Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 16:53:01 GMT -5
Why, though? You're saying that if a child takes the stand (I don't know if they have a witness box in family court, but whatever) and testifies that Mr. X did such and such to him, the near-universal reaction is not to believe the testimony? Why? Just because they don't want to believe it's possible? Or is it for a more sensible reason such as the child's inability to keep his/her testimony straight, or being caught in a lie, or having a long history of lies and misbehaving? Ummmm, I'm speechless. You just don't get it, I don't think. That everybody on Earth except the people in this thread live in a completely irrational state of denial when it comes to child molestation charges? You're right, that's kind of hard for me to swallow.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 28, 2014 17:28:49 GMT -5
Most child molestation is committed by a close family member. It is hard to investigate and try those cases for the same reason it's hard to investigate and try domestic violence cases. Getting someone - especially a child - to testify against a loved one is extremely difficult. Particularly when other family members side with the accused. Often the victim will recant (or at the very least be pressured not to testify). And many abuses aren't reported until years after the fact, when there is no physical evidence. This makes the claims even easier to rebut.
(I'm not a criminal attorney, but my boss was a sex crimes/DV prosecutor for more than 10 years, so I know a little about the dynamic...)
Look at DQ's example of the pediatrician in her community. The victim's father lost his job and has had his entire family turn against him for protecting his daughter. Community members blame him for disgracing a beloved pediatrician. Facing those types of consequences, and knowing that it may be for nothing - that the perp may walk - would you pursue charges? I'm not sure I would. I hope I never have to make that decision.
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Mar 28, 2014 21:12:55 GMT -5
Ummmm, I'm speechless. You just don't get it, I don't think. That everybody on Earth except the people in this thread live in a completely irrational state of denial when it comes to child molestation charges? You're right, that's kind of hard for me to swallow. I don't even understand what you're trying to express in your last post. It doesn't make any sense.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:15:35 GMT -5
Most child molestation is committed by a close family member. It is hard to investigate and try those cases for the same reason it's hard to investigate and try domestic violence cases. Getting someone - especially a child - to testify against a loved one is extremely difficult. Particularly when other family members side with the accused. Often the victim will recant (or at the very least be pressured not to testify). And many abuses aren't reported until years after the fact, when there is no physical evidence. This makes the claims even easier to rebut. (I'm not a criminal attorney, but my boss was a sex crimes/DV prosecutor for more than 10 years, so I know a little about the dynamic...) Look at DQ's example of the pediatrician in her community. The victim's father lost his job and has had his entire family turn against him for protecting his daughter. Community members blame him for disgracing a beloved pediatrician. Facing those types of consequences, and knowing that it may be for nothing - that the perp may walk - would you pursue charges? I'm not sure I would. I hope I never have to make that decision.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:21:38 GMT -5
Ummmm, I'm speechless. You just don't get it, I don't think. That everybody on Earth except the people in this thread live in a completely irrational state of denial when it comes to child molestation charges? You're right, that's kind of hard for me to swallow. We're trying to explain to you why people may be reluctant to disclose sex abuse and why proving a case of it may be hard to do. Example: Suzy is molested by Joe, her stepdad. He's been her father figure for many years. Mom loves the guy. The family depends on him emotionally and financially. Suzy discloses the abuse. Mom doesn't believe the man she loves would do that, and Suzy has been lying a lot and acting out, not realizing that is common behavior for abuse victims. Suzy keeps getting molested. She discloses to her teacher. Teacher calls DSS. Joe is arrested. He loses his job. Mom loses the house and her husband and is stresses and unhappy. Suzy recants trying to make her mom happy. Now I've got an inconsistent statement at trial.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:24:18 GMT -5
I've also talked to jurors after sex abuse cases. Some of them just can't fathom that someone would do that to a child.
Another case: some siblings disclose abuse by a well respected family friend. Friend gets arrested. People go by the siblings house and throw bricks through the window with "whores" painted on it. Their cars get keyed, tires get slashed.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 21:28:39 GMT -5
Why, though? You're saying that if a child takes the stand (I don't know if they have a witness box in family court, but whatever) and testifies that Mr. X did such and such to him, the near-universal reaction is not to believe the testimony? Why? Just because they don't want to believe it's possible? Or is it for a more sensible reason such as the child's inability to keep his/her testimony straight, or being caught in a lie, or having a long history of lies and misbehaving? As others have mentioned, it's not unusual for kids who have been molested to have a history of misbehaving. Lying is also common, especially for those that were long-term victims. So it's difficult to know if the misbehavior and lying invalidate or actually give credence to the claims of abuse.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 28, 2014 21:29:42 GMT -5
That seems pretty naive.
I can't be the only one who remembers the Sandusky thread from a couple of years ago...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 21:36:58 GMT -5
Spend a day shadowing a case worker in your local Child Protective Services department. What will surprise you the most is not that neighbors or other family members sometimes blame the child, but the fact that most of the time, it's the mother that blames the child, especially if the child is a girl.
Virgil, given this comment and some of your other prior comments about spousal abuse, it appears that you live a very, very sheltered life. I'm happy for you that none of these situations have impacted you personally.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 21:42:34 GMT -5
Most child molestation is committed by a close family member. It is hard to investigate and try those cases for the same reason it's hard to investigate and try domestic violence cases. Getting someone - especially a child - to testify against a loved one is extremely difficult. Particularly when other family members side with the accused. Often the victim will recant (or at the very least be pressured not to testify). And many abuses aren't reported until years after the fact, when there is no physical evidence. This makes the claims even easier to rebut. (I'm not a criminal attorney, but my boss was a sex crimes/DV prosecutor for more than 10 years, so I know a little about the dynamic...) Look at DQ's example of the pediatrician in her community. The victim's father lost his job and has had his entire family turn against him for protecting his daughter. Community members blame him for disgracing a beloved pediatrician. Facing those types of consequences, and knowing that it may be for nothing - that the perp may walk - would you pursue charges? I'm not sure I would. I hope I never have to make that decision. In DQ's example, the community clearly trusts the pediatrician more than they trust the girl. I don't know either of them, so I don't know how deserved or misplaced the community's faith in him is. If there was even a single other witness to speak against the pediatrician, such as another victim or a member of the pediatrician's staff who'd noticed improper behaviour, I'd believe the girl. Barring that, it's his reputation against hers. The factors you list (children not testifying, recanting, waiting years to testify, etc.) are all reasons why pursuing charges might fail, but Swamp's specific claim is that even when a molested child clears all the hurdles and testifies (without recanting), nobody believes him/her anyway. I have to assume there's some evidence or other witnesses involved, since one child's uncorroborated testimony clearly isn't enough to convict a man of anything, and the prosecution would know this. But in spite of any evidence or other witnesses, Swamp is saying that most everybody (police and jury included) doesn't believe the testimony as a matter of course. I'm trying to determine why that is.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:43:42 GMT -5
I didn't say anywhere that the police didn't believe the kid.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:44:27 GMT -5
And what kind of reputation would a 4 year old have?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 21:46:31 GMT -5
That everybody on Earth except the people in this thread live in a completely irrational state of denial when it comes to child molestation charges? You're right, that's kind of hard for me to swallow. We're trying to explain to you why people may be reluctant to disclose sex abuse and why proving a case of it may be hard to do. Example: Suzy is molested by Joe, her stepdad. He's been her father figure for many years. Mom loves the guy. The family depends on him emotionally and financially. Suzy discloses the abuse. Mom doesn't believe the man she loves would do that, and Suzy has been lying a lot and acting out, not realizing that is common behavior for abuse victims. Suzy keeps getting molested. She discloses to her teacher. Teacher calls DSS. Joe is arrested. He loses his job. Mom loses the house and her husband and is stresses and unhappy. Suzy recants trying to make her mom happy. Now I've got an inconsistent statement at trial. OK. But recanted testimony would clearly be reason not to believe it. What we're talking about it is the "blow it off" attitude where people don't believe the testimony even if when it isn't inconsistent.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 28, 2014 21:51:45 GMT -5
Because unless you are familiar with the behaviors of some sex abuse victims, they do some things that seem kind of whacky to the outsider.
If you were beaten up and robbed by someone, you'd tell? Why don't sex abuse victims do the same? Well, it's usually perpetrated by a person they trust, who,tells them not o tell, who threatens them, and they know, disclosure will rip,the family apart. If the case gets to be prosecuted, you've got these "aberrant" behaviors to explain away.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 21:53:14 GMT -5
I didn't say anywhere that the police didn't believe the kid. genericname stated "It is underreported because of a-holes like Dottie and the investigators who blow off the victims." When I asked her about it, you replied "And it's not the cops that don't believe the kids, it's the patents, the family, the neighbors, the juries." As in: nobody believes the kid. I'm happy they haven't impacted me either. And the reason I'm in this thread is trying to figure out why and under what circumstances people tend to side with a molester.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 28, 2014 21:54:38 GMT -5
That's not true, at least in my state. The uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to convict, as long as the other statutory elements are satisfied.
And the OP is a perfect example of someone "blowing it off." If all child molesters were scary-looking old homeless men, it might not be an issue. But they can be husbands, fathers, professionals, pillars of the community. (Or women). No one wants to believe an otherwise "normal" person is capable of something so depraved. So they try to rationalize it. And the easiest way to do that is to say that the victim must be lying, or mistaken, or maybe they brought it on themselves somehow.
(This happens with other crimes too. Look at all the women who wrote love letters to Scott Peterson while he was on trial for killing his wife and unborn child! Or look at the people who are convinced that Dylan Farrow is full of crap because they like Woody Allen's movies.)
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 22:30:19 GMT -5
I'm happy they haven't impacted me either. And the reason I'm in this thread is trying to figure out why and under what circumstances people tend to side with a molester. OK, I'll give you a very common example. A single mother with few skills struggles to pay her bills; life sucks. After working 40 hours a week at her minimum wage job, she comes home to her dumpy apartment in the 'hood, has to take care of several needy kids all alone and can barely afford to feed everyone, much less buy clothes or any luxuries. Suddenly, she meets a man who not only takes care of her, but provides a nice lifestyle and loves her daughters as well. (BTW, since all this seems to be so very new to you, men who are molesters often target single moms so they have easy access to their children.) The mother is thrilled! Suddenly, they live in a comfortable house in a nice suburb; there's someone to help get the kids ready for bed and enough money to even go out to eat and do fun things. Life is good.
When the 6 year old daughter comes and tells that mom that her new daddy has been touching her, it's not a given that the mom will allow herself to believe it's true. Because the mom knows full well that if she confronts this savior, it's likely they will lose everything they have and go right back to the projects. Mom's been there before and knows how hard it is. So often, the mom will either choose to ignore it (oh, honey, I'm sure that's not what happened, he was just helping you get ready for bed) or will blame the daughter for causing this problem and putting the mom in this awful position. Or will blame the daughter for being too flirty or leading the man on. I once heard the mother of a 9 year old who was shaped like a boy claim this about her daughter...
Oh, and back to your earlier misunderstanding about what might cause certain actions in a kid. Imagine you're that 6 year old. You've told your mom what's going on, she may have even walked in on it once or twice and still she does nothing. Over time, what do you think that does to you? Who can you trust? How do you start to act? Do you still value yourself as a person?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 22:41:04 GMT -5
That's not true, at least in my state. The uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to convict, as long as the other statutory elements are satisfied. And the OP is a perfect example of someone "blowing it off." If all child molesters were scary-looking old homeless men, it might not be an issue. But they can be husbands, fathers, professionals, pillars of the community. (Or women). No one wants to believe an otherwise "normal" person is capable of something so depraved. So they try to rationalize it. And the easiest way to do that is to say that the victim must be lying, or mistaken, or maybe they brought it on themselves somehow. (This happens with other crimes too. Look at all the women who wrote love letters to Scott Peterson while he was on trial for killing his wife and unborn child! Or look at the people who are convinced that Dylan Farrow is full of crap because they like Woody Allen's movies.) I don't see that a single person's uncorroborated testimony should be enough to convict a person of a crime. It warrants investigation by the police, certainly, but there's absolutely no "beyond a reasonable doubt" in uncorroborated testimony, no matter what the alleged crime or circumstances. I suppose you could call that "blowing off" molestation claims, but it seems to me that it's the only reasonable course of action. And the whole world is calling her delusional. I recall there were some people questioning whether Sandusky's relations with adult football players, with the coerced consent of the players, could be considered rape or molestation. But once the allegations included Sandusky's camp for young boys, I don't remember anybody claiming the boys were at fault or that Sandusky had done no wrong. I'll have to find it and read it again.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 28, 2014 22:43:05 GMT -5
I didn't say anywhere that the police didn't believe the kid. genericname stated "It is underreported because of a-holes like Dottie and the investigators who blow off the victims." When I asked her about it, you replied "And it's not the cops that don't believe the kids, it's the patents, the family, the neighbors, the juries." As in: nobody believes the kid. I'm happy they haven't impacted me either. And the reason I'm in this thread is trying to figure out why and under what circumstances people tend to side with a molester. It seems like you're coming at this under the perception that people deliberately side with a known abuser. That's not how they see it. In their minds, the person isn't an abuser at all. There is no "siding with a molester." Hence the title of this thread.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,402
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 28, 2014 22:44:49 GMT -5
Why, though? You're saying that if a child takes the stand (I don't know if they have a witness box in family court, but whatever) and testifies that Mr. X did such and such to him, the near-universal reaction is not to believe the testimony? Why? Just because they don't want to believe it's possible? Or is it for a more sensible reason such as the child's inability to keep his/her testimony straight, or being caught in a lie, or having a long history of lies and misbehaving? Why? Because outwardly, the family projects a happy, well-functioning unit. And since that's the type of behavior causal on-lookers see, that's what they believe. When you've got shit to hide, you learn to hide it well. I had a pretty iffy childhood. No sex abuse. Once my mom and I went away for a long weekend. By the end of day two, she was calling me a b*tch underneath her breath, just loud enough for me to hear and no one else. Because I called my mom on a boundary (I asked her to please be forthcoming with feelings so I didn't have to "guess" what was going through her mind), she threatened to remove me from her car. We were in a remote area with poor cell phone coverage, and it was after dark. I had no other access to any other transportation, and I was pregnant. The next morning, a woman VERY sincerely told us that she thought we had a very special mother daughter relationship. She thought we were a rarity. So, do you think this woman would have believed me if I told her my mom was calling me a bitch under her breath (while we were all in the same room) and shared the story of how I almost got dropped off in the middle of no-where? And I was an adult. I was so conditioned to believe that NO one would believe my childhood that I was shocked when therapists believed me. ETA: I'm an only child and I've been pretty far removed from the crazy for a while. It's to the point where some days I wonder if I made it up.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 22:49:33 GMT -5
I'm happy they haven't impacted me either. And the reason I'm in this thread is trying to figure out why and under what circumstances people tend to side with a molester. OK, I'll give you a very common example. ...
But this is an example where the mother has a strong personal stake in not believing her daughter. If the matter made it as far as a courtroom, although I'm sure the daughter's testimony would be very compelling, it simply isn't enough to convict a man. A conviction would require some kind of a history, or other witnesses to speak out against the molester, or physical evidence against him. But this doesn't mean that nobody believes the girl, or that they're "blowing off" her accusations. I realize that. By "siding with a molester", I mean "having faith in the innocence of an accused molester".
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 28, 2014 22:52:01 GMT -5
That's not true, at least in my state. The uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to convict, as long as the other statutory elements are satisfied. And the OP is a perfect example of someone "blowing it off." If all child molesters were scary-looking old homeless men, it might not be an issue. But they can be husbands, fathers, professionals, pillars of the community. (Or women). No one wants to believe an otherwise "normal" person is capable of something so depraved. So they try to rationalize it. And the easiest way to do that is to say that the victim must be lying, or mistaken, or maybe they brought it on themselves somehow. (This happens with other crimes too. Look at all the women who wrote love letters to Scott Peterson while he was on trial for killing his wife and unborn child! Or look at the people who are convinced that Dylan Farrow is full of crap because they like Woody Allen's movies.) I don't see that a single person's uncorroborated testimony should be enough to convict a person of a crime. It warrants investigation by the police, certainly, but there's absolutely no "beyond a reasonable doubt" in uncorroborated testimony, no matter what the alleged crime or circumstances. I suppose you could call that "blowing off" molestation claims, but it seems to me that it's the only reasonable course of action. And the whole world is calling her delusional. I recall there were some people questioning whether Sandusky's relations with adult football players, with the coerced consent of the players, could be considered rape or molestation. But once the allegations included Sandusky's camp for young boys, I don't remember anybody claiming the boys were at fault or that Sandusky had done no wrong. I'll have to find it and read it again. Maybe you don't see it, but that is the law in my state and several others. Again I point out "as long as the other statutory elements are satisfied." I'm pretty sure the Sandusky thread was deleted or hidden after some very offensive posts were removed (by you, IIRC).
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 22:52:36 GMT -5
OK, I'll give you a very common example. ...
But this is an example where the mother has a strong personal stake in not believing her daughter. If the matter made it as far as a courtroom, although I'm sure the daughter's testimony would be very compelling, it simply isn't enough to convict a man. A conviction would require some kind of a history, or other witnesses to speak out against the molester, or physical evidence against him. But this doesn't mean that nobody believes the girl, or that they're "blowing off" her accusations. Do you not understand that often the mother has a strong personal stake in not believing her daughter?
And it's pretty rare that something like that will make it to a courtroom. If a 6 year old tells mom and mom does nothing, usually the 6 year old shuts up.
You asked about why and under what circumstances someone chooses to side with a molester. I just gave you one that happens All. The. Time. And you blew it off. Proves the point.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by raeoflyte on Mar 28, 2014 23:07:14 GMT -5
This thread makes me so sad. Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 23:11:13 GMT -5
But this is an example where the mother has a strong personal stake in not believing her daughter. If the matter made it as far as a courtroom, although I'm sure the daughter's testimony would be very compelling, it simply isn't enough to convict a man. A conviction would require some kind of a history, or other witnesses to speak out against the molester, or physical evidence against him. But this doesn't mean that nobody believes the girl, or that they're "blowing off" her accusations. Do you not understand that often the mother has a strong personal stake in not believing her daughter?
And it's pretty rare that something like that will make it to a courtroom. If a 6 year old tells mom and mom does nothing, usually the 6 year old shuts up.
You asked about why and under what circumstances someone chooses to side with a molester. I just gave you one that happens All. The. Time. And you blew it off. Proves the point.
I haven't blown anything off. I just don't consider the inability to convict a molester due to the litany of factors listed (reluctant witnesses, recanted testimony, victims acting out, victims not reporting crimes, etc.) as evidence of "investigators blow[ing] off the victims" or juries not believing the charges. I'm talking about law enforcement, juries, and people who don't have a strong personal personal respect for (or connection to) the accused. I should have made that clearer. Why would such people choose to have faith in the innocence of an accused molester?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 23:18:23 GMT -5
This article discusses many of the things you find very difficult to comprehend, Virgil. www.secasa.com.au/sections/for-students/the-child-abuse-accommodation-syndrome/
A few extracts: Child victims of sexual abuse face secondary trauma in the crisis of discovery. Their attempts to reconcile their private experiences with the realities of the outer world are assaulted by the disbelief, blame and rejection they experience from adults. The normal coping behavior of the child contradicts the entrenched beliefs and expectations typically held by adults, stigmatizing the child with charges of lying, manipulating or imagining from parents, courts and clinicians. Such abandonment by the very adults most crucial to the child's protection and recovery drives the child deeper into self-blame, self-hate, alienation and revictimization. In contrast, the advocacy of an empathic clinician within a supportive treatment network can provide vital credibility and endorsement for the child.
Evaluation of the responses of normal children to sexual assault provides clear evidence that societal definitions of "normal" victim behavior are inappropriate and procrustean, serving adults as mythic insulators against the child's pain. Within this climate of prejudice, the sequential survival options available to the victim further alienate the child from any hope of outside credibility or acceptance. Ironically, the child's inevitable choice of the "wrong" options reinforces and perpetuates the prejudicial myths.
....
Without professional or self-help group intervention, most parents are not prepared to believe their child in the face of convincing denials from a responsible adult. Since the majority of adults who molest children occupy a kinship or a trusted relationship [8,22,49,50], the child is put on the defensive for attacking the credibility of the trusted adult, and for creating a crisis of loyalty which defies comfortable resolution. At a time when the child most needs love, endorsement and exculpation, the unprepared parent typically responds with horror, rejection and blame [22,42].
.... Any attempts by the child to illuminate the secret will be countered by an adult conspiracy of silence and disbelief. "Don't worry about things like that; that could never happen in our family." "Nice children don't talk about things like that." "Uncle Johnnie doesn't mean you any harm; that's just his way of showing how he loves you." "How could you ever think of such a terrible thing?" "Don't let me ever hear you say anything like that again!"
The average child never asks and never tells. Contrary to the general expectation that the victim would normally seek help, the majority of the victims in retrospective surveys had never told anyone during their childhood [22,42,49,50]. Respondents expressed fear that they would be blamed for what had happened or that a parent would not be able to protect them from retaliation. Many of those who sought help reported that parents became hysterical or punishing or pretended that nothing had happened [42].
.... If the child cannot create a psychic economy to reconcile the continuing outrage, the intolerance of helplessness and the increasing feeling of rage will seek active expression. For the girl this often leads to self-destruction and reinforcement of self-hate; self-mutilation, suicidal behavior, promiscuous sexual activity and repeated runaways are typical.
.... The mother typically reacts to allegations of sexual abuse with disbelief and protective denial. How could she not have known? How could the child wait so long to tell her? What kind of mother could allow such a thing to happen? What would the neighbours think? As someone substantially dependent on the approval and generosity of the father, the mother in the incestuous triangle is confronted with a mind splitting dilemma analogous to that of the abused child. Either the child is bad and deserving of punishment or the father is bad and unfairly punitive. One of them is lying and unworthy of trust. The mother's whole security and life adjustment and much of her sense of adult self worth demand a trust in the reliability of her partner. To accept the alternative means annihilation of the family and a large piece of her own identity. Her fear and ambivalence are reassured by the father's logical challenge, "Are you going to believe that lying little slut?. Can you believe I would do such a thing? How could something like that go on right under your nose for years? You know we can't trust her out of our sight anymore. Just when we try to clamp down and I get a little rough with her, she comes back with a ridiculous story like this. That's what I get for trying to keep her out of trouble."
Of the minority of incest secrets that are disclosed to the mother or discovered by the mother, very few are subsequently reported to outside agencies [50]. The mother will either disbelieve the complaint or try to negotiate a resolution within the family.
.... Whatever a child says about sexual abuse, she is likely to reverse it. Beneath the anger of impulsive disclosure remains the ambivalence of guilt and the martyred obligation to preserve the family. In the chaotic aftermath of disclosure, the child discovers that the bedrock fears and threats underlying the secrecy are true. Her father abandons her and calls her a liar. Her mother does not believe her or decompensates into hysteria and rage. The family is fragmented, and all the children are placed in custody. The father is threatened with disgrace and imprisonment. The girl is blamed for causing the whole mess, and everyone seems to treat her like a freak. She is interrogated about all the tawdry details and encouraged to incriminate her father, yet the father remains unchallenged, remaining at home in the security of the family. She is held in custody with no apparent hope of returning home if the dependency petition is sustained.
The message from the mother is very clear, often explicit. "Why do you insist on telling those awful stories about your father? If you send him to prison, we won't be a family anymore. We'll end up on welfare with no place to stay. Is that what you want to do to us?"
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 23:22:40 GMT -5
I'm talking about law enforcement, juries, and people who don't have a strong personal personal respect for (or connection to) the accused. I should have made that clearer. Why would such people choose to have faith in the innocence of an accused molester? Because people don't want to believe respected people do these awful things. Especially when the victim appears to be a lying, bratty, promiscuous girl.
From the article: Recognition of sexual molestation in a child is entirely dependent on the individual's inherent willingness to entertain the possibility that the condition may exist. Unfortunately, willingness to consider the diagnosis of suspected child sexual molestation frequently seems to vary in inverse proportion to the individual's level of training. That is, the more advanced the training of some, the less willing they are to suspect molestation.
It is urgent in the interests both of treatment and of legal advocacy and for the sake of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of diverse emotional disabilities that clinicians in every field of the behavioural sciences be more aware of child sexual abuse. It is counter-therapeutic and unjust to expose legitimate victims to evaluations or treatment by therapists who cannot suspect or "believe in the possibility of unilateral sexual victimization of children by apparently normal adults."
The sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is derived from the collective experience of dozens of sexual abuse treatment centers in dealing with thousands of reports or complaints of adult victimization of young children. In the vast majority of these cases the identified adult claimed total innocence or admitted only to trivial, well-meaning attempts at "sex education," wrestling, or affectionate closeness. After a time in treatment the men almost invariably conceded that the child had told the truth. Of the children who were found to have misrepresented their complaints, most had sought to understate the frequency or duration of sexual experiences, even when reports were made in anger and in apparent retaliation against violence or humiliation. Very few children, no more than two or three per thousand, have ever been found to exaggerate or to invent claims of sexual molestation [70]. It has become a maxim among child sexual abuse intervention counselors and investigators that children never fabricate the kinds of explicit sexual manipulations they divulge in complaints or interrogations [8].
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2014 23:29:14 GMT -5
I comprehend them just fine. You and others have taken the discussion out of the arc of my Reply #25. None of my questions pertain to the groups mentioned in your excerpt. See Reply #55 for clarification. Your Reply #57 is far more to the point (although I'm sure more than a few clinicians would contest its conclusions). Thank you for providing an answer to my specific question.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 23:33:06 GMT -5
If the matter made it as far as a courtroom, although I'm sure the daughter's testimony would be very compelling, it simply isn't enough to convict a man. A conviction would require some kind of a history, or other witnesses to speak out against the molester, or physical evidence against him. But this doesn't mean that nobody believes the girl, or that they're "blowing off" her accusations. Requiring a history, other witnesses and/or physical evidence is equivalent to not believing the girl. If you believe the girl, those things would not be needed.
Requiring something other than the girl's testimony is a way to nicely, but effectively, state that the word of the girl (accuser) is less valid than the word of the molester. It is also reminiscent of Sharia law under which the testimony of a woman is not sufficient; for a rape conviction, there must be the eyewitness testimony of at least 4 devout Muslim men.
How often are you going to have a history, witness or physical evidence in a child molestation case? About as often as you're going to have 4 devout Muslim men witness a rape and be willing to testify. In other words, not very often.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Mar 28, 2014 23:38:57 GMT -5
I comprehend them just fine. You and others have taken the discussion out of the arc of my Reply #25. None of my questions pertain to the groups mentioned in your excerpt. See Reply #55 for clarification. Your Reply #57 is far more to the point (although I'm sure more than a few clinicians would contest its conclusions). Thank you for providing an answer to my specific question. I didn't take anything out of your "arc." I'm responding to what you posted in #45.
Here's what you posted and what I (very much in context) responded to:
"When I asked her about it, you replied "And it's not the cops that don't believe the kids, it's the patents, the family, the neighbors, the juries."
As in: nobody believes the kid.
Virgil, given this comment and some of your other prior comments about spousal abuse, it appears that you live a very, very sheltered life. I'm happy for you that none of these situations have impacted you personally. I'm happy they haven't impacted me either.
And the reason I'm in this thread is trying to figure out why and under what circumstances people tend to side with a molester."
|
|