Posted on 07/12/2009 9:02:50 AM PDT by libstripper
If you look at many of the child sex abuse cases of the 80s, especially including this one, and, although not of the 80s, the infamous Duke rape case, lack of certain types of evidence is clear proof that the alleged abuse didn't occur.
For example, in the case covered by the article, "Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent." It being very hard to conceal physical evidence of "repeated and violent" abuse, the lack thereof is clear evidence no such thing happened, much as the lack of a knife wound in an alleged stabbing case would be strong evidence that no stabbing occurred.
The original allegations in the Duke rape case were detailed and lurid; however, no DNA or other physical evidence of the type that could be expected in such a case was ever found; hence, the lack of normally expected evidence became compelling evidence that the case was a fabrication.
I don’t disagree with you. I am just saying that cases like this end up hurting real abuse cases. And not ALL true cases have corrocorating evidence. The father who masterbates on a child is but one example. I won’t bother with overly detailed examples just to say that the idea that if there isn’t ‘corroborating’ evidence ( and how many young children can describe a penius when they are most likely closing their eyes tight against the abuse?)proves a lack of guilt is not always true.
There are differences between "pure logic" and the rules of jurisprudence. In logic a negative premise is never demonstrably correct. Ie: During the eight years of the Bush administration there were no terrorist attacks on US territory due to the war on terror. That is not logically correct as the correlation is not causation. That is, there may very well have been other reasons besides the WOT that prevented attacks.
The rules of American jurisprudence demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt to arrive at a conviction, that opens the door to "lack of evidence" becoming "proof of innocence". In fact it is proof of nothing at all but it is a very reasonable doubt and as such can serve as a defense under the American system of justice which is based on English common law. Things are far different under the Napoleonic code under which the accused is presumed guilty and the burden of proof lies with him to prove his innocence.
In the cases you mentioned the lack of evidence did not prove a thing but thankfully they did provide a "reasonable doubt". When there is a "lack of evidence" you can never know for sure what really happened. That's the logical conclusion!
Regards,
GtG
I think I’d be doing a hit for injustice at this level and damn the consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.