When is a sex offender not a sex offender?

[Ed62]

The thread about the coach in the girl's locker room is the basis for this thread.

One of my daughters, now divorced, had a father-in-law who had a legal problem that caused him a ton of grief years ago, and probably still does. One of his grand-daughters accused him of molesting her. I don't remember how old she was at the time, but I'm guessing around 6 or 7.

There was an article in the paper, naming him as an accused child molester. It wasn't long, and the girl (no relation to my daughter) told the police it never happened, and the charges were dropped. But guess what......he was, and probably is still labeled a child molester by some people. Apparently an adult (teacher??) in her school tried to impress upon the kids what could happen if they didn't report abuses like that. I'm not sure exactly what was talked about, but I suspect it went into detail regarding what was appropriate, and what was not.

I only met this man 2 or 3 times, so I don't really know him. But I know it took a toll on his marriage and just about everything else. Could you imagine being the wife of a man who is accused by your grand-daughter as molesting her? Who does she believe? Has she been married to a child molester for years without her knowledge? Could you imagine being this man? FWIW, they're still married.

Ed

[cgallery]

Nightmare scenario for sure. The stigma would never completely go away.

The question on who to believe is an excellent one.

I've gotta believe this stuff doesn't come outa nowhere. That, where it happens, there must have been at least some sign of inappropriate behavior in the past. And while a wife would never want to think the worst, I'm sure she wouldn't forget, either.

So I'd say the woman should trust her gut. If she has any doubts whatsoever, she should seek the truth, no matter how painful. If she has no doubts about her husband, she should stand by her man.

And when I say she should stand by her man, I mean that she should explain to the family and authorities that she has known the man for 40 years. That, he has never given her any reason to think he is capable of such an act, and that the burden of proof that it will take to convince her will be extremely high.

I also think, BTW, that women have a keen sense on this stuff (compared to men). Men are somewhat oblivious to it, but women (of all ages) constantly evaluate men. Women are genetically wired to determine which men are threats to themselves or (especially) their children.

[cabinetman]

All it takes is an accusation. True or false. It's just that simple.
.

[Richard in Smithville]

It seems to me that if some one is accused, they are marked as guilty based solely on the accusation and not on any proof.

[jussi]

I think this is why our legal system is set up so as to make it quite difficult to convict someone. In general course, I know there are many cases where this isn't the case. How does that saying go? It's better that 10 guilty man go free than 1 innocent man be convicted. I'm not sure I completely agree, but that's our system.

That being said, public opinion is the exact opposite and we almost instantaneously believe someone's guilt as soon as they're merely charged with a crime.

[Pappy]

In today's society I feel this scenario is played more often that realized. With all the retrictions put on disciplining children, children are being 'schooled' by other kids and teachers of how to report any form of abuse and assured they will be protected after they report abuse. Too many times they concoct stories based on stories they read, or see in the news, as a way to get even with a parent or other authority figure when things don't go exactly as they wanted. Unfortunately for the innocent adult that was accused, the public hears about the accusation since a follow up story clearing them of wrong isn't newsworthy.

Another situation that is wrong in my mind is a case of statutory rape against teen age boys when the age difference might only be a few months. Even if the act(s) were consentual, charges are brought either because the girl was mad at her boyfriend or because her parents found out. The young man is branded for life as a sex offender.

I'm not suggesting that any of these reports of abuse should not be taken seriously or investigated, just that the media, and the public, needs to remember that our legal system still presumes inocense until proven guilty.

[leehljp]

What is most difficult is - asking the right questions and saying the right things in such cases. The legal phrase that begins with "Objection", and the following words "leading the witness" applies to children especially. "Leading" is very relevant in forming perceptions and eliciting wrong answers - especially in children.

We had some training that dealt with what to say and not say, or question with children when one seemed to be afraid of an adult.

Some children can be afraid of a person because of his or her looks and "leading questions" can turn it into a child molestation case. A child angry at a relative, or a child who had nothing more than a nightmare with a relative in the dream - can be led to accuse the adult of molestation.

The correct questioning is VERY important. However at the first clue, most people ask something like "Did he do this to you?" "Did she make you do this?" etc. Bad questions.


Edit in to address teens instead of young children:

I am aware of an incident a few years ago in which a teenage girl admitted, in a counseling session, to having an affair with a married man. Because of the situation, she was totally trusted for her word initially and the man was almost fired from his job. The teen's descriptions were specific to time and places. While the man was in the area at the time, he was on family outings in which quite a few videos were taken. The specific dates that the girl insisted upon were the dates in which the man's family was visiting from overseas and stayed with him 24/7 for 10 days, and there was considerable video also.

Also, the lying aspect of this teen became evident as her peers were interviewed. Were it not for the videos that showed places with time and events that could document such, he would have been relieved of his work. Furthermore, for some reason, a person who has an alibi with a buddy, coworker or other witness, this still leaves "doubt" in people's mind and especially wives, husbands and family. The perception remains even when the innocence is proven. Videos and other hard copy evidence generally goes further at relieving suspicion than a "witness" can.

[herb fellows]

Once an accusation is made, it's a very slippery slope to try to climb back, virtually impossible.

[woodturner]

Women are genetically wired to determine which men are threats to themselves or (especially) their children.

I think that is a misconception.

There was a case in Washington DC a few years back. A prominent female doctor was convinced her husband was abusing her daughter, so she hid her daughter. Court cited her for contempt and imprisoned her for a year - she only got out because congress passed a law to let her out.

Utimately the child was located in the custody of her grandfather. Unfortunately, it turned out the grandfather was the one abusing her all along - her mother had unwittingly hidden the child with the abuser to "protect her".

We'd all like to think we have a good "gut instinct", but statistically we are usually wrong.

[cgallery]

I think that is a misconception.

...

We'd all like to think we have a good "gut instinct", but statistically we are usually wrong.

Mothers are sometimes wrong. I wouldn't make the leap to often wrong and certainly not usually wrong.

Men have a distinct advantage when it comes to survival (strength).

Women substitute caution for strength.

Way back in '72, Time Magazine did an interesting (gets even more interesting towards the end) comparison between males and females. Link here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2519-1,00.html

Finally, behavioral sex differences show up long before any baby could possibly perceive subtle differences between his parents or know which parent he is expected to imitate. "A useful strategy," says Harvard Psychologist Jerome Kagan, "is to assume that the earlier a particular difference appears, the more likely it is to be influenced by biological factors."

...


In fact, newborn girls do show different responses in some situations. They react more strongly to the removal of a blanket and more quickly to touch and pain. Moreover, experiments demonstrate that twelve-week-old girls gaze longer at photographs of faces than at geometric figures. Boys show no preference then, though eventually they pay more attention to figures.

I can't find it now, but I have another article which explains WHY women study the faces so carefully. Basically (paraphrasing poorly), they're evaluating them for signs of aggression. They watch facial expressions, mannerisms, etc., looking for signs.

I agree it isn't perfect, but they're doing it, guys aren't.

[woodturner]

Mothers are sometimes wrong. I wouldn't make the leap to often wrong and certainly not usually wrong.

Men have a distinct advantage when it comes to survival (strength).

Women substitute caution for strength.

Way back in '72, Time Magazine did an interesting (gets even more interesting towards the end) comparison between males and females. Link here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2519-1,00.html

That wasn't a "leap", but rather reporting that in studies, the gut instinct is usually (around 78% of the time) incorrect in both men and women.

It's misconception that men are inherently stronger than women, or that women substitute caution for strength. In this day and age, both views are considered misogynistic and inappropriate in scientific fields.

While one can show that 52% of men are stronger than similar women, it's an issue of development rather than physiology. Regardless of how "caution" is defined, there doesn't seem to be any scientific support for differences between the sexes.

I do recall the Time magazine article and Gagnon's and Kagan's research. One problem with media reports on scientific research is that they rarely get it completely right, because they don't fully understand the research. That's one explanation for the conclusions the article draws that are not supported by the research.

In addition, this is very, very dated research and would be largely dismissed by contemporary researchers, given changes in standards for testing and objectivity. In any event, more contemporary research has clearly refuted both the claims in the Time article and the original research. The concern and issue is that lack of controls to contemporary standards caused the effects the original researchers "observed".

Which is a long-winded way of saying that when "training" factors are removed, there is no difference in the way boys and girls focus on faces or objects, etc. Put another way, if one does not know the sex of the child the sex cannot be predicted by the behavior, absent environmental training.

[cgallery]

That wasn't a "leap", but rather reporting that in studies, the gut instinct is usually (around 78% of the time) incorrect in both men and women.

It's misconception that men are inherently stronger than women, or that women substitute caution for strength. In this day and age, both views are considered misogynistic and inappropriate in scientific fields.

While one can show that 52% of men are stronger than similar women, it's an issue of development rather than physiology. Regardless of how "caution" is defined, there doesn't seem to be any scientific support for differences between the sexes.

I do recall the Time magazine article and Gagnon's and Kagan's research. One problem with media reports on scientific research is that they rarely get it completely right, because they don't fully understand the research. That's one explanation for the conclusions the article draws that are not supported by the research.

In addition, this is very, very dated research and would be largely dismissed by contemporary researchers, given changes in standards for testing and objectivity. In any event, more contemporary research has clearly refuted both the claims in the Time article and the original research. The concern and issue is that lack of controls to contemporary standards caused the effects the original researchers "observed".

Which is a long-winded way of saying that when "training" factors are removed, there is no difference in the way boys and girls focus on faces or objects, etc. Put another way, if one does not know the sex of the child the sex cannot be predicted by the behavior, absent environmental training.

Kagan is one of the most recognized names in developmental psychology out there. [I can't believe this, but there is a ranking, and he is the twenty-second most eminent psychologist of the 20th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Kagan.]

Do you have specific references that debunk any of his research? I sure as heck can't find any.

Here is more recent research:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d5610r1q3x13l0h5/

Abstract
Evidence indicating that sex-linked toy preferences exist in two nonhuman primate species support the hypothesis that developmental sex differences such as those observed in children’s object preferences are shaped in part by inborn factors. If so, then preferences for sex-linked toys may emerge in children before any self-awareness of gender identity and gender–congruent behavior. In order to test this hypothesis, interest in a doll and a toy truck was measured in 30 infants ranging in age from 3 to 8 months using eye-tracking technology that provides precise indicators of visual attention. Consistent with primary hypothesis, sex differences in visual interest in sex-linked toys were found, such that girls showed a visual preference (d > 1.0) for the doll over the toy truck and boys compared to girls showed a greater number of visual fixations on the truck (d = .78). Our findings suggest that the conceptual categories of “masculine” and “feminine” toys are preceded by sex differences in the preferences for perceptual features associated with such objects. The existence of these innate preferences for object features coupled with well-documented social influences may explain why toy preferences are one of the earliest known manifestations of sex-linked social behavior.

I'm surprised by your comment about relative strength, too. There are overwhelming biological reasons why men are stronger than women, not the least of which is the big "T."

You need to read-up on "sexual differentiation."

In terms of your comment that "In this day and age, both views are considered misogynistic and inappropriate in scientific fields," I'd say that holds true for people with an agenda. I'm talking about science and research, not politics.

[os1kne]

One of the problems with sexual harassment charges is that they cause a tremendous "buzz" in a community - the story spreads like wildfire and most people assume that the party charged is guilty. I don't know how this can be "fixed", as you wouldn't ever want to create a system that prevents the reporting of legitimate cases.

Several years ago, I (barely) knew a man that was the father of a good friend of mine and also happened to be a good friend / coworker of my uncle. This man had a very responsible position with a large company (he had approx. 350 people reporting to him and had been with the company for 20+ years.)

One of the women that reported to him had received a couple of performance reviews that were not flattering, so before the next performance review she reported to HR that he had been sexually harassing her. The company suspended him for several weeks to investigate the claims - which caused a lot of gossip amonst the other employees, doubts/problems with his wife, etc. He was eventually exhonorated of the charges, and the employee was transferred to another department - but I don't know if it's possible for one's career/reputation to ever fully recover from allegations like this.

[woodturner]

I'm surprised by your comment about relative strength, too.
...
You need to read-up on "sexual differentiation."

In terms of your comment that "In this day and age, both views are considered misogynistic and inappropriate in scientific fields," I'd say that holds true for people with an agenda. I'm talking about science and research, not politics.

A lot of people are surprised to learn that there is no inherent physiological strength difference between men and women.

Not sure what you mean with the comment on sexual differentiation, a "pop science" term. If you will confirm the literature resources you can access, I'd be happy to provide a bibliography. If you aren't really going to go the university and read them, though, I'd rather not spend the time researching it for you.

If the scientific method means "people with an agenda" to you, so be it. It's not considered appropriate in any accepted field of science or research, as I said. I can see, though, that for people with an agenda (which I assume includes yourself) it could seem political.

[cgallery]

A lot of people are surprised to learn that there is no inherent physiological strength difference between men and women.

Bwahahahahaha, hilarious.

Not sure what you mean with the comment on sexual differentiation, a "pop science" term.

You did take high school biology, right? It is merely the study of the development of sexual differences in humans. Here, wikipedia.org is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation. Start there, and follow the links. Absolutely not "pop science."

If you will confirm the literature resources you can access, I'd be happy to provide a bibliography. If you aren't really going to go the university and read them, though, I'd rather not spend the time researching it for you.

Nice try. Let's not play games. If you can't find any supporting documents on the www, just say so.

If the scientific method means "people with an agenda" to you, so be it. It's not considered appropriate in any accepted field of science or research, as I said. I can see, though, that for people with an agenda (which I assume includes yourself) it could seem political.

You missed my point entirely. Those that would like to insist there are no differences between the sexes (that is, you) do so for a variety of political (non-scientific) reasons.

However, your statement that my comments are not considered appropriate in any accepted field of science or research is directly contradicted by the links I've provided. If my insistence that there are differences is somehow outside the realms of science and research, then why is Texas A&M (among others) researching them?

You said I was misogynistic in saying men are physically stronger than women. Statements of fact are never misogynistic. As an engineer, attorney, and professor, you should know that.