After three years of hell during which he considered suicide, David Goodman, 24, was found not guilty in connection with charges that he raped a five-year-old boy in a case his lawyers and family insist should never have been prosecuted. The alleged incident occurred when Mr. Goodman was a summer camp counselor. Why was the case brought? Well, the prosecutor believed the boy, and the state had a diagnosis of the boy's alleged post-traumatic stress disorder after camp. Mr. Goodman's lawyer said law enforcement and prosecutors had to ignore a "small mountain of evidence" to believe the boy, including discrepancies between his version of what happened and his mother's description.
Now here's the most disturbing part: "Children's advocates, pediatricians and prosecutors say kids rarely lie about sexual abuse, and it is crucial their allegations aren't greeted with the dismissive skepticism that has stigmatized sexual assault victims."
Sigh. When it comes to adult women, the sexual grievance industry long insisted that women don't lie about rape because no woman would subject herself to the ordeal she is put through to tell a rape lie. Assuming arguendo that were true (and it isn't), how would that work for a five-year-old boy? Does he have even the slightest comprehension of the supposed "ordeal" he's going to be put through? The question scarcely survives its statement.
More to the point, many respected experts simply don't share the opinion that kids don't lie about sexual abuse. In Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized "the problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony . . .." Although the case dealt with whether the death penalty is appropriate for child rape cases, the high court's more general discussion of this point is most instructive:
"Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement. See Ceci & Friedman, The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 33, 47 (2000) (there is "strong evidence that children, especially young children, are suggestible to a significant degree--even on abuse-related questions"); Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & C. 523, 539 (2005) (discussing allegations of abuse at the Little Rascals Day Care Center); see also Quas, Davis, Goodman, & Myers, Repeated Questions, Deception, and Children's True and False Reports of Body Touch, 12 Child Maltreatment 60, 61-66 (2007) (finding that 4- to 7-year-olds "were able to maintain [a] lie about body touch fairly effectively when asked repeated, direct questions during a mock forensic interview").
"Similar criticisms pertain to other cases involving child witnesses; but child rape cases present heightened concerns because the central narrative and account of the crime often comes from the child herself. She and the accused are, in most instances, the only ones present when the crime was committed. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987). Cf. Goodman, Testifying in Criminal Court, at 118."
In light of these concerns, prosecutors need to have heightened sensitivity for the rights of the presumptively innocent accused of such heinous crimes. As awful as child sexual abuse is (and there are few things as repulsive), in "he said/she said" cases where both sides offer plausible accounts, prosecutors should not play Russian Roulette with the lives of men accused of this crime -- they should not roll the dice and "hope" to "get lucky" with a conviction -- simply because the child tells a good story. A man's fate should not hinge on the acting skills of a pre-schooler.
And that, of course, leads us to ask: why on earth would any college-age male be a camp counselor and put himself through this horror?
Thanks to Colin for the tip.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Accusers as "victims": A case study of the David Dutt trial
Top
© 2009 William N Grigg, Pro Libertate
Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity...[A]t the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Deuteronomy 19:15
May 21, 2009 — It would hardly be difficult to convict any man of child sex abuse if the prosecutor were provided with the following advantages:
• The accuser would be designated a "victim," and referred to as such in pre-trial hearings and during the trial, thereby leaving jurors predisposed to accept her allegations as fact;
• The trial judge grants a prosecution motion in limine (a request to exclude "prejudicial" evidence) forbidding the defense to call witnesses whose first-hand testimony would impeach the credibility of the accuser;
• In similar fashion, the judge prevents the defense from "prejudicing" the jury against the "victim" by referring to at least one previous occasion on which she made a false allegation of abuse;
• The accuser/ "victim" is permitted to change critical, materially relevant details of her story without being accused of perjury or simply impeached as unreliable;
• Even as the judge carefully shields the "victim" from adversarial scrutiny, he permits the prosecution to mention that the defendant had previously been the subject of an abuse investigation, without being charged, prosecuted, or convicted of any offense;
• Most egregiously, the judge permits the prosecution to present an "expert" witness to explain how the critical piece of exculpatory evidence in a child rape trial — a gynecological examination of the accuser showing perfectly normal physical development, including an intact hymen — was actually a common finding in child sexual abuse cases.
Indeed, just as the notorious "magic bullet" of Daley Plaza managed to defy established laws of physics, changing directions several times without losing its lethal velocity, the accuser's virginal membrane possessed magical properties that permitted it to survive repeated episodes of full intercourse forced upon the girl by her step-father, which supposedly began when the accuser was 12 and the accused was in his late 20s.
It is possible, albeit monumentally improbable, that a young girl could endure multiple sexual violations, including incestuous intercourse, without enduring physical trauma of the sort revealed in a detailed gynecological examination.
In the absence of corroborating evidence, however — such as eyewitness testimony, photographs, video, or perhaps an item of intimate apparel infused, Clinton-style, with DNA from the accused — a normal examination should be enough to shut down a prosecution cold. All that would be left is the word of the accuser, which — under the tenets of Western law as old as Moses — is not enough to secure a conviction.
Yet it's likely that every week, if not every day, people (usually men, although women are hardly immune) are convicted of sex crimes and sent to prison following "trials" that follow the template described above.
The word of a single accuser is considered the self-ratifying testimony of the "victim," exculpatory physical evidence is suppressed or explained away; the defense is forbidden to impeach the credibility of the accuser, while the prosecution is free from any similar restrictions in assailing the character of the accused; and a presumption of guilt informs the entire proceeding.
Often such trials partake of "magical thinking" of the sort that led credulous officials in 17 th Century Salem to accept "spectral evidence" — dreams and visions in which the disembodied spirits of the accused supposedly committed vile acts while their physical bodies were in another location — as a valid rebuttal to an otherwise unassailable alibi.
Once those convicted in such "trials" serve their sentences, most of them — including at least some people who are victims of grotesque injustice — can be designated "sexually dangerous persons" who will never fully regain their freedom. In fact, a law enacted in 2006 permits the open-ended "civil confinement" of paroled sex offenders within the federal prison system. This amounts to a potential life sentence inflicted on the basis of crimes yet to be committed, since "civil confinement" only begins after the detainee has served the prescribed sentence for the crimes of which he was convicted.
Some innocent people caught in the coils of this system find themselves in a uniquely painful predicament: To obtain parole and a chance to rebuild their lives, they must allocute to the offense for which they were convicted.
In some cases, this confession is coupled with a polygraph examination, which puts genuinely innocent people in an inescapable double-bind: If they assert their innocence, they will be denied parole; if they falsely confess to the charges, they'll most likely fail the polygraph examination, with the same result.
"In the absence of corroborating evidence, however — such as eyewitness testimony, photographs, video, or perhaps an item of intimate apparel infused, Clinton-style, with DNA from the accused — a normal examination should be enough to shut down a prosecution cold. All that would be left is the word of the accuser, which — under the tenets of Western law as old as Moses — is not enough to secure a conviction."
I agree. Corroborating evidence needs to be required by law.
The moral of the story: Never teach children, be a camp counselor, a scout leader, a coach, a father, a pediatrician, a pastor, a daycare worker, a school janitor, or any other occupation that could potentially involve interaction with children.
George Carlin couldn't have put it any better: Child Worship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4
We need to protect children certainly, but when children have more rights and privileges than adults (or when woman have more rights and privileges than men) we have a recipe for disaster.
As a man, the best defense against these types of allegations is not to be there.
"In light of these concerns, prosecutors need to have heightened sensitivity for the rights of the presumptively innocent accused of such heinous crimes. As awful as child sexual abuse is (and there are few things as repulsive), in "he said/she said" cases where both sides offer plausible accounts, prosecutors should not play Russian Roulette with the lives of men accused of this crime -- they should not roll the dice and "hope" to "get lucky" with a conviction -- simply because the child tells a good story. A man's fate should not hinge on the acting skills of a pre-schooler."
So very true.
A very reasonable criticism which can be broadly made of prosecutor is that they tend to be too “engaged” in their role as advocates for the states interests, and are thus far too willing to let themselves be blinded to the true meaning of the contradictory evidence (I doubt it’s any secret that their first inclinations are to try to fins a way to explain away any evidence of innocence).
Just as defense attorneys can be very zealous in their advocacy, so can prosecutors. Yet, as we have seen many times over, there are those cases in which the same (potentially) exculpatory evidence that the defense with be employing can also be sufficient evidence to NOT prosecute.
Too many times, I would suggest [or, perhaps given my typical advocacy of LE, I should “confess”] that prosecutors fail to consider that the defense evidence is far more compelling than their evidence of the defendants guilt (or that a crime even occurred). They need to be more willing, and perhaps, be a bit braver, to consider declining to prosecute or to drop cases in which the evidence begins to mount on behalf of the accused.
Pierce is dead-on in decrying those instance in which they decide to “roll the dice” (especially in those cases where they expect to lose) and needlessly leave a person in jeopardy.
It may not be their proper role to try to decide innocence vs guilt, nor is it their role to advocate on behalf of the accused, but they do have the role of “prosecutorial discretion”, and I believe it is entirely fair to state that they (as a class) need to exercise it more often, and much more wisely. [That said, I do believe many here would be shocked to find out how frequently they DO decline to prosecute – especially in sexual assault/rape/molestation cases. But, don’t just take my word for it, check out RAINN and other SGI websites and see how much they whine about cases not being prosecuted.]
Slwerner, it is not at all surprising that a large number of cases are dismissed by either police or prosecutors before making it to trial. Given how common false allegations have become, there is no way that every allegation could be brought to trial without completely overloading the court system to the point where little else could be dealt with. And besides, many allegations made by false accusers are obviously flawed and lacking credibility right from the start. It is making a virtue of necessity to commend prosecutors on the number of cases dropped.
Of course feminists and the SGI will always whine that police and prosecutors are not sympathetic enough to their interests. How often do you hear a feminist give up their victimhood posturing and admit that any institution may in fact be biased in favor of women, not against them?
slw and Nick -- I couldn't agree with you more.
A man's fate should not hinge on the acting skills of a pre-schooler.
Agreed. It shouldn't hinge on anyone's.
I, too, (a woman), have been a victim of a false allegation of child molestation. My baby sister was coerced by a do-gooder social worker & my mom (who was seeking vengence against me for calling CPS on her) to claim me & my exBF raped her. Nevermind that the timeline didn't make sense: my ex wasn't in my life at that point & I was not living in the home either. And there was no physical evidence, yet I was subjected to a grueling all day long interrogation with the social worker & a detective. I could see in the social worker's eyes that she was lusting for me to admit to it. They over & over again tried to trip me up by asking the same questions in different ways. But since I was completely innocent, I was not phased in the least. Boy was that wench disappointed. Thank god it was not pursued any farther, else the rest of my life would be ruined. My sympathies go to any man -or woman- falsely accused of a sex crime, or any crime for that matter. I felt paranoid for years after this incident, & the worst thing is my sister was likely tramatized by having false rape memories imprinted in her mind. The words of a child (or woman) should never be used as the sole evidence for prosecution of a sex crime.
Post a Comment