The newspapers this week have made horrific reading. Lists of the most foul abuses of children. Details of sexual acts forced on young swimmers none of whom had reached the legal age of consent. The crimes were so hideous that they almost forced you to stop reading.
But I didn't stop reading. And I began to wonder why I hadn't. Was this down to morbid curiosity? Was I one of those who slow down passing car wrecks just to see whatever there is to see?
I might just be hoping for a metaphorical glance at the destruction and mangled bodies. But I realised that what I was paying the closest attention to were not the specific acts of abuse or the victims.
I was focusing on the when, the where and the how. Trying to build an understanding of the kinds of events or situations that could give a paedophile an opportunity to abuse. This realisation was a great relief - I wasn't thinking of myself as a voyeur. At the same time the mere fact that I felt the need to try to address these thoughts was disquieting.
Even though my children are now fully grown they were active in sports when they were younger. Like most parents I saw their interest in sport as entirely healthy.
The only risk I had considered was that they might injure themselves playing one or other of the more physical activities in which they were involved. The far darker possibility that some form of sexual abuse might be visited upon them was not a consideration. Besides, I was sure that if something like that had happened, my children would have had enough sense to confide in me.
During my time as minister for justice, paedophilia was beginning to be recognised as a widespread problem. Consequently, I examined the nature of these crimes and the offenders involved. The crimes are difficult to comprehend. The motivation of thieves and fraudsters is clear, greed. When the crime is abuse of children, the motivation is so alien, the thought processes involved so twisted, it is almost impossible to find any common experience upon which to build your comprehension of these people.
These atrocities are rarely, if ever, really sexual in motivation. Typically the compulsion is based on an appallingly low feeling of self-worth. To alleviate that feeling these people must find a way to dominate others, to be in charge. And the easiest targets for this domination and control are those least able to defend themselves, children.
It is the next step in their contorted logic that is the most difficult to follow. Why does this urge to subjugate and overpower translate itself into sexual exploitation? How can they decide to transcend society's greatest taboos, and humankind's most basic instincts to protect our children?
I don't think I'm ever going to understand that. Nor will most people, and therein lies the problem. That lack of understanding makes it difficult to know what the warning signs are, what sort of people we should look out for, what sorts of behaviour will help us identify them and what steps we can take to protect our children.
With paedophiles, simply relying on people to spot what they don't know they should be looking for is unrealistic. We need to be educated. We need the information made available to us. And that task falls to the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Frank Fahey.
On top of all this we need to be hypersensitive to the possibilities.
One particular event detailed in the Murphy report demonstrates how that lack of hypersensitivity allowed abuse to continue. Derry O'Rourke put his hand inside a young girl's swimsuit. His excuse was that he was examining her pectoral muscle.
The Irish Amateur Swimming Association (IASA) accepted this excuse although they did caution him not to behave again in a way that might be misinterpreted. Taken with everything else we now know about O'Rourke it is obvious that an examination of a muscle was not what was going on.
But without knowing everything else, could we be that certain? If this were the only occurrence, would we be justified in dismissing it as a momentary lapse of judgment?
Unfortunately, trust now has to be put to one side. We have to overreact to any hint that something might be wrong because the consequences of not reacting are so awful.
One of the most important recommendations made in the report is that rumours be given serious consideration. Normally, this "no smoke without fire" approach would be abhorrent.
But these are not normal crimes. The victims are usually threatened not to tell anyone what has happened , and are so terrified and confused they often don't. Faced with a crime that is unlikely to be reported we have to be almost obsessively careful in searching for evidence that it has happened at all.
I am not looking for hysterical responses. This debate has already thrown up short-sighted and reactionary calls from some quarters.
For example, chemical castration has been put forward as an appropriate punishment and a method of ensuring those convicted do not re-offend. It won't. Chemical castration merely prevents erection and ejaculation. It does not deal with the basic urge, nor will it prevent abuse using other parts of the offenders' anatomy or foreign objects.
I hope that the shock caused by the contents of the report and everyone's natural "something must be done" reaction leads to real change. Protecting our children is our most important responsibility, and paedophilia is the greatest, most insidious threat to them.