Incest accuse , witchunt?

by happy man 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  avengers

  Just a reminder. America's Most Wanted called these child abusers Sexual Predators.

  They are predators of the worst kind. This is not a witch hunt for innocent women. We are hunting murderous predators.

  Some of these predators hide out in organisations like the JW's. That's why it's so important that the names on "the list" be turned over to the proper authorities to see if any match the database list of AMW. This could save the lives of children, they're the ones that are important, not the face of the Watchtower!!!!!!!!
• 

  ISP

  Agreed, Avengers.

  The WTS Child Protection Policy is garbage! It doesn't exist.

  ISP
• 

  alamb

  The current WT policy only protects the accused.

  If reporting to authorities was mandatory, everyone would be protected. The guilty would be punished to the extent of the law. The child would be protected. The innocent would be cleared.

  Accusations would not be frivolous if it were known the authorities would be notified. No witch-hunts would exist among the elders. They are, by JW standards, "untrained and unpaid volunteers." The only witch hunts I have witnessed were instigated by such ones. Leave it to the experts. The elders do not claim to be able to heal or diagnose physical symptoms, why do they do the same for psychological conditions?

  Mandatory reporting is the only sure-fire way to stop witch hunting....rumour mills among elders' wives aren't.
• 

  Francois

  Nanoprobe, just to add to your post. Here in Georgia, the Georgia Association of Superior Court Judges estimates the number of false accusations of child sex abuse is about 70%. This figure is inflated, in the main, buy vicious about-to-be-ex-wives for whom no moral swamp is to sleazy or dirty to stoop to in order to get custody and even reasonable visitation taken away from their ex-husbands.

  In some states, the problem is so bad that upon a finding of a false accusation of child sex molestation, custody awards can be and are reversed. Georgia isn't one of those states because our domestic laws languish in the 19th century. It's a terrible problem. This use of the children as weapons with which to attack an ex-spouse is, to me, the very nadir of moral filthiness. And to my mind, it automatically renders the person making the charge an unfit parent.

  My two cents.

  francois
• 

  Nanoprobe

  NO!! NO!! Please reread my post. Most Child Molestation claims are NOT false they are simply UNSUBSTANTIATED.

  Intentionally false reports as a percentage of unsubstantiated reports:
  . 00999634 (less than 1 out of 100 unsubstantiated reports)

  These are the governments numbers.

  In a twelve state study of approximately 9000 divorces cases, child sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2% of contested divorces involving child custody. Source: Association of Family Conciliation Courts, 1990.
• 

  JanH

  Nanoprobe,

  Intentionally false reports as a percentage of unsubstantiated reports:
  . 00999634 (less than 1 out of 100 unsubstantiated reports)

  If an accusation is unsubstantiated, it is false,as in untrue.

  An intentionally false report means that the authorities can prove that the accuser knew he or she were lying. It is even more difficult to prove that an accuser knew the accusation was false than it is to prove a person committed an act of sexual abuse. Thus, most of the malicious accusations will end up in the largest category above. How many we do not know, but it is worth noting that in cases where the accuser is an ex-spouse, false accusations are actually more common than true accusations.

  Due to the nature of such crimes, it is to be expected than many innocents will be thrown in jail. First, it is a case of word against word in many cases. Judges and juries seem to still exist under the illusion that it is possible to evaluate the credibility of a witness or a defendent from looking at them and talking to them. Research has reveled that humans are indeed extremely bad at evaluating credibility. Since sexual abuse of children is such an extremely sensitive topic, many juries (and judges, police and prosecutors) will be swayed by emotion where solid evidence is lacking. There are countless examples of false convictions in sex abuse and rape cases.

  When the first wave of sexual abuse cases surfaced, I think this was the early 80s, what happened can be easily described as a which hunt. Many therapists lived under the illusion that children never lie about abuse, which was later proven false. Also, the methods used to interview children were highly suggestive and speculative, often "rewarding" children for coming forward with the most outragous stories. Add to the fact that the medical community was extremely ignorant about the genitalia of children, and thus identified as abnormal and abused many perfectly normal children.

  The most extreme and widely published examples were the "satanic ritual abuse" media panics, which luckily ended in few convictions as the cases without exception proved to be pure fantasy.

  Hopefully, the authorities have learned to do better now. After all, sexual abuse of children does happen, uncomfortably often, and it should be persecuted as some of the most serious crimes. Yet, I fear that the emotional nature of such cases means that many innocent men will be sent to jail, marked for life as the lowest of scum.

  - Jan
• 

  Nanoprobe

  JanH

  First of all I would just like to say that even trading emails with you is a privilege for a relatively new comer as myself.

  However, I must disagree with your statement that unsubstantiated and false are the same.

  Unsubstantiated is unproven, uncorroborated, unsupported or charges that are not actionable for one reason or another. That does not mean the charges are false.

  Much discussion has been given that child molesters do not have two witnesses and with Judicial Committees or in a court of law people are innocent until proven guilty. A shouting match of he said she said is not a convicting case.

  The point I made in the earlier post was that Mr. Alva (Samanthas murderer) had been previously charged with sexual assault of his girl friends daughters. The charges were not substantiated, however, nor were they false.

  It is because of the difficulty of proving sexual assault charges based on the testimony of one witnesses that new Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted in 1995. Basically the law allows a previous CHARGE (not a conviction) of sexual assault to be introduced as evidence in a court case.

  Rules 413 and 414 specifically provide that in any case in which the defendant is accused of sexual assault or molestation, the defendant's commission of any other similar offenses is admissible "for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." Rule 415 specifically extends the rule to any civil cases arising out of sexual assault or molestation.

  The new rules will supersede in sex offense cases the restrictive aspects of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In contrast to Rule 404(b)'s general prohibition of evidence of character or propensity, the new rules for sex offense cases authorize admission and consideration of evidence of an uncharged offense for its bearing "on any matter to which it is relevant." This includes the defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault or child molestation offenses, and assessment of the probability or improbability that the defendant has been falsely or mistakenly accused of such an offense.

  Why is this type of evidence allowed in sexual abuse cases?

  In support of the new rules, advocates argued that a history of similar acts in child molestation cases, for example, tends to be probative because it demonstrates an unusual disposition that does not exist in ordinary people. In addition, the difficulties proving cases of child sexual abuse were cited to Congress. (Source http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Rule415.html)
• 

  DakotaRed

  If you wish to read about some proven false accusations that landed people in jail, look up the case of Grant Snowden of Dade County Florida and the Wenatchee Witch Hunts here in Washington State. Both are well covered on the web.

  If something is unsubstantiated, does that not mean there is no evidence? Our legal system is based upon the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Yet, just a few years ago, a man accused of molestation was automatically assumed guilty and it was upon him to prove his innocence.

  Repressed memory has come under much scrutiny in the last few years too. In the case of Mr. Snowden, who was named the Police Officer of the Year of Dade County, the year before he was accused and convicted, repressed memory is what was used, by Janet Reno, to convict him. After an exhaustive investigation and review of the tapes of the children being "interviewed" it was shown that these memories were planted and gently coerced in the chidren.

  What the true numbers are, I have no idea. But, ultimately, I call upon the Watchtower to turn the cases over to trained professionals to actually investigate and determine the validity of the charges, not rely on part time untrained clergy to "discover" truth.

  Lew W

  Watchtower Decruit
• 

  Nanoprobe

  First of all I want to reiterate that we are all on the same team. I just want to clear up some basic misconceptions that I often see posted on this forum.

  False accusations I am sure occur but not to the extent publicized on the net. (Ill post more on this later)

  Now I would like to discuss a few points from the current Department of Justices Statistics. The report is entitled Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics . _

  I believe this report is best hard evidence available.

  The introduction of the report states:

  To law enforcement and the public, sexual assaults, and especially the sexual assaults of young children are a major social concern. While a few highly publicized incidents are engraved in the publics consciousness, there is little empirically based information on these crimes. Until recently, law enforcement and policymakers had few hard facts on which to base their response to these crimes.

  After reading the facts below I am sure you will agree that the conviction rate for sexual assault is dismal.

  Probability of arrest and clearance

  The NIBRS (FBIs National Incident-Based Reporting System) data indicate that an arrest was made in 27% of all sexual assault victimizations. Assaults against the youngest victims were the least likely of juvenile victimizations to result in arrest. An offender was arrested in just 19% of the sexual assaults of children under age 6, compared to 33% of victims ages 6 through 11, and 32% of victims ages 12 through 17. (Source http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf)

  An arrest is not a conviction so all told the numbers are pretty dismal for the VICTIMS not for the accused.