SIL marrying a pedophile RESOLUTION Post 209 - Page 7

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama 

What EXACTLY are you getting at?  I am certain I never said that no one was ever falsely accused or falsely convicted... but what do those cases, ones where there was a huge public awareness and hysteria, and all of which happened in the 80's or early 90's, and the outcomes of which have done much to inform the way allegations of child sexual abuse are handled now... what do any of those cases of to do with a conviction in 2002 of charges against a single victim? 

You are asking for evidence that it happens more than rarely... I gave it to you. I have nothing to say on this specific case because I have no clue what happened with it. I'd be more inclined to trust the conviction than what the person says.

I am just point out to everyone saying "false convictions hardly ever happen because it's hard to get a real conviction" that false convictions happen far more often then we would like to think.
 

[APToddlerMama]

OP--no time to read through the entire thread but I hope you have called both CPS and the police already.  If not, please do so ASAP.  You *owe* it to those kids.  If mom isn't going to protect them, someone has to.  Please, please, pllllllllllease call.  This guy probably isn't even allowed to be living with kids. 

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

You are asking for evidence that it happens more than rarely... I gave it to you. I have nothing to say on this specific case because I have no clue what happened with it. I'd be more inclined to trust the conviction than what the person says.

I am just point out to everyone saying "false convictions hardly ever happen because it's hard to get a real conviction" that false convictions happen far more often then we would like to think.
 

I am curious as to where you are getting your facts other than your own opinion  because I have never seen a single ounce of data to prove this, and having worked with kids who have been sexually abused professionally, I *highly* doubt this to be true. 

Regardless, why on earth would you want to test out your theory on innocent children?

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

I am curious as to where you are getting your facts other than your own opinion  because I have never seen a single ounce of data to prove this, and having worked with kids who have been sexually abused professionally, I *highly* doubt this to be true. 

Regardless, why on earth would you want to test out your theory on innocent children?

Where the hell did I say that? Give it to me. Show me exactly where I said we should let convicted pedophiles out to attack children again just so I could prove myself right?

It happens. Whether you want to admit it or not. It happens because the justice system is not perfect. It happens because the subject is so touchy people either don't want to admit it happens (and guilty people go free) or they get all up in arms and can't listen to reason (innocent people go to jail). It happens because we haven't found a way yet to provide cold, hard, indisputable evidence that someone attacked someone else when DNA isn't left behind. The same issues that let guilty people go free, let innocent people get locked up. The last thing the victim of a sexual assault wants to see is someone who didn't do it go to jail, while the person who did do it walks free.

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

You are asking for evidence that it happens more than rarely... I gave it to you. I have nothing to say on this specific case because I have no clue what happened with it. I'd be more inclined to trust the conviction than what the person says.

I am just point out to everyone saying "false convictions hardly ever happen because it's hard to get a real conviction" that false convictions happen far more often then we would like to think.
 

And I still contend that, no, it does not.  I did a sort of straw poll on that google search you asked me to make.  18 cases mention, 6 of which involved wrong convictions that were later overturned.  In very high profile cases where there was a lot of hysteria and presumably pressure on the PTB to reach a hasty conclusion to the situation, which makes the whole thing more about politics than about child abuse.  Also "happened" is different than "happens".  The understanding of how to appropriately interview young children about these matters has moved forward a great deal in the last 25 years, partly as a result of the cases you referred to.  Someone tries to tell me they were a victim of a coerced statement from a child in 1987 I might buy it.  In 2002?  Not so much. 

And again, what does "far more often than we think" mean?  No one has said it never happens.  No one.  We are saying it is not a huge number, not numerically, nor proportionally.  Not compared to the guilty who walk free.  Occam's Razor and all. When I hear hoof beats I'm gonna guess there is a horse coming, not a zebra. 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

It happens. Whether you want to admit it or not. It happens because the justice system is not perfect. It happens because the subject is so touchy people either don't want to admit it happens (and guilty people go free) or they get all up in arms and can't listen to reason (innocent people go to jail). It happens because we haven't found a way yet to provide cold, hard, indisputable evidence that someone attacked someone else when DNA isn't left behind. The same issues that let guilty people go free, let innocent people get locked up. The last thing the victim of a sexual assault wants to see is someone who didn't do it go to jail, while the person who did do it walks free.

Yeah, it sucks, the system sucks, people get convicted for the right reasons or for the wrong reasons, and people get acquitted for the right or wrong reasons as well.

Thats why there is an appeal system, that is not left up to a jury, but to a judge.  The first appeal by a convicted individual is a matter of right, and they get an appeal no matter what the basis.  Past that it gets harder, as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th appeal are not as a matter of right, but up to the court whether they hear the case or not.

If a person is wrongly convicted, my expectation is that they follow their parole/probation/whatever until an appeal overturns that conviction.  Even if it means no contact with kids (who really should be considered society's most precious possessions - even though they aren't possessions exactly, they should be treated with utmost care).

MD - I don't think you were saying OP shouldn't stand up for the boys, and yeah, unfortunately, people are wrongly convicted far too often.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama 

And I still contend that, no, it does not.  I did a sort of straw poll on that google search you asked me to make.  18 cases mention, 6 of which involved wrong convictions that were later overturned.  In very high profile cases where there was a lot of hysteria and presumably pressure on the PTB to reach a hasty conclusion to the situation, which makes the whole thing more about politics than about child abuse.  Also "happened" is different than "happens".  The understanding of how to appropriately interview young children about these matters has moved forward a great deal in the last 25 years, partly as a result of the cases you referred to.  Someone tries to tell me they were a victim of a coerced statement from a child in 1987 I might buy it.  In 2002?  Not so much. 

And again, what does "far more often than we think" mean?  No one has said it never happens.  No one.  We are saying it is not a huge number, not numerically, nor proportionally.  Not compared to the guilty who walk free.  Occam's Razor and all. When I hear hoof beats I'm gonna guess there is a horse coming, not a zebra. 

How many of the guilty walk free become someone else stood trial for their crime?

One thing that make a case against someone fall flat is if another person was tried for it, even if they are found innocent, because it give the defense a chance to say "see the witness doesn't know what she/he is talking about!"

It's not as rare as we would like to think it is. We want to think it's one in a billion, but it's not.

I'm not saying that you're saying it never happens. I'm just saying that it's more often than people want to admit. Then again you and I might have a different definition of "too high a number". When it comes to sexual abuse, one is too high, if only because it means a damn good chance that one is the same number of sexual abusers that are free to carry on with no one the wiser.

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

How many of the guilty walk free become someone else stood trial for their crime?

.

I would guess (and I admit that this isn't something I have statistical knowledge about), that this happens very, very, very infrequently. Considering the percentage of sexual assaults that are never even reported, the number for which there is not a specific person accused (meaning the victim does not know who the perpetrator is), the number of case where there is a person accused but no one is ever arrested (for whatever reason), the number where an arrest is made but charges are dropped due to lack of evidence, etc . . .I'd say the wrong person getting convicted being the cause for someone who was actually the criminal walking free happens infrequently enough to not be statistically significant.

I would also suggest that false accusations probably happen far, far, far more frequently than false convictions. Are there people in recent and current times who get convicted that aren't guilty? Probably. But I would say the number we'/re talking about is very very small. Obviously, that doesn't mean a damn thing if you're the person being falsely accused/convicted - but I'm not really sure why it's relevant in this situation at all.

[kama'aina mama]

I have already answered that I think the answer is "not very many."  Both numerical and proportionally.  I am also growing increasingly disgusted with your choice to make a political and theoretical argument in a thread started by a woman who is in anguish because she is afraid of what might happen to her nephews.

[iamleabee]

Originally Posted by Shantimama 

 Well that is the problem with crimes like this. Most child molesters find a private place where there are no witnesses or cameras and they choose victims who are not likely to be believed if they even do tell anyone. They go to great lengths to ensure their victims never report them and to do all they can to make sure they won't be believed if they do tell.

My dh works in a profession where he has to be aware of not putting himself in a position where he could be falsely accused of sexual misconduct. I am well aware of the vulnerablity of some situations for men. That said, there are huge numbers of child abusers who get away with their crimes. Those who never get reported never get convicted. Those who are not believed by the parents, teachers, etc the children choose to tell - those abusers never get convicted. The court system is horrific for victims and many do not go through with accusing. Because there is of often no "proof" the abuser often goes free. There are many types of sexual violence that leave no evidence behind, especially if there is any kind of delay in reporting what happened. A simple bath or bedtime toothbrushing can wash away any evidence and at that point it is the word of an adult against a child. If the child has been told no one will believe them or something terrible will happen if they tell, then it remains a secret and the criminal walks free. The motivation of a sex offender to lie and pass as innocent is much greater than the motivation of a child to lie and expose themselves to the stress and shame of being questioned and examined for lying about sexual abuse.

It is far easier for a sexual criminal to walk free than for someone who is innocent to be tried and convicted of a sexual crime.

I have to wonder about the people who are saying we should give this poor guy the benefit of the doubt. Would you be saying the same thing if this was someone joining your family or having regular, easy access to children you love and care about?

um, yes. i have to wonder if the "wait and see" approach of some people here is because we are talking about theoretical risk to the children of someone on the internet? would you be so cavalier with your own children, placing them in daily contact with a known sex offender? with your children's friends? even if this dude leaves his nephews alone just being around children puts him in frequent contact with other children...children and parents who do not have the benefit of making the risk analysis that the OP's sister made (well, he's a convicted child sex offender but i'm OK with him being around my children...). and then, if something happened to one of her nephews or the nephew's friends or relatives of the nephew's friends, to know it could have been prevented from the outset!

[Arduinna]

I don't get it either. In fact I'm pretty disgusted by it.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama 

 I am also growing increasingly disgusted with your choice to make a political and theoretical argument in a thread started by a woman who is in anguish because she is afraid of what might happen to her nephews.

Interesting you should say that, considering you were involved in this part of the conversation before I was...

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Where the hell did I say that? Give it to me. Show me exactly where I said we should let convicted pedophiles out to attack children again just so I could prove myself right?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it *sounds* as though you are saying that innocent people are convicted of sexual assault, therefore, we should give those who are convicted of sexual assault the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is a substantial chance that they are in fact innocent.  And, that being the case, trust that they are safe with our children.  That is what it sounds like you are saying.

And I am saying that I don't care if 99% of convicted pedophiles are actually innocent (which they aren't).  I would not trust a single one of them around my child.  EVER.  Children are too precious. 

[APToddlerMama]

Also, MusicianDad--Where do your facts come from?  Of course the judicial system is flawed.  But do you really think there are lots of innocent people convicted of sex crimes?  Enough to give this dude the benefit of the doubt?  That assertation is outlandish. 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it *sounds* as though you are saying that innocent people are convicted of sexual assault, therefore, we should give those who are convicted of sexual assault the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is a substantial chance that they are in fact innocent.  And, that being the case, trust that they are safe with our children.  That is what it sounds like you are saying.

And I am saying that I don't care if 99% of convicted pedophiles are actually innocent (which they aren't).  I would not trust a single one of them around my child.  EVER.  Children are too precious. 

No, I'm am saying we can't ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted of sexual assault not matter how we feel about it. I didn't say anything about giving any one the benefit of the doubt. I do believe I said this though: 

I'd be more inclined to trust the conviction than what the person says.

Right here, at the top of the page. Read my post http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1307797/sil-marrying-a-pedophile/120#post_16387468

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

Also, MusicianDad--Where do your facts come from?  Of course the judicial system is flawed.  But do you really think there are lots of innocent people convicted of sex crimes?  Enough to give this dude the benefit of the doubt?  That assertation is outlandish. 

Ok... again...

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GIVING ANYONE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!

I said people get falsely convicted. I said the number of people getting falsely convicted is higher than we would like to believe. Yes, "WE" that includes myself. The idea that someone is being locked up for another persons crime scares the hell out of me. 

I never said we should give this person or anyone else convicted the benefit of the doubt. Maybe tentatively if the conviction was overturned. But only then.

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

No, I'm am saying we can't ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted of sexual assault not matter how we feel about it. I didn't say anything about giving any one the benefit of the doubt. I do believe I said this though: 

Right here, at the top of the page. Read my post http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1307797/sil-marrying-a-pedophile/120#post_16387468

Then what is your point exactly?  So what?  Innocent people are sometimes (rarely) convicted of crimes.  So what?  It has nothing to do with OPs situation.  Nothing.  She needs to act as if this guy is guilty (which he nearly undoubtedly is anyhow) in order to protect these kids.

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Ok... again...

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GIVING ANYONE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!

I said people get falsely convicted. I said the number of people getting falsely convicted is higher than we would like to believe. Yes, "WE" that includes myself. The idea that someone is being locked up for another persons crime scares the hell out of me. 

I never said we should give this person or anyone else convicted the benefit of the doubt. Maybe tentatively if the conviction was overturned. But only then.

You strongly imply it by hijacking a thread about protecting kids from a sex predator to bring up the fact that sometimes people are wrongly convicted of crimes.

[MusicianDad]

Since I was just trying to point out that false convictions actually happen... And more than just once in a life time, and not trying to convince people we should let convicted sex offenders roam the streets as some people are trying to argue I am saying. I am out.

I made my point.

Believe if you want to.

A broken system won't fix itself. Work on getting the right people in jail, instead of the wrong people.

I do not advise you do expose your children to a convicted sex offender.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

No, I'm am saying we can't ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted of sexual assault not matter how we feel about it.

Actually we can. And for the safety of children we need to take convictions at their face value.