Is it a viable defense?

[Ed62]

We hear about parents who molest kids, and many times when they're in court, the lawyer will bring up the fact that they were sexually abused as kids, themselves. This seems to be an effort to portray them as the victim, instead of the abuser. It seems to me that if someone had been abused, it would be reason for them to make sure their own kids were not abused. I just can't understand how it could make an abuser out of them. Opinions from anyone? Could there be a link?

Ed

[JSUPreston]

Oh boy, is this a touchy subject for me. Without going into too much detail, considering that this is a public forum, let me just say that I came from two bad situations before moving into a childrens home, and leave it at that.

I spent many years in counseling, and have surronded myself with good people that I can lean on for help and advice. I constantly ask my wife how I'm doing as a spouse, but more importantly as a father. Am I perfect? No. Have I stepped over the line on occasion? Yes, and I talk to my wife and her family and my friends constantly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, and what I should do differently if I didn't handle a situation properly. When I say I've stepped over the line, I'm talking about maybe being a little too lound or, when we spanked, maybe spanking a little harder than I probably should have (we stopped spankings when we realized they didn't work with our kids). From what I've been told by others that have observed my family, I'm doing a better job than most. If I feel like I'm too upset to handle something, or if I feel I'm about to cross the line, I get my wife to take over, and I go put myself in timeout. She does the same. If both of us need to go to timeout, we call the grandparents.

I go to bed everynight knowing that I'm a better person than what some folks in my past tried to make me. I do my best to make sure my kids know I love them, and when I screw up, I apologize to them. Fortunately, those apologies don't have to happen very often.

The only excuse I really have is that I didn't grow up in a normal, nurturing environment until I was a teenage at the childrens home. So, I do look at things a little differently. However, a person's past abuses should not be used to justify why they abuse children, spouses, animals, whatever. I made a conscious years ago when in therapy to make sure that the pattern stopped with me. By the grace of God and help from others, I've been successful. By the same token, if I can be successful, so can anyone else. They have to make the decision to stop it, and make themselves accountable to others.

If any of you guys have questions, PM me. I just don't want too much (at least any more than has already been posted) info out where just anyone can read it.

[cabinetman]

I don't think it's a defense at all.

.

[dbhost]

I'm a simple person. So I will give you a simple answer. Not only is it NOT an excuse, it is motivation to insure that the same does not happen to your kids. So I honestly feel that those that abuse their kids after they themselves were abused are not only not excused, but are doubly responsible as they more than anyone else should know the harm it does...

[woodturner]

I just can't understand how it could make an abuser out of them.

Different people react to trauma in different ways. For example, after a rape, some women become promiscuous. It's a way of reconciling with and gaining control over what they experienced. I would assume that the same mental processed might be invoked by other forms of abuse, which would be "passing along" the abuse. We see that in other cases - the child who was bullied as a kid grows up to a bully, for example - so it seems plausible.

[radhak]

By the same token, if I can be successful, so can anyone else.

I am respectful of your personal situation, and in awe of how much of a turnaround you have brought to your own life - you must be an inspiration to your family, particularly your kids.

At the same time, that sentence (quoted) is how many of us perceive the world around us, but that perception has no legs to stand on. After all, every one of us has achieved something less than somebody else; if they could do that, then why could we not? If Barack Obama could become the President at such young age, then why could I not? If a blind woodworker could achieve that, then why am I such a sh**y one?

The answer is exactly why there so many different ways of finishing cherry - human beings are built differently, and respond in varying ways to the same stimulii. Now does that excuse pedophilia? No. But what does excuse it? There is no excuse for any crime, and even less so for abusing children. But that's how many human beings respond - when bullied, they become bullies; when abused, they abuse.

All of us are upstanding citizens and can claim moral superiority; but part of that is also to empathize with our lesser comrades. War veterans have blown up themselves and people around them because of PTSD; I would not condemn them unequivocally, despite the fact that 99% of war veterans manage their stress much better and are great contributors to society.

I don't condone any such crime; but I don't dare condemn across the board; there are cases which are truly heinous and indefensible; then there are some of those that need our sympathy.

[cabinetman]

Different people react to trauma in different ways. For example, after a rape, some women become promiscuous. It's a way of reconciling with and gaining control over what they experienced.

You state that like it's truth. What verifiable facts can you show to prove that?

I would assume that the same mental processed might be invoked by other forms of abuse, which would be "passing along" the abuse. We see that in other cases - the child who was bullied as a kid grows up to a bully, for example -

Again you state an assumption as it's common knowledge. What can you cite to substantiate this behavior. Recently you cited a case of a hobbyist in a woodworking club that had some problem with violating patent rights. You haven't given any details on that as yet. It would be beneficial for woodworkers to know whether it was truth or rumor.
.

[dbhost]

All of us are upstanding citizens and can claim moral superiority; but part of that is also to empathize with our lesser comrades. War veterans have blown up themselves and people around them because of PTSD; I would not condemn them unequivocally, despite the fact that 99% of war veterans manage their stress much better and are great contributors to society.

I don't condone any such crime; but I don't dare condemn across the board; there are cases which are truly heinous and indefensible; then there are some of those that need our sympathy.

Morally superior or not, the question is more a matter of safety and security from the real and present danger from the abusers. And if the abuser was abused but has no underlying psychological issue that prevents them from knowing right and wrong, then legally speaking, at least in most places I know of, they are still held to account for their actions, as they should be. Now does that mean that they are mentally healthy? Of course not. Mentally healthy people do not intentionally harm another person. That just means they retain the capacity to chose right from wrong. There is a great deal we can do to help people in both situations like PTSD, and those that were physically, emotionally, or sexually abused as a child. Unfortunately we very often don't...

[Bruce Cohen]

First let me state that I truly feel that anyone (male/female) that molests a child does not deserve to continue living. Apparently, in the majority of situations, the molester is never really cured (from various articles in the news and in documentaries). If one does find this to be true, there is no real solution but the death penalty or a life sentence without parole.

I've also been noticing the posting of comments that are supposedly true. I feel that a reliable source (not the internet or Wikipedia) must be quoted as undocumented statements have no real value except to lead one to believe something other than the truth.

I have no soft spot in my heart for anyone that sexually harms a child.

Bruce

[Ed62]

If any of you guys have questions, PM me. I just don't want too much (at least any more than has already been posted) info out where just anyone can read it.

Sorry you had to go through something like that, but I won't ask for any specifics.

Since you probably have a better understanding about the subject than most others, do you know if people who are abused as children, grow up to be abusers at a higher rate than the rest of the public? Or maybe that is a question that really can't be answered? It seems to be used quite frequently as part of the defense.

Ed

[MilDoc]

Interesting discussion.

I was Medical Director of the Child Abuse Clinic and a member of the medical faculty for the medical school at UT Southwestern Medical Center for 13 years. During that time I examined over 16,000 children for suspected abuse. Close to 6,000 for suspected sexual abuse. Testified in court as an expert witness over 1,200 times (and never lost a case). And was recognized by my peers as an expert in child abuse.

Decades ago we talked about the "regressed pedophile" (someone who turns to sex with children because he/she has had bad experiences in his/her own age group), and the "fixated pedophile" (a person who is "stuck" psychologically at a younger age and views children as his/her only love interest). This was the ancient age when pedophilia and homosexuality were seen as a psychological and fixable problem. The author of that book no longer believes it.

None of that is believed anymore. And what I am about to say is sure to rattle some bones.

Sexuality is diverse, the same as everything human is diverse. True heterosexuals would never think of sex with a child, or with their own sex. And there are true pedophiles (and homosexuals), both born that way, who can not change. The true pedophile ONLY sees children as sexual partners. He/she is born that way, as is the true homosexual. It is inherent in their nature, and can not and will not change. And there are "in betweeners," the bisexuals adults, and the pedophile who can sustain a normal adult relationship but still has a desire for children, and will act on that desire if given the chance.

Then there are the "opportunistic" pedophiles. They may not have "consciously" thought about a child as a sexual object, but given alcohol etc., and the opportunity, may "act out." In this case the victim is generally a beautiful and developed adolescent female, as opposed to the true pedophile. The true pedophile, as an expert I know once said, "either likes them with hair or likes them without," and often has a sexual preference for boys or girls. Rarely is "any" sex OK for them, and MOST are homosexual pedophiles. Ever heard of N.A.M.B.L.A.?

Can you "create" an abuser by abusing that person at a young age? That question has been debated for years. It IS true for physical abuse. Many physically abused kids grow up to abuse their children, but NOT all. Those are the ones we call RESILIENT kids. I have seen many kids severely physically abused who, once removed from the home and (hopefully adopted, not subjected to our abysmal foster care system), grow up to be fine non-abusive adults without years of counseling. And of course some who are not so "resilient" do need the years of therapy. Neglect can also be "passed on" from parent to child, but not always.

Is this also possibly true for sexual abuse? I don't know. My own humble opinion is "maybe." Not all sexual abuse is fearful, painful, frightening, etc to the child. At one time I was a monitor for a self-help group for sexually abused children, and sometimes it took some of them a long time to get them to understand that what was done to them was wrong by our standards. They felt that what was done with them was OK. No fear, no aggression, and sometimes even fun in the child's own words.

Will they perhaps grow up to sexually abuse others? Who knows.

I can tell you that past abuse RARELY holds much water in court or with juries. It might lead to a lighter sentence, but that's all. And sometimes not that as juries vary in their attitudes about ANY crime as much as they do about religion and politics.

And, to answer Ed's last question: YES. ABUSED kids are more likely to grow up to be abusive. Not 100%, but high.

I am happy that JSUPreston got the help he need and is doing well. And very happy he realized that spanking DOES NOT USUALLY WORK. It should be reserved for MAJOR infractions ONLY.

[Kristofor]

And was recognized by my peers as an expert in child abuse.

Perhaps, not the epitaph you want on your tombstone...

More seriously, while that obviously sounds like critical work with the ability to make a large positive impact on a huge number of kids, I would run screaming from the thought of taking that type of job. It just seems like it would be so depressing to do that for years with an unending stream of kids... Always trying to pick up the pieces rather than being able to avoid the breakage in the first place


As far as past abuse history being relevant to a current case, I certainly don't think it's a valid excuse as was originally asked. It may be informative, and I can see the chain of tragedy cascading from one generation to the next, but ultimately the person in question needs to step up and overcome that behavior/conditioning/whatever. It may not be "fair" (in an odds against success fashion) but it is a requirement to remain a part of society...

[Ed62]

what I am about to say is sure to rattle some bones.

Why would it? Thanks for shedding a little light on the subject, through your experiences.

Ed

[woodturner]

MAnd if the abuser was abused but has no underlying psychological issue that prevents them from knowing right and wrong, then legally speaking, at least in most places I know of, they are still held to account for their actions, as they should be.

I think you have hit on the "key" issue - whether or not the person truly "understands" that what they did is wrong. That's why children below a certain age are usually not prosecuted in the same way as adults, even for heinous crimes - we (society) believe that very young children do not fully understand right and wrong.

Our legal system suggests that adults are accountable for their actions when they understand right and wrong. Adults who do not truly understand right and wrong may have basis for a defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity", for example.

[woodturner]

He/she is born that way, as is the true homosexual. It is inherent in their nature, and can not and will not change.

I think that is still an open question. Personally, I suspect their are many causes of "different" orientations.

Gene researchers tell us there is no "homosexual gene" and argue that there cannot be such a gene, suggesting that one cannot be born homosexual.

Psychologists tell us that disruptions at particular stages of development create gender confusion and can lead to homosexuality. They further cite examples of homosexuals that were successfully treated and "cured" through therapy. Other psychologists argue that homosexuality is not a "disease" and cannot be cured (in spite of the fact that until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered a treatable illness by psychologists)

My friends who are bi or prefer the same sex all have pretty traumatic pasts. However, that is anecdotal evidence and, as such, it's not valid to infer general trends from less than 10 "samples".

In my opinion, if we are ever able to truly figure this out, we will find that sexuality is a spectrum or range of behaviors, not a point. Most people are at the "far right" (heterosexual) end of the spectrum, a few at the far left (homosexual), but a lot somewhere in between. I think we will find that some people are born homosexual - whether that be due to genes, maternal alcohol consumption, phases of the moon, or whatever. I also think we will find that some people do "develop" these proclivities and that they could be "undeveloped" if the person chooses to do that.

My real sadness in all of this is that Kinsey faked the data. As a result of Kinsey faking data regarding homosexuality, much of the research has had to be thrown out, and it has created huge confusion regarding true rates of homosexuality and discredited the field of study.