1 January and 20 May 2026, at least 118 children were victims of rape, while 46 others faced attempted rape. During the same period, at least 14 children were killed following rape, three were killed after attempted rape, and two children reportedly died by suicide after being subjected to rape. These figures indicate that child sexual violence is not an isolated law-and-order problem but a serious child-protection crisis requiring coordinated family, community, institutional, policing, judicial and state-level responses. (The Business Standard)

Public anger after such incidents is natural. People demand punishment, protest, and justice. But public anger alone cannot protect children unless it is converted into a permanent system of prevention. Every horrific case should force society to ask: Where did protection fail? Who had access to the child? Why was the danger not detected earlier? Why did the offender believe he could escape? Why did the family, school, neighbourhood, police and local institutions fail to create a protective barrier around the child?

The pattern: danger often comes from familiar spaces

A dangerous misconception in society is that children are mainly at risk from unknown strangers. In reality, many child-abuse cases show that danger may come from familiar persons, semi-trusted adults or people who already have access to the child. The risk may emerge from neighbours, relatives, tutors, drivers, caretakers, domestic workers, teachers, local acquaintances, shopkeepers, transport workers, religious or educational functionaries, older youths, family friends or persons who frequently move around the child’s home, school or neighbourhood.

This does not mean that all familiar persons are dangerous. It means that trust must be accompanied by supervision, boundaries and accountability. A person should not be treated as automatically safe merely because he is known to the family. A familiar offender often exploits precisely that trust. He may know the child’s routine, the parents’ absence, the child’s fear, the family’s poverty, the silence of the neighbourhood, or the likelihood that the family will hesitate to report because of shame.

Children may face danger in spaces that are presumed safe: homes, neighbourhoods, schools, madrasas, coaching centres, rooftops, empty rooms, abandoned houses, quiet roads, parks, fields, construction sites and secluded places. This pattern has major policy significance. It means that child protection cannot be limited to “do not talk to strangers.” Children must also be taught to recognize unsafe behaviour from known persons. Families must learn that secrecy, private meetings, unexplained gifts, repeated attempts to isolate the child and requests not to tell parents are serious warning signs.

A second recurring pattern is luring and isolation. Children may be tempted with food, toys, money, affection, mobile phones, games, promises, transport assistance or emotional attention. Once trust is created, the offender attempts to isolate the child in a place where there is no capable guardian. Routine Activity Theory, developed by Cohen and Felson, is useful here. It explains that crime becomes more likely when three elements converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian. In child sexual violence, the child becomes vulnerable not because the child is responsible, but because the offender finds or creates an opportunity where guardianship is weak.

A third pattern is rape followed by murder or attempted concealment. In some cases, murder appears to be committed because the offender fears disclosure, identification or punishment. This is why rapid reporting, immediate police response, forensic evidence collection, medical examination, CCTV retrieval, mobile-data analysis, suspect identification and witness protection are essential. Delay can allow offenders to destroy evidence, threaten families, flee, create false narratives, influence local actors or manipulate informal compromise. The case of eight-year-old Ramisa Akter reflects a disturbing pattern of brutal murders committed by familiar neighbours living in close proximity within shared residential flats.

A fourth pattern is silence before escalation. Many offenders test boundaries before committing more serious abuse. They may touch the child inappropriately, make sexualized comments, offer gifts, seek private access, ask the child to keep secrets, show obscene content, take photos, or threaten punishment if the child tells anyone. If the child’s discomfort is ignored, the offender may become bolder. Therefore, child protection must begin with early recognition of small signals, not only after major violence occurs.

Why these crimes happen: These crimes are committed by individuals, and offenders must be held fully criminally responsible. However, the persistence of such crimes shows that individual criminal intent is often enabled by social and institutional weaknesses. The central question is not only why an offender committed the crime, but also why the offender found the opportunity, confidence, silence and escape route to commit it.

First, there is weak guardianship. Children move between home, school, coaching centres, shops, playgrounds, relatives’ houses, mosques, madrasas, transport points and neighbourhood spaces. In many cases, no one consistently monitors where the child is, who calls the child, who gives gifts, who spends time alone with the child, who has access to the child’s phone, whether the child fears someone, or whether the child is being gradually groomed. Weak guardianship does not mean parents do not love their children. It means that everyday routines often create unobserved spaces in which offenders can act.

Second, there is silence and shame. Families may fear social dishonour, stigma, marriage-related consequences, neighbourhood gossip, intimidation or economic pressure. Some families fear that reporting will expose the child to further humiliation. In many cases, influential persons attempt to pressure families into compromise. However, child rape is not a private dispute. It is a serious crime against the child, the family, society and the state. Any attempt to settle such a crime through informal salish protects the offender, weakens justice and endangers other children.

Third, there is low certainty of punishment. Harsh punishment alone cannot prevent crime if offenders believe they can escape through delay, intimidation, influence, poor investigation, witness manipulation, forensic weakness or social compromise. Bangladesh amended the law in 2020 to make death penalty the highest punishment for rape, but the preventive effect of punishment depends not only on severity but also on the certainty and speed of detection, investigation, prosecution and conviction.  From a deterrence perspective, the offender is more likely to be discouraged when he believes that he will be quickly identified, scientifically investigated, prosecuted and punished.

Fourth, there is lack of child-safety education. Many children are never taught body-safety rules in age-appropriate language. They may not know that they have the right to say “no,” move away, shout, run, call for help or report uncomfortable behaviour even when the person is known to the family. Many parents also do not know how to listen without blaming the child. If a child reports discomfort and is scolded, disbelieved or silenced, the child may never report again.

Fifth, there is institutional weakness in schools, madrasas, coaching centres, hostels and neighbourhood institutions. Many institutions lack a child-protection policy, safeguarding officer, complaint mechanism, visitor record, staff background verification, safe transport plan, supervised toilet and corridor arrangements, rules on one-to-one contact, and procedures for reporting suspicious behaviour. The absence of institutional safeguarding creates opportunities for abuse and concealment. UNICEF’s 2026 statement specifically emphasized the need for stronger accountability of schools, madrasas, workplaces, neighbourhoods and care settings. (UNICEF)

Sixth, there is gendered power imbalance and social normalization of harassment. Girls are often socialized to remain silent, obey elders, avoid “shame,” and preserve family honour. Boys and men may be socialized into entitlement, dominance or impunity if families, schools and communities fail to challenge abusive masculinity, harassment and coercive behaviour. A society that normalizes stalking, obscene comments, harassment, forced touching, intimidation or “eve-teasing” creates the cultural ground in which more serious violence may grow.

Seventh, there are online and digital risks. Children increasingly use mobile phones, messaging apps, gaming platforms, social media and video-sharing platforms. Offenders may use these tools to groom children, build secrecy, collect photos, threaten exposure, blackmail victims or arrange meetings. UNICEF has warned that rapid digital growth has created gaps in laws, services and education, leaving children at risk of exploitation, trafficking, cyberbullying and invasion of privacy. (UNICEF) Therefore, child protection today must include both physical safety and digital safety.

Theoretical framework: A comprehensive explanation of child sexual violence requires an integrated theoretical framework.

Routine Activity Theory explains how crime becomes more likely when motivated offenders encounter vulnerable targets in the absence of capable guardians. In the case of child sexual violence, the child is not “suitable” because of any fault of the child; rather, the child becomes vulnerable because of age, dependency, isolation, lack of awareness, emotional trust and absence of supervision.

Deterrence Theory, associated with classical criminological thought, suggests that crime prevention depends on the perceived certainty, swiftness and severity of punishment. In practice, certainty is often more important than severity. If offenders believe investigations are weak, cases are delayed, witnesses can be threatened, families can be pressured and evidence can be destroyed, then even harsh punishment may fail to deter crime.

Social-Ecological Theory explains violence as a product of interacting levels: individual, family, community, institutional and societal. A child may be vulnerable because of individual dependency, family communication gaps, unsafe neighbourhoods, weak school safeguarding, social stigma, weak law enforcement, online risks and broader gender inequality. This model is useful because it shows that no single actor can prevent child violence alone.

Feminist and gender-power perspectives explain how sexual violence is linked to power, domination, entitlement, patriarchal attitudes, victim-blaming and the policing of female honour. In many societies, survivors are stigmatized while offenders are shielded. Such norms silence victims and embolden perpetrators.

Procedural justice and victimology perspectives show that victims and families are more likely to report crimes when they believe police, doctors, prosecutors and courts will treat them with dignity, confidentiality and fairness. If families expect humiliation, repeated questioning, social exposure or delay, they may hesitate to report.

Together, these theories show that child rape and rape-murder are not merely spontaneous acts of individual depravity. They often occur when opportunity, silence, weak guardianship, impunity, institutional negligence and social power imbalance converge.

What families must do

The family is the first protective institution of the child. However, protection is not achieved merely by love or authority. It requires trust-based communication, careful supervision, emotional availability and practical safety rules.

Parents and guardians must build such a relationship that children feel safe to report fear, discomfort, confusion, inappropriate touching, threats, gifts, secrecy or unusual behaviour. A child should hear repeatedly and clearly: “Your body belongs to you. No one has the right to touch you in a way that makes you uncomfortable. If anyone asks you to keep a secret about touching, gifts, photos, videos, private meetings or threats, you must tell us immediately. You will not be blamed.”

Families should monitor who spends time with the child, who gives gifts, who calls the child alone, who asks the child to visit a private room or rooftop, who tries to create secrecy, and who shows excessive interest in the child. Who accompanies the child to and from school? A child’s sudden silence, fear of a person, refusal to go somewhere, unexplained injury, nightmares, withdrawal, aggression, bedwetting, unusual sexualized behaviour or sudden decline in school performance should not be ignored.

Children should not be left unsupervised in risky locations such as abandoned buildings, empty classrooms, rooftops, isolated fields, quiet staircases, garages, construction sites, or secluded parks. Even in familiar neighbourhoods, safety must be actively managed. Even, leaving children alone inside a house under lock and key while parents go outside for shopping, work, or other purposes may expose them to serious risks and create a condition of double jeopardy. In the event of fire, earthquake, domestic accidents, or other natural calamities, children may become trapped and unable to seek help or escape safely. At the same time, criminals may exploit the absence of adults to commit burglary, theft, kidnapping, or violent crimes, and in extreme situations may even harm child occupants to conceal their identity. Besides physical danger, such practices may also cause psychological trauma and reflect parental negligence. Therefore, proper supervision, safe childcare arrangements, and greater public awareness are essential to ensure the safety and well-being of children.

Cordial and meaningful interaction between parents and children is essential for understanding the psychological dynamics of children, including their mindset, behavioural changes, emotional reactions, and untold experiences. Through close communication, parents can better comprehend how children respond to both the internal environment of the family and the external social environment in which they interact. Such interaction helps identify signs of emotional distress, fear, frustration, social pressure, or unusual conduct at an early stage, thereby enabling timely guidance and support.

In today’s fast-paced and highly demanding urban life, however, this vital parent-child interaction is gradually diminishing. In many families, both father and mother remain occupied with professional responsibilities outside the home for long hours. As a result, children are often left under the care and custody of domestic helpers, caregivers, relatives, or day care institutions. While such arrangements may be unavoidable for economic and practical reasons, they sometimes create a significant barrier to emotional bonding and favourable communication between parents and children. The absence of regular quality time may lead children to feel emotionally isolated, misunderstood, or reluctant to share their personal experiences and concerns with their parents. However, this should not be interpreted as criticism of working parents, but rather as a call for ensuring safe and secure childcare arrangements.

This communication gap can have broader social and psychological implications. Children who lack emotional attachment and attentive supervision may become more vulnerable to negative peer influence, behavioural problems, online risks, mental stress, or even victimisation. Therefore, despite professional commitments, parents should make conscious efforts to maintain regular, affectionate, and trust-based interaction with their children through conversation, shared activities, and emotional support. Such engagement plays a crucial role in ensuring the healthy mental, moral, and social development of children.

Community responsibility: Child protection cannot be left to families alone. Every neighbourhood should treat child safety as a collective responsibility. Local communities can create ward-level child safety committees involving parents, teachers, local government representatives, police, social workers, imams, community leaders, youth representatives and women’s groups. These committees should identify risky spots, abandoned buildings, dark lanes, unsafe school routes, unsupervised playgrounds and persons repeatedly accused of suspicious behaviour.

Community policing forums should include child protection as a regular agenda. Local shops, transport workers, caretakers, guards and residents should be encouraged to report suspicious movement of children with adults. A child crying, being dragged, being taken to an isolated place, or appearing frightened in the company of an adult should not be ignored. Silence must no longer be considered neutrality. Silence in the face of child abuse helps the offender.

Religious leaders, teachers and respected local figures should speak openly against child sexual violence. They must make it clear that shame belongs to the offender, not the child or the family. Victim-blaming should be socially rejected. No family should be pressured into silence in the name of honour, marriage prospects or community reputation.

Community-based prevention should also address local “hotspots.” These may include abandoned houses, dark lanes, rooftops, construction sites, isolated fields, unsafe school routes, bus stands, riverbanks, garages, warehouses and poorly supervised hostels. A preventive community should map such locations and work with local government and police to improve lighting, surveillance, access control and reporting.

Educational institutions: Schools, madrasas, coaching centres and hostels are not merely places of education; they are duty-bearing institutions responsible for the safety of children. Every educational institution should adopt a written child-protection and safeguarding policy. This policy should include clear rules about one-to-one contact between staff and children, use of empty rooms, private tuition spaces, transport arrangements, toilets, hostels, after-school activities, sports practice, cultural programmes and digital communication between staff and students.

Every institution should appoint a safeguarding focal person. There should be confidential complaint mechanisms, child-friendly reporting boxes, trained teachers, visitor records, staff background checks where possible, supervised corridors, safe toilet arrangements, CCTV in appropriate public spaces, and clear procedures for reporting serious allegations to law enforcement. Schools and madrasas must not protect institutional reputation by hiding abuse. Protecting institutional image at the cost of child safety is morally unacceptable and legally dangerous.

Children should receive age-appropriate life-skills education. This does not mean exposing young children to inappropriate content. It means teaching them body safety, unarmed combat, safe and unsafe touch, trusted adults, how to say no, how to shout for help, how to report discomfort, how to avoid secrecy, how to use helplines, and how to remain safe online. The WHO-supported INSPIRE framework identifies seven evidence-based strategies for ending violence against children: implementation and enforcement of laws, norms and values, safe environments, parent and caregiver support, income and economic strengthening, response and support services, and education and life skills. (World Health Organization)

Educational institutions must also address peer-based sexual harassment, bullying and digital abuse. Older students may intimidate younger children, demand photos, use obscene language, share humiliating images or exploit social-media groups. A safeguarding policy should cover not only adult-child abuse but also child-to-child harmful behaviour.

Md. Motiar Rahman