ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that child and forensic psychologists need to reflect critically on the plausibility of moral panic reasoning and its relevance to their own work. Though largely the domain of sociology and criminology, moral panic reasoning is also used at times by psychologists, for example when researching sex offending and the hostility towards asylum seekers. Conceptually ‘moral panics’ emerged as a serious focus in criminology after the Second World War. Children in general are powerless compared to adults and some children are particularly vulnerable. Investigations of child sexual abuse (CSA) in church settings show that clerical authorities protected their own and suppressed a moral panic they did not whip one up at all. Thus an immanent critique concludes emphatically that CSA is not a moral panic. If moral panic claim makers were to limit their claim to the fact that CSA is indeed an emotive public policy controversy then that would be legitimate.
