Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: hinckley buzzard
I can't imagine what other evidence there could be.

There "could be" all kinds of other evidence, such as photos and trophies kept by the purported rapist. Since I've been unable to find any discussion of such evidence, it seems unlikely there is any.

These are really, really tough cases.

Child molestation does occur. So do false accusations of child molestation.

So how do we determine the truth in situations where it is usually, though not always, "he said, she said?"

Sadly, in today's world the answer is that it depends on who tells the most convincing story in court. The problem with this is that some people are really, really good liars. Others aren't believable under stress even when telling the truth.

The whole issue has become politicized, with the presumption being that the female involved is telling the truth. Many conservatives jumped to this conclusion in the discussion about H. Clinton's defense of an accused child rapist in Arkansas.

We saw similar politicization of a similar issue during the "Satanic rape child care" moral panic of the 80s. A good many innocent people went to jail, some I believe only recently released, because activists demanded we, "Believe the children!"

Why? Children make things up all the time. They can be remarkably easy to trick into believing something happened when it didn't.

Should children (or women) be automatically disbelieved? Nope.

Should they be automatically believed? Nope.

Is there any real way to determine "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" when the case is based entirely on one person's testimony versus that of another? Not really. Particularly when testimony impugning the "perpetrator's" character is allowed, and testimony casting doubt on the "victim's" veracity is often not allowed.

Note: The scare quotes in the preceding sentence are there simply to point out that the whole reason to hold a trial is to determine whether there is a "perpetrator" and a "victim." Using the terms as representing facts prejudges the accused as being guilty.

Please also note that I'd be fine with capital punishment in cases of genuine rape and particularly child rape. The problem is that individuals should not be assumed guilty and punished accordingly based primarily on past and present crimes committed by members of a group they happen to belong to, in this case males.

37 posted on 07/10/2014 5:39:05 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

Excellent movie - Just ask my children.

Story of the Kiffen case out if California Kern county. One of the starting cases for the great child abuse witch hunts.

“A pedophilia witch-hunt is started in Bakersfield by two teenage girls’ foppish child abuse claims. Blindly ambitious justice officials, especially in the prosecutor’s office, conspire to arrest loving parents Scott and Brenda Kniffen, whose doted pre-teen sons Brian and Brandon are grilled endlessly until they repeat the vicious lies, the elder even ends up believing them while they pass from one foster home to the next, as even the grandparents are denied custody for not turning on their children. The defense’s rights are systematically denied, so the parents go to jail for 240 years. The boys are near adulthood when the political tide finally turns.”
- Written by KGF Vissers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280474/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl


39 posted on 07/10/2014 2:21:51 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson