Maybe not a good place, but just a rant

Yesterday my local paper published a short article. A 53 year old male, that they identified specifically by name and job, was accused of sexual abusing a child back in 1984. Doing the math, this person would be a 37 year old female today.

I don't know anything about this except what the paper posted. My own opinion is that a proven pedophile should go to the chair tomorrow. Hello Old Sparky, can't keep a good man down!

But at this point I don't think that the guy's name, address, occupation, and picture in the paper should be posted unless the editor certainly believes that there is enough evidence for a grand jury to reach an indictment.

I think that I think this way because long ago I was a camp counselor at Kiwanis and Boy Scout camps. I was late high school, early college, been through the Boy Scout program and could teach woodcarving, archery, canoeing, first aid, fire building, etc.

About the worst thing we (counselors) ever did was "float" kids out of their tent, which meant we moved a sleeping kid on a cot out of a tent and left him under the trees for the rest of the night. And we took some kids "snipe hunting". Plus, back then, I had quite a repertoire of Ghost stories applicable to the area.

But what if somebody shows up an claims that I came into their tent and engaged in illicit activities with them forty years ago? My only defense is I didn't do that. I floated kids, I told ghost stories, I built great big campfires that seared eyelashes off of OA nominees, but I never engaged in illicit sexual activity with campers.

So what do you do? My tent mate from forty years ago surely can't remember where I may have been at any given point in time, after all, he was out floating kids and catching snakes and looking at constellations during astronomy class too. So no alibi there.

Well, just .o2 tonight.

CK

16 years in Scouting here. They are still getting sued for stuff that happened in the Seventies, in spite of the training and programs they have in place today. Having had a person close to me that was severely sexually abused, I can still see pursuing the conviction, but I don't see the point of suing the Lutherans.

I am very careful how I behave around the kids, but the fact that you can be destroyed easily makes me extra cautious.

Sounds like a bit of a witch hunt. If there's no proof and a person hasn't been convicted, then that's slander and defamation of character, I'd think. Being a sexual predator towards children is the lowest of the low. But being accused is very different from being convicted. What kind of paper does that? A very BAD one I'd think......

The pen is mightier than the sword or something to that effect. I'm totally opposed to accusations being splashed across front pages when it's all hearsay unless proven otherwise. Entire lives can be changed by a few misplaced words/accusations so it's more important than ever to cover your a**! :tranquillity:

On the other hand, I'm all in favor of child molesters/predators being drawn and quartered. :frustrating:

Joe

Accused now or accused in 1984?

For three years I volunteered in my daughters (2) elementary school because I believed I had been fortunate in my life and family (that was before the divorce, a story for another time and place). I worked mostly with emotional support boys who really needed an adult male. Even then, I was always very careful in how I interacted with them, kept open access for the teachers to pop in any time, etc. It was very rewarding and I hope set a good example for my children.

However, given the nature of things today, I would hesitate to do that again just do to the risk I would have to assume. I think if you dig deep enough, you'll find many people feeling the same way. Society is the loser when good people feel that volunteering is not worth the risk.

I was invited by leaders of the local troop to be a mentor for Boy Scouts working on specific merit badges. The mass of paperwork for background checks was a precautionary hurdle which I understood and had no problem handling.
The problem for me, after completing the paperwork with a "passing" grade, was a stipulation that there always had to be another adult present whenever I worked with one of the kids. So much for the classic one-on-one opportunity to teach/learn.
I eventually declined the offer to join in the program.

Such is the society in which we live today. :tranquillity:

Joe

Accused in 2014 of several forms of bad behavior back in 1984 by a single individual.

I sure would hate to be accused of something I didn't do, because the press would be my judge, jury, and executioner. Happens all the time. Local guy gets accused of sexually assaulting a kid, it gets sprayed all over the newspapers, people are about ready to lynch the guy, he loses his job, and then, OH! the kid made it all up. Too bad for the poor slob who got slandered and spent his life savings defending himself. And where were the headlines proclaiming his innocence? Nah, it's page 14 news now.

Don't get me wrong, child molesters are the lowest form of life in my book, but their trials should be in court, not in the news media.

dreadnut said:

I sure would hate to be accused of something I didn't do, because the press would be my judge, jury, and executioner. Happens all the time. Local guy gets accused of sexually assaulting a kid, it gets sprayed all over the newspapers, people are about ready to lynch the guy, he loses his job, and then, OH! the kid made it all up. Too bad for the poor slob who got slandered and spent his life savings defending himself. And where were the headlines proclaiming his innocence? Nah, it's page 14 news now.

Don't get me wrong, child molesters are the lowest form of life in my book, but their trials should be in court, not in the news media.

Click to expand...

+1+

Joe

Anytime someone betrays the trust of a child like this, they should be held accountable.
One huge obstacle though is the amount of time it took to report it.
Facts become very cloudy and the truth, very difficult to establish.
I have heard of cases where the person making the claims did it for money and lied about the allegation.

If the person that is being charged is guilty, I hope that justice prevails. If the person charged is found innocent,
his life will never be the same over something that he didn't do. Very sad situation.

I note that child abuse, to include sexual abuse, is one of those crimes that our society considers so heinous that "guilty until proven innocent" applies more often than not. People's lives have been ruined because they were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before they were ever found innocent in a court of law. But I'm not smart enough to have a solution that protects the children and protects adults from possibly false accusations.

fronobulax said:

I note that child abuse, to include sexual abuse, is one of those crimes that our society considers so heinous that "guilty until proven innocent" applies more often than not. People's lives have been ruined because they were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before they were ever found innocent in a court of law. But I'm not smart enough to have a solution that protects the children and protects adults from possibly false accusations.

Click to expand...

As usual, a very smart look up and recap of an issue by a gentleman and a scholar.

By the time kids started to be able to threaten adults (including parents) of legal action in response to educative disciplinary behavior, it was time to raise the BS flag if you ask me.

As said above, not trying to legitimize child abuse (in whatever form it may take) but the notion that a kid's word be deemed more reliable and weight more than that of the accused adult in the pre-trial stages (and even before it has been decided whether there IS justification for an investigation) is aberrant, and reflects an approach towards children in our society that I would characterize as an expression of "collective hysteria": "If there is room for doubt, condemn the adult based on the child's account!"

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

. duplicate

fronobulax said:

I note that child abuse, to include sexual abuse, is one of those crimes that our society considers so heinous that "guilty until proven innocent" applies more often than not. People's lives have been ruined because they were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before they were ever found innocent in a court of law. But I'm not smart enough to have a solution that protects the children and protects adults from possibly false accusations.

Click to expand...

I think they'd be the libel laws.
Seems to me like the real problem in this case is journalistic ethics, or lack thereof.
Here in CA at least, we've been reminded several times about a statute of limitations on bringing these charges: seven years after victim attains adulthood, "IIRC".
I'd think that an ethically managed news agency (as the OP pointed out) would refrain from printing this "news" or at least such specific identity info, at least until actual charges were filed. At least at that point legally constituted authorities have demonstrated that they believe there's sufficient evidence of a crime to warrant prosecution.
Anything else reeks of profit-motivated sensationalism to me.
I suspect that if the "accused" could demonstrate actual damages suffered by this kind of reporting he may have a good case to sue for libel. Or maybe invasion of privacy, or both. Unless he's a public figure, there's legal precedent that he IS entitled to privacy until formal charges have been brought.
It's supposed to be a deterrent against this kind of journalistic abuse of privilege (to report things that have actually happened, in this case, the simple accusation, regardless of possible damage to the subject of the report).
WHAT the specific crime was is irrelevant, not that I have any tolerance for vicimization of children either.
But that also tends to show that journalistic ethics were tossed aside in the interests of sensationalistic reporting of a "hot-button" topic.
GRRRRR.....
Right up there with illegally obtained convictions.
What could be worse than that?

adorshki said:

Seems to me like the real problem in this case is journalistic ethics, or lack thereof.report).

Click to expand...

Or:

bluesypicky said:

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

adorshki said:

I'd think that an ethically managed news agency (as the OP pointed out) would refrain from printing this "news" or at least such specific identity info, at least until actual charges were filed.

Click to expand...

Or:

bluesypicky said:

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

adorshki said:

It's supposed to be a deterrent against this kind of journalistic abuse of privilege (to report things that have actually happened, in this case, the simple accusation, regardless of possible damage to the subject of the report).

Click to expand...

Or:

bluesypicky said:

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

adorshki said:

But that also tends to show that journalistic ethics were tossed aside in the interests of sensationalistic reporting of a "hot-button" topic. Right up there with illegally obtained convictions.

Click to expand...

Or:

bluesypicky said:

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

adorshki said:

At least at that point legally constituted authorities have demonstrated that they believe there's sufficient evidence of a crime to warrant prosecution.

Click to expand...

Or:

bluesypicky said:

the notion that a kid's word be deemed more reliable and weight more than that of the accused adult in the pre-trial stages (and even before it has been decided whether there IS justification for an investigation) is aberrant

Click to expand...

So much in common..... almost scary. :hypnotysed:

bluesypicky said:

So much in common..... almost scary. :hypnotysed:

Click to expand...

Shut up'n'drive yer Corvette.
layful:
We're in violent agreement.
However, you were only saying "should be prosecuted", and I was explaining what the underlying legal justification would be: "libel law".
Now that I think about it, if we're in agreement then one of us must be wrong.
:biggrin-new:

adorshki said:

We're in violent agreement.
However, you were only saying "should be prosecuted", and I was explaining what the underlying legal justification would be: "libel law".

Click to expand...

Just a difference in style. I'm more manly. Why I don't drive a Milan.

OH... NO HE DIDN'T!!!

bluesypicky said:

As usual, a very smart look up and recap of an issue by a gentleman and a scholar.

By the time kids started to be able to threaten adults (including parents) of legal action in response to educative disciplinary behavior, it was time to raise the BS flag if you ask me.

As said above, not trying to legitimize child abuse (in whatever form it may take) but the notion that a kid's word be deemed more reliable and weight more than that of the accused adult in the pre-trial stages (and even before it has been decided whether there IS justification for an investigation) is aberrant, and reflects an approach towards children in our society that I would characterize as an expression of "collective hysteria": "If there is room for doubt, condemn the adult based on the child's account!"

Organizations and publication companies, broadcasting such reports before knowing if any item relating to the assumption of abuse is factual, should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

Right on.

But if the broadcasting companies had to limit themselves to reporting only factual stories, there would be a lot of dead air.

bluesypicky said:

OH... NO HE DIDN'T!!!

Click to expand...

I'm gettin' ta feel downright guilty about hijacking threads with redeeming social value recently, but:
"He MUST have. It says so on the internet."
:hypnotysed:
Anyway, manly men make for better Gilbert & Sullivan:



They're not afraid to wear tights, a tradition reportedly still embraced even into the '80's amongst certain French rock bands.