"The presumption of innocence goes out the window the moment a person is accused of sexual misconduct."

Obviously an article only coverup-hungry IFBers would write.

I think this is a good one to have “out there.” I don’t know if it is the beam/mote thing revisited (guilt being assumed because we all know our own sinful propensities in general), but to be wrongly convicted of this is grievous. An everlasting blot is placed on the record (and in many fields, and esp the ministry, it can disqualify you), on the testimony (because people are always inclined to be skeptical, and esp if given fuel for it, even if innocence is later proven)… and, from what I understand, child molesters in particular can have a very tough go of it in the prison system.

Don’t get me wrong…there is little that grabs my heart more fiercely than learning of child abuse. But this article is a wake up call regarding how information, evidence, testimony is gathered in determining guilt and bringing about justice.

I was at a church security conference recently held by the Michigan State Police. One speaker cited a statistic (I’m still looking for a source) that less than one-half of 1% of all child-disclosed sexual abuse is false. I wish I knew his source, but coming from a police trooper I think it bears some weight.

It’s also important to note that it refers to situations where the child (under 18) disclosed the abuse himself.

If nothing else, info like that makes me not so easily dismiss such stories.

I think that is why we get to a place where guilt is presumed.

Another reason why is the same as the pastor accused of immorality - why were you in a situation that even allowed you to be accused?

[J.Schmitz]…why were you in a situation that even allowed you to be accused?

I’m not sure if that’s the right question. A false accusation doesn’t have to stem from any situation. Consider: a friend of mine was accused by his (at that point not-yet-ex) wife of being unfaithful, and she more or less tackled him and bit him on the mouth as he came home from work one evening. He reacted as anyone would when attacked - get the attacker away from the face. She promptly called the police, said he had smacked her around, and had him arrested for assault and battery. When the cops came, despite all the witnesses supporting his side of the story, they sided with her and he spent the rest of the evening in jail. (One officer explained to a relative that standard policy was to believe the wife, arrest the husband, and sort it all out downtown.) Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and after all the statements were taken he was released without being charged.

Point there is, an accusation was made in blatant opposition to the facts, but it was enough to stick for a few hours. Sometimes you can’t avoid being accused, but there shouldn’t be people lining up to testify that you were really inclined to whatever it was you were accused of, either. But your point is still a good one - since people can be very skillful hiding their true natures, even to the people that supposedly know them best, it’s never good to place yourself in a situation where you are easy pickings for an accusation, or worse, where you can easily let down your guard and do something that would get you rightly accused.

Anyone remember the McMartin preschool case? I think it lasted at least 2 years, but all of the accused were acquitted of over 100 allegations of sexual abuse because the leading questions that were used to interview the children rendered their testimonies unreliable.

In cases where children come forward, or are asked open-ended questions, accusations of molestation have significant weight. But when an adult asks specific questions, rewarding the child for giving the ‘right’ answer, and repeating questions when the child gave the ‘wrong’ answer, the child’s story is often completely fabricated. Check out this study- http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context…] Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study, by Nadja Schreiber at Florida International University and Lisa D. Bellah, Yolanda Martinez, Kristin A. McLaurin, Renata Strok, Sena Garven and James M. Wood at the University of Texas at El Paso.

In the McMartin case, one mother accused the workers of molesting her son (she was later diagnosed as being mentally ill), so the police chief sent letters to all 200 or so parents with children enrolled at the day care, informing them of the allegations and telling them to question their children. That letter caused a panic and resulted in over 100 allegations of sexual abuse, including stories of being taken in a helicopter to a farm and being forced to touch the bodies of dead animals. These parents were not trained in interview techniques, but case was built on the results of them questioning their own children. Later, taped interviews were done with the children and therapists, but the jury acquitted based on the nature of the questions asked. It was obvious that the children were trying to ‘please’ the therapists that were interviewing them.

Most folks’ initial response is that the story is so fantastic that it must be true, but in the study I linked to-

For example, in a study by Garven et al. (2000; see also Garven et al., 1998), 120 children aged 5 to 7 were visited in their classroom by a young man known as Paco Perez. A week later they were questioned about his visit. All children were questioned using mundane leading questions (‘‘Did Paco break a toy while he was visiting?’’) and fantastic leading questions based on the McMartin case (‘‘Did Paco take you somewhere in a helicopter?’’). Half of the children were also reinforced with praise for answers that were accusatory towards Paco and mild negative feedback for non-accusatory answers. In interviews that lasted only 3 to 4 minutes, reinforced children were
induced to make 35% false accusations against Paco, compared with 12% for non-reinforced children. For fantastic questions, the false accusation rate was 52% for reinforced children versus 5% for non-reinforced children.
When re-interviewed a week later without reinforcement, children reinforced at the previous interview continued to make accusations at about the same rate as previously.

These false positives are not the fault of the children, but of adults who are not using discretion and discernment because of their own fears or desire for a negative (or positive depending on your POV) result.

I’ve known personally of a few abuse cases involving a homeschooler where the social worker asked “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” types of questions, and families were under investigation for things like having a fence that was too high, a dog that was too big, and hanging underwear on their clothesline. The minute you say “child abuse” some people just check their brain out in the coatroom and proceed with no sensibility about them whatsoever.

It is SO important to get this right- children who are abused do not deserve to be disbelieved, but cases where they are led into false accusations can cause skepticism for the next child who is telling the truth, just as false accusations of rape result in cynicism for women who have been victimized.

but cases where they are led into false accusations can cause skepticism for the next child who is telling the truth, just as false accusations of rape result in cynicism for women who have been victimized.

This is a great point. There are two tragedies when a lot of emotional froth is generated about an issue like this: ruined reputations of those false accused, but also the tragedy of real victims being viewed with cynicism because of all the false ones. Carelessness with truth, guilt and innocence serves no one.

When I suspected years ago that our daughter had been abused, it was because she volunteered information of her own accord. I understand that some kids won’t because of shame or fear, but in our case she was too small to really get the “wrongness” of it entirely. Did I ask leading questions? No. I wanted to know what happened from her perspective. I had no other motive. I asked very, very open ended questions: “What happened?” “Where were you?” “Then what?” So as not to further frighten her or put things in her mind that would create a bias in her toward that individual—esp. if things were not (as I sincerely hoped) what they seemed to be.

I think there is an aspect of abuse here that is being missed. Is it not abusive to influence these children by asking leading questions and formulating ideas that can corrupt innocent minds?

[J.Schmitz] why were you in a situation that even allowed you to be accused?

The problem is that sometimes ministry opportunities arise that require a choice: I can minister, or I can avoid a situation that might look suspicious.
Pick up a teenaged hitchiker? Help a young lady in distress by the roadside? Become a youth leader in a youth group with many unchurched teenagers? Sponsor their camping trip?
I have even seen people walk by lost children in a store, afraid to intervene. Why? I think we know why some won’t risk involvement.

For us, as foster parents, the situation is even more murky. Some children grow up in a system (foster care or even the large low-income housing projects) where such accusations are used as attention-getting methods, or even as revenge methods. This is not hearsay. This has been admitted by some who in adulthood recanted their accusations.

In Michigan, current law allows foster parents to be held to a higher standard, so that their names can be placed on a list as abusers based on a case-worker’s report even if it is unproven allegation or suspicion. No criminal charges need be placed. Their foster-care license is then pulled, and they must fight via legal means to have their names cleared. In other words, they are guilty until proven innocent. This has effected several people that we know, and has caused us to urge people to prayerfully consider whether they are willing to engage that level of risk — even though we are wildly enthusiastic about foster care on the whole.

In truth, the police in most areas have become considerably more savvy than they were in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s about these things. The assumption of guilt is not there to the level it once was. Leading questions are seldom used by investigators, since they tend to build vulnerabilities into the case. But having sat on the jury for one of these cases, I see how these things take on a life of their own. The evidence was absolutely in favor of acquital. Even the Child Protective Services expert witness said the case was flawed, the evidence was against abuse having occured, and the prosecutor was mistaken. But in the jury room, two people tried to argue that we had to convict, or they would feel terrible if the man “did something to another child later.” That is guilty until proven innocent, exactly. BTW, he was finally found not guilty.

Please forgive me if I was not clear on my point. I should know better than to post in too much of a hurry.

I did not mean that anybody who is in a situation where they can be accused is a fool, or that we should write them off for doing so. I only meant that that is what often happens. We often treat the person accused of sexual abuse the same as a pastor who is accused of immorality - suddenly (simply by the accusation being made) the person loses something in the eyes of others. Maybe this goes to the idea of being blameless in I Tim. 3. Then, even if they are found ‘not guilty’, they are still watched much more closely than before - sometimes they will never be rid of that possibility people put on them.

I know of a lady who left her church recently because a man was being too friendly with the little kids for her sensibilities. She “knew” he was molesting those children somehow, or that his day to do so was coming. It was everything the church could do to keep his reputation from being destroyed. He had never once been alone with the children that anyone knew of, but just saying so publicly could have destroyed that man. I’m thankful the church looked into the matter before making a knee-jerk reaction.

If I as a Youth Pastor take a teen girl home alone, I daresay I’d have a problem in short order - I hope I would! In college we were taught that if you pull up to the church being locked and there is a lady standing in the rain, the right response is not to invite her into your car, but put her in the car while you stand in the rain! Do all you can to avoid the possibility of accusation. But even that is obviously not always enough. Joseph is a great example of that.

What does a couple do teaching a SS class when a little one has an “accident”? He can’t take the child to the restroom, but he’s also not supposed to be alone with the children. These are the situations we try to avoid.

To RPittman, again, I must not have been very clear. I did not take the officer’s word or even his statistic as gospel. I’m suspicious of any stat that claims to be 99.5% right. But even though he may not be an expert on sexual abuse, I’m fairly certain he’s seen more of it than I have. My only contact with reports of sexual abuse have been from teen girls that went too far, and then their parents talk them into claiming rape. Is every girl that claims that lying? Obviously not. But when nearly every case you see as an untrained-in-these-matters youth pastor turns out to be not quite true, your tendency is to see falsehood everywhere. Then when an authority says that the actuality is the reverse in some specific categories, that makes you sit up and pay attention.

[quote RPittman] Does your church have procedures for workers with children? Do they have policies and guidelines? Do they have a manual or documentation? Do you know what constitutes sexual abuse, if you are a mandatory report, or the signs of sexual abuse? Does your church do references and background checks on all persons working with children? Does your church require annual training? You may need a consultant! :-/Our church does have procedures and policies for children’s workers. We have a written manual, describing the responsibilities and expectations for everyone working with any age of children in our church. As a pastor I am a mandatory report, and we have had long discussions about these things. Michigan provides us with free background checks, which we require of everyone who works with children in our church. Annual training is something we are addressing right now. Our insurance company and CLA brought this to our attention some time back, and the church has been very supportive of getting this done. Churches today really should be proactive about how they will protect their children.

[J.Schmitz] Please forgive me if I was not clear on my point. I should know better than to post in too much of a hurry.

I did not mean that anybody who is in a situation where they can be accused is a fool, or that we should write them off for doing so. I only meant that that is what often happens.

I did not take offense. In fact, I agree with you to some extent. Too many people make foolish choices that leave themselves open to accusation.

I should note that smaller churches have a much harder time implementing a “two-adults” rule than larger churches. For instance, I don’t know how we’d get teens home from our youth meeting if we tried to make our youth workers do that.

In a discussion with another pastor about child protection policies, this interesting one came up:
Most advisors suggest that husband and wife not work together in departments with children, since that leaves them open to a charge of collusion in regard to an accusation (i.e. a wife might be perceived as being willing to lie to defend her husband in the event of an accusation). So now his policy results in a man and woman who are married to others working closely together, resulting in complaints from one of the spouses about the policy.
Human sinful nature is a big problem. It’s really hard to come up with completely safe scenarios.

[J.Schmitz] Michigan provides us with free background checks, which we require of everyone who works with children in our church.

Of course, as noted above, in the case of foster parents, we Michigan folk may not be able to trust the content of such background checks. Our church is wrestling through that (as a hypothetical case) now.