In the context of this thread the UK is civilised. Our laws allow zero tolerance for offending paedophiles regarding child sexual abuse physical or 'virtual' ie drawn images & so on & our laws have been tightened over the years. We even prosecute UK citizens in the UK if there is evidence they have abused kids abroad.
But the law doesn't apply to the rich, the well connected, the powerful. As should be blatantly obvious by now! So what you're calling 'civilisation' is really just "ahhh but the proles can't get away with it, they'll be deterred!" Which is pretty fucking messed up, don't you think?
Firstly there's the question of how much deterrent is likely to stop anyone committing offences. I'm sure it does stop some people from committing offences but as you recognize yourself it's impossible to know how many - what makes you think there are significant numbers of people who would commit offences if they thought there were no consequences.
Secondly there's the issue that since our 'civilised' society is pretty light touch if you work in light entertainment or you're an MP, and that this is obvious to people, those who are in a position which means they'll probably get away with it may even be spurred on to commit such offences because
they know the lower ranks of society would not be able to do the things they do. When you think about the reports of organized paedophile rings and the sick 'parties' that many Tory MP's are alleged to have been involved in, it makes me think that for them a part of the thrill might have been their own sense of being untouchable and being able to depraved horrible things and get away with them.
Thirdly, you seem to think that
only the rule of law can be a deterrent - there are other kinds of reasons why people would be deterred from doing this shit in every society! Even in societies where there is no age of consent, or laws around child abuse or whatever, that doesn't mean that any individual could just rape a child and be confident in experiencing no backlash from their community etc.
The publicity given to it makes both adults & children more aware of the type of behaviour that might suggest an individual is a potential abuser.
Does it? Does the way that the media covers these cases make it easier for people to spot potential paedophiles? Do you think people read The S*n or the Daily Heil and think "Ooooh, I know what to watch out for now!"
The most likely kids to be abused will always be those who are vulnerable, who nobody will notice if somebody close to them is using their position of closeness to groom, threaten and abuse them. That's always been the case and it will continue to be, and it's also pretty clear that the 'deterrent' of the courts is not very good at safeguarding vulnerable children.