Reports of Abuse by Children / Sandusky / Judge William Adams
Posted in the Rockport Forum
#1 Jul 12, 2012
SANDUSKY TRIAL REVEALS THE NEED TO BELIEVE CHILDREN
One of the most arresting moments in the trial of Jerry Sandusky came when an alleged victim of the former Penn State assistant football coach took the stand and explained why he never said anything about the abuses hed suffered years before.Who would believe you? he said. Sanduskys an important guy. Everybody knows him. He was a football coach. Who would believe kids?
Disbelief has always been a problem in the prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Although the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, enacted in the mid-1970s and revised several times since, established a national definition of child abuse, reports dont always happen. Fear of backlash and its consequences may deter some adults from reporting others, but fear of disbelief as testimony in the Sandusky trial have shown is also still very much an issue.
While there may never be an adequate solution that gets adults to trust childrens stories in these traumatic situations, one thing that can help increase plausibility is readily available public information that reveals the frequency with which children are abused. Some such information already exists: The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, issues an annual report that includes statistics compiled from child protective service agencies nationwide. As important as they are, however, these numbers are general, and they dont necessarily convey to parents the risks their children can face in their daily lives.
Thats why a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision was a good one. Last week, the court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America must release 20,000 pages of documents containing information on, among other things, alleged child molesters in the organization over the last few decades. The documents were used as evidence in a 2010 lawsuit by a plaintiff who claimed that the Scouts had failed to protect him from an assistant scoutmasters abuse decades before, and the court ruled that made them public.
The Scouts argued that releasing the documents may negatively impact victims privacy and have a chilling effect on the reporting of abuse. But more public information means more awareness. Should incidents occur in the future, disbelief might not be such an issue when there is documented evidence on the table.
Its true that the Boy Scouts organization makes commendable efforts to combat any such abuse, but a private institution releasing this information to the public can only help more people believe kids. As the Sandusky trial has shown, thats a pressing need.
#2 Jul 12, 2012
We don't need to convince people to believe children. That goes too far. Some children are not telling the truth. Sometimes, the adult should be believed. But, we absolutely do need to listen to children in other words not ignore them. We then need to do our best to determine the truth.
Refusing to even listen to a child who reports child abuwse and in fact attacking the child's parent (and her lawyer) for believing the child and assert what the child said in Court is just morally wrong. Those who behave that way (or support that kind of misbehavior or ignore it) need to removed from their responsibilities and relieved of their authority relating to children or the legal system in general.
Judge William Adams did this. He attacked a mother for believing her child's outcry of abuse (her lawyer also). The child was perfectly credible and there was no evidence presented contrary to what the child said (other than conclusory denials). The sole ground for this was the remarkable assertion that children are "fantasizers." This child was a highly intelligent child nearly 6. Both parents testified he was honest.
The following people should be relieved of office and all credentials based on either active malfeasance or dereliction of duty because each was involved and had an opportunity to address this isssue and did not either actively participating, covering up, or ignoring.
1) Judge William Adams
2) Lanette Joubert
3) William Dudley
4) William Kelly
5) James Ehler
6) Marie Haspil
7) The 13th Court of Appeals
8) The Texas Supreme Court
9) The Texas Judicial Conduct Commission
10) The entire governance of the Texas Bar.
There is no excuse for ignoring a child's outcry of abuse on the ground that children are "fantasizers." This is no more acceptable in the case at issue than in the Sandusky Case.
#3 Aug 22, 2013
Adams is corrupt, retarded, or both
Add your comments below
|Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10)||15 hr||New Resident||1,031|
|Markus Ramirez||Jan 12||Caraphernelia||2|
|chris bradford (Mar '11)||Jan 8||Bradford||30|
|Con Man Posing as a minister in Rockport TX - ... (Mar '11)||Jan 5||Sapphira||35|
|Wives beware!||Dec 26||Christi||6|
|ashley ortiz (Sep '12)||Dec 23||Doriz||10|
|guy named ryan||Dec 16||jay||3|
Find what you want!
Search Rockport Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC