- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Some of his policies were left: protection of the environment, helping children and animals, banning smoking in the workplace.
These are his right wing policies: eugenics, exterminations of the jewish race, invasion other countries as a means of furthering the economy.
This is incorrect as well. The suspect is detained and interviewed, or simply agrees to an interview. They aren’t arrested. That’s well after the investigators have something to interview them about. Meaning they already found some amount of corroboration.
You cannot be 'detained' but not 'arrested'. Maybe you mean something else. I'm a law graduate btw. You think if someone is accused of abusing a child they are invited to the police station for a voluntary chat?
If some child says that Mr.Rogers from TV touched him at school, but Mr.Rogers has never been to that school, no one is going to call in Mr.Rogers for an interview. You may call that evidence that damages the allegation, but what it actually is, is a specific lack of corroboration.
You confused about lack of corroborating evidence and evidence for the defense that shows innocence. The fact that he isn't there is evidence for the defense. If he were at school, it wouldn't be evidence of anything.
Anytime an allegation is denied, there’s evidence to consider for multiple scenarios either for or against the accusation. This is weighed by investigators and prosecutors to determine if the accusation is probably true or probably not. If it is probably true, then the police have probable cause for an arrest. If it is probably not, then I’m not likely to hear about it, and if I hear about it, I will determine then if I agree that it probably didn’t happen.
Means motive and opportunity. All of those are fulfilled by a child saying they were abused by someone who has opportunity to be alone with them.
The fact that it is done by someone the child trusts is exactly why it is often unreported, and the crime repeated. When this happens, a pattern is created that can be investigated. When allegations are made, and are true, patterns corroborate. It is rare that a thing happens once. When it does, finding that they were never even alone together is lack of corroboration. Inconsistent accounts are considered. There’s always something when there’s something to it.
I don't know how to explain it to you... it is just fact that people get convicted of sexual abuse of a child even if its just once. I guess google news reports if you dont believe me...?
A specialist who is trained to interview children is brought in, otherwise small kids tend to say what they think the adult interviewer wants to hear (including baseless accusations). Interviews can be checked for consistency, and inconsistencies can be analyzed by psychologists.
Children don't usually lie in that way, but they are more likely to do it than adults are. But yes the person making the allegation can be questioned multiple times. This is often AFTER the initial arrest is made.
One example is the very recent Catholic Church abuse scandal where over 1,000 identifiable credible allegations were brought to light in an organization that is practiced at covering them up. Crimes create evidence.
The thing that produced the evidence was that other adults knew about it and did nothing. Hence the scandal.
Beyond reasonable doubt gets convictions. Probable cause gets arrests and is a much lower standard. Accusations are sometimes baseless and investigations can often show this.
You seem stuck on this point. If you take your child to the police station and the child tells the police that they have been abused, the perpetrator is arrested and interviewed.
Sometimes there are very troubled kids with substantial emotional and behavioral issues who baselessly accuse numerous people. This is more likely in bigger schools with more kids. These allegations are treated seriously but descretely with the credibility of the accusation established quickly. I say this because it is likely that a teacher in a big school near you was once accused baselessly, but you never heard about it.
Yes sometimes that happens and the defense has a huge task trying to discrete the childs testimony. You are talking about an allegation being made AND evidence that damages that allegation.
Seriously.. the majority of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child trusts. In the case of sexual touching, when the child is alone, what evidence can there possibly be other than the allegation?
None of those pieces of evidence usually exist with child sexual abuse cases unfortunately. It is often the offenders word against the victims. This will often lead to not being able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Personally, I would not be willing to trust anyone that a child has accused and would generally assume that there is a real chance he did in fact abuse the child.