Sexual abuse allegations- how best to protect when the truth is unknown

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by scott3x, Feb 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    This post is in response to the 1st part of ancientregime's post 157 in the Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest? thread.

    Can you give me an example of one of these cases she is targetting where you feel the above is true?

    I agree and thought I'd get one started...
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of ancientregime's post 157 in the Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest? thread.

    And what if you can do neither? This is what I'm trying to address.

    I'm not a lawyer so I won't go that route. Instead, I will appeal to ethics- if you're not sure whether someone has or hasn't been abused, there are 2 issues:
    1- What if the abuse was real- shouldn't the victim be afforded atlest some protection?

    2- What if there was no abuse- shouldn't the perpetrator not be condemned for what he or she never did?

    As far as I'm concerned, this type of situation should call for a compromise; for instance, that the accused not be jailed but also not be allowed to go near the alleged victim. It's not perfect for either side- the alleged victim could say that because the person he/she is accusing isn't in jail, it's more likely that they could reoffend. But atleast there was a roadblock put up- the restraining order.

    The alleged perpetrator could also cry foul- even though they did allege they did nothing, they are being punished. But atleast they are still relatively free men.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I doesn't seem like there's anything special about sex crimes in this regard; it's a general problem with the justice system. What's to stop me from lending someone my car, then reporting it stolen so that they get arrested for car theft?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Here is an excellent artical on the subject of recovered memories and memory tampering.[1]

    Here is a case where false memories led to a lawsuit [2]

    Here are a few books on the subject:

    Smoke and Mirrors: The Devastating Effect of False Sexual Abuse Claims, Campbell

    The Myth of Repressed Memory:False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse, Loftus and Ketcham

    Recoverd Memories and False Memories, Conway

    Lost Daughters: Recovered memory Therapy & the People It Hurts, Til

    What you can get out of this type of reading is a bit of an understanding how memories can be created in the mind of the old and young. Memory tampering is a big problem, but it's not the worst problem which is with the legal system.

    The worst problem has to do with how the court finds guilt. Guilt doesn't depend upon objective evidence when it comes to claims of sexual abuse. Guilt can be found without objective evidence. This means lies, false memories and tampered memories can be used as the only necessary evidence to support a guilty verdict. They require no objective evidence in which to correlate truth.

    I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant to this discussion: The law is set up in a scientific way to find guilt. If enough evidence exists that makes an inductively strong argument for guilt, a person is found to be guilty. If evidence doesn't provide a basis for an inductively strong argument, then a person is found innocent. A person may really be guilty in either case, but the law only cares about what it can scientifically prove. The law can't care about whether or not a person is really guilty or not, because logically, a reasonable or scientific verdict of guilt can only be found through objective evidence. Multiple witnesses with consistent statements are an exception.

    Finding a person guilty without reason is knowingly harming a person without reason to do so. This is why it is not the domain of the law to care about where a person is really guilty or not. Evidence must be relied upon, not a personal hunch.

    Hunches killed 20,000 witches, millions of Jews, blacks. People caught masturbating not so long ago in our culture were castrated, had their clitoris cut off, were made to wear strange devices to stop them due to hunches. Hunches are nothing but trouble anywhere from small infractions of a person rights to atrocities. They have no reasonable place in the law and punishment.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  8. ancientregime Banned Banned

    I know a case a personal friend was in. He went to jail for some time. The girl actually threatened that if he didn't have sex with her, she would say that he did anyway. She was a real bitch. Out of fear that she would lie, he did it. She didn't tell. But, her mother found out she was having sex with older guys. To make a long story short, she didn't want to look bad so she played like she was taken advantage of. He has to register for the rest of his life as a sicko because of that bitch. She was only 11.

    Allegations don't mean shit to me.
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    I will assume that what you say is basically true. The concept is one that was explored in the 1993 movie The Crush. This still doesn't mean that the girl in question was completely at fault; yes, I agree that she did a bad thing by blackmailing your friend. As to why she did it, I would argue that she felt she would be happier if she did and/or minimize pain/loneliness that she had. I believe that all people try to maximize happiness and minimize pain; so the only thing left to figure out is why she felt that blackmailing him was her best option.

    Anyway, the reason that I say that the girl is not completely at fault is because I would argue that your friend should have simply said 'fine, make up a story, but I still won't do it'. This way, he could atleast know that he followed the rules, even if others didn't believe him. By going along with her, he could no longer even say that. This isn't to say that I agree with the laws as they stand, and I'm sure that he was following the same equation in his mind (how to maximize happiness and/or minimize pain). However, I think that at this point, he might well agree with me that his best bet would have been to not succumb to her blackmailing.

    Now, let's analyze things if he had not succumbed to her blackmailing; she says that he had sex with her, he denies it. There is little if any evidence that he actually did. I'm not sure if it's possible, but perhaps he could simply have been issued a restraining order from seeing her- I'm not sure whether he worked with her or what, but seriously, I think worse things could have happened then simply having been issued a restraining order from seeing her (jail time, say).

    Ofcourse if we all -knew- that he didn't do it, he could walk away a free man and the only one who would be censored would be the girl. But that's the problem in life sometimes- sometimes we're not sure one way or the other. I'm sure there are cases wherein a man is -rightfully- accused, but because of lack of evidence walks free. Surely you would agree that in -those- cases the guy should be slapped with a restraining order. Now if you think that both the case of your friend and this hypothetical case I'm mentioning could look the same for many, I think you may well agree that sometimes people have to suffer unfairly for the greater good.

    As Spock said:
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  10. ancientregime Banned Banned


    Who ever victimizes an innocent person is a criminal. The way the law is carried out is not excluded from the law. I do not support any faith based reasoning process in law that allows for such victimization. Again, it is not the responsibility of the law to act where evidence does not support actions. If objective proof were necessary to prove he did anything to this girl, he could have said, "You know what? Say all you want, you can't prove it!" and then done nothing. But guess what? Levine's ideas support ideas that not protect his innocence. They may protect those who really are victims, but they also protect a faith-based reasoning process that victimizes people for the rest of their life.

    I may have brought up a bad example, because he really did want to do things with her. He just wasn't going to do it because it was illegal. He respected the law until he got trapped by the very way it's carried out. He felt both ways risked guilt. Why not atleast get something from it is what he thought. But you see, it wasn't that he actually did something that made him guilty, it was the process which guarantees his guilt if accused. All in all, he just wished the next door neighbor had not asked him to babysit.
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    So what do you figure, should the law get 6-10 ;-)? I know that some people say that the law can be criminal, but when we step out of metaphors, laws are just instructions on what is right and wrong. The instructions may be wrong but they're only instructions; I think it would be best to say that they can be flawed.

    Can you give an example of something Levine's said that supports your allegations?

    It's not illegal to be attracted to underage girls. It -is- illegal to act on that attraction. In the movie "The Crush", the guy looks like he's somewhat attracted to the teen in the starring role, but although she threatens him when he begins to realize it's going too far, he -doesn't- take the bait when she attempts to blackmail him; she carries through with her threat but by the end of the day, I believe he gets off (I didn't actually see the movie to its completion). Now I can certainly agree that in real life, some people may be falsely accused. This being as it may, atleast he could continue to profess his innocence and one day get off. Even if he didn't, perhaps one day his story could be written up in a history book on the errors of our justice system. However, he succumbed to the blackmail, and the story changed.

    Does he think it was worth it now?

    Guilty of breaking the law? Yes, he did.

    If he hadn't actually broken the law, I don't think that his jailing was guaranteed by any means.

    Yes, well, she did; he didn't have to accept, let alone succumb to the girls' blackmail. There are some things in life we can't control. There are others that we can.
  12. ancientregime Banned Banned

    My focus is less on fixing symptoms, the innocent people they victimize to do unreasonable and pseudo-scientific criteria for guilt. My focus is more on preventing the law from victimizing.

    Her whole book is on removing the statute of limitations. This opens up the door to many more victims to their psuedo-scientific process. She has an us or them attitude that you can't care about victims unless you support her legal position presented in her book.

    got to go for now...
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Your friend was able and willing to have sex with an 11 year old girl? He was actually able to do it?

    Look, she is obviously a troubled child and her actions in her blackmailing him are obscene to say the least.

    But I am curious as to how exactly an adult male could allow an 11 year old child to blackmail him into sleeping with her. He could simply have called her mother straight away and told her what her daughter was doing and that he would no longer be able to babysit ever again and that she was to arrange someone to come and take over the babysitting duties immediately.

    He was jailed because he had sex with her. Her blackmailing him and trying to blame her entirely for it still does not take away from the fact that your friend could actually bring himself to have sex with an 11 year old child. So he is not entirely without fault.
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    That's fine...

    It is? I personally felt that the main thrust of Harmful to Minors was decidedly elsewhere. Quoting from the wiki entry on her book:
    Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex... is a controversial book by Judith Levine that was published in 2002. The foreword was written by former United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who resigned after suggesting that masturbation be promoted as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity.[1]

    The "Author's Note" states: "Most of the research for this book, including interviews, was conducted between 1996 and early 2000, and pertinent statistics were updated in 2001. The names of all nonprofessionals have been fictionalized, along with some identifying characteristics."

    In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.

    The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, as well as the Dylan V. Heather case, and the little-known SPARK Support Program for Abusive Reactive Kids and STEP Sexual Treatment Education Program and Services, both of which she claims do far more harm than the child sex offenders did themselves.

    Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher—one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive." University of Minnesota Press eventually agreed to publish the book, despite cries of outrage from the right wing of Minnesota's political establishment.

    It became famous after it won the 2002 Los Angeles Times Book Award for Current Interest. Conservatives such as Joe Scarborough and Robert Knight accused Levine of promoting pedophilia for her suggestion that the US adopt statutory rape laws similar to those in the Netherlands. Some demanded the book be removed from libraries.

    Can you give an example in her writings that you feel demonstrates this belief of yours?
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    You make it sound like it's Mission: Impossible or something...

    Obscene isn't really the word I'd use; Merriam Webster defines it as:
    1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive

    2 a: abhorrent to morality or virtue ; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics> c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power> d: so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>

    I see the whole issue more as a sad one. Why was this girl so desperate to have sex with this guy anyway? In some older societies this whole issue probably even have been considered much of a big deal; ancient hawaii comes to mind.

    He could; the daughter could have carried through with his threat and perhaps he would -still- have landed in jail. But he would have landed there an innocent man and from that position would have been in a much better position to appeal the decision.

    Yeah, I agree.
  16. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Dude. She was 11 and he had sex with her while babysitting.

    If they aren't married that is statutory rape, not to mention a huge breach of trust.

    That means it doesn't matter *why* he had sex with her or if she gave permission or begged him or threatened him or the pope ordained him as a priest. The act in and of itself is illegal no matter the circumstances.

    I can't believe you bought that story either. He has to register because he is a pedophile.

    If you are going to be a pedophile in the US, and most countries, you have to marry her first.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2009
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Not really.

    I am approaching it from a stand point that an adult could actually become aroused enough to have sex with an 11 year old child. One would hope that most would find it impossible to do so.. She might have been demanding it (apparently) but she is still 11 years old and to think that he not only gave in but became aroused that he was able to have sex with her.. get what I am saying?

    To be crass, what does it say about him that he was able to get a hard on for an 11 year old girl?

    Times have changed. We also no longer sacrifice virgins to fires.

    Had he beaten her to the punch and informed the mother immediately, what do you think would have happened? Hell, I would have walked out the door and stayed outside in plain view of everyone on the street, while on the phone to her the whole time until she came home so that such an accusation, if made, would have zero merit in the first place.
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Guys can get a hard on for bicycles and vacuum cleaners.

    That's not really an objective criteria for arousal
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    It's embarassing to admit the extremes to how much less discerning guys can be, but S.A.M. is right; guys are generally not as picky as women are :p. And it's well known that even some women can be attracted to people of that age and younger. From everything I've seen, I think that the biggest turn off is the fear factor; the term 'jail bait' was invented for a reason.

    I fully agree that there have been many improvements. However, as one of the movie episodes of Peter Jackman's adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" mentions:
    "...some things that should not have been forgotten, were lost"

    I personally think there was something very good that came from the 60's hippy, flower power, 'free love'. I don't believe in free love per se; I believe that everything has a price. -However-, I believe that polyamory as it is known now may have had its birthplace at that point in time.

    It certainly had its excesses, but when you play with fire you're bound to get burned. Does this mean that we should abandon fire because it's dangerous or learn from our mistakes and explore once more? By exploration, I generally mean of the theoretical variety when dealing with such sensitive issues.

    The daughter could have claimed that he'd done it before he went on the phone. When it comes to those types of issues, I certainly wouldn't put any type of guarantee that he'd win. Still, I definitely can agree that he could have a good chance of being vindicated in court. Instead, he chose another path.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2009
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Some guys are just ridiculous, laugh :p. But you have a good point; guys are not exactly the most discerning of creatures when it comes to such things :p.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    True. But an 11 year old girl?:bugeye:

    Yes, and adult women who sleep with 11 year old boys are also seen as paedophiles.

    And it's not so much as being picky or being less picky as actually finding an 11 year old girl arousing..

    As an adult, he should have known better. Instead he chose to bare his backside to the wind and have sex with a blackmailing 11 year old girl. Just because she approached him and/or blackmailed him does not absolve him of his adult responsibilities to the child and to himself. It says a lot about the girl, but it also says more about him for not only falling for it, but also for going through with it.
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    You think that a guy should be more attracted to bicycles and vacuum cleaners :p? I loved females ever since I was a little boy; bicycles and vacuum cleaners just wouldn't cut it for me :p.

    True enough.

    They're human. If people can be attracted to inanimate objects, I don't think it's much of a stretch to be attracted to people who haven't quite reached puberty yet.

    Yeah, I've always agreed with you here. The real questions, as far as I'm concerned are:
    1- Why didn't he know better?

    2- Why did the girl feel so desperate as to do such a thing as blackmail him to get him to have sex with her?
  23. ancientregime Banned Banned

    You are missing the point. It's about the court process, not about whether someone should be punished or not for what they did. He didn't have to do it to be guilty. She was a real bitch ( I know her today, she is the same way). She would have lied. She is just that type of person. He was guilty either way, not because of what he did, but because of the system. The system is the argument here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page