Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[DubaiSis]

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

It was many years ago but I worked as an Occupational Therapist in inpatient psych on a 5-12 year old unit for several years. In my experience, with children at very young ages who have been abused, they typically had knowledge of things that most children of that age would not have. The therapists usually used a lot of play therapy and children tend to imitate what they have experienced or seen through their play. Additionally, most children who are molested at that age had physical signs of the abuse. Their parts are small and adult parts (even fingers) are not and often do some damage. Proving WHO did it can be very difficult, but whether abuse had happened was pretty obvious. 95% of the kids who were on our 5-12 y/o unit had been physically or sexually abused.

I don't know what a lawyer would advise, but if I was absolutely innocent of a crime, I don't think I would accept a plea bargain. I would trust that since I was innocent, there would not be evidence to convict me.

[DrPhil]

Many "innocent" people take plea bargains because they or the people who are officially or unofficially advising them believe there is a high probability of conviction. Of course, they would rather have the charges dropped but the plea bargain is the lesser of the two evils when dropping charges isn't an option.

This is especially the case for certain charges and defendants of particular demographics. Saying "if you're not guilty you wouldn't take a plea bargain" doesn't work for many people in the system.

[DubaiSis]

When my brother was (unjustly) accused of sexual assault, his lawyer said, first thing to know is your marriage is over and... everything after that didn't matter to him. When talking to the social worker to work through his near nervous breakdown over it, she said she knew right away he was innocent. She said when the accused says "what do I do to keep my family together" they're innocent. When they say "what do I do to stay out of jail" they are guilty. Of course, we don't know if the guy in this case asked this question, made more complicated (and yet LESS complicated) if the divorce proceedings came first and the accusations second. And, by the way, his marriage wasn't over, and is still intact 20 years later. His daughter got over being batshit crazy and is now a good daughter and mother.

[DrPhil]

I'm glad his marriage wasn't over.

I disagree with the social worker's "what do I do to keep my family together" and "what do I do to stay out of jail" rule. People who are accused of crimes say all sorts of things and that pertains to both the innocent and the guilty. That's one reason the legal system does not solely or primarily rely on hunches and "if the person says this" rules.

There are people who professionally and personally believe the cons of plea bargaining far outweigh the pros. As for this thread, the question I have been wondering is what are the criteria for when/why the general sentiment/general discourse should hold onto potential innocence even after a guilty verdict?

[DubaiSis]

You're right on the above. In his case she was right, but she was also a family friend so may not have been perfectly unbiased in her judgement. On the other hand, knowing my brother since birth, I think she knew he was not capable of that level of guile. But yes, I'm sure she wouldn't get on the stand and say she absolutely knows the truth because of this type of statement. Generalizations that make her feel comfortable in her approach to counseling doesn't mean undeniable truth.

And you're also right that we are still discussing this as "innocent until proven guilty." He was proven guilty so now there is/should be no presumption of innocence. But we know innocent people are declared guilty every day, which rounds us back to the top again. I know I am too righteously indignant to roll over, and I'd like to think that would apply to threat of jail, but who knows what I would do when confronted with this question in real life. In my brother's case, the whole mess fell apart in less than 2 weeks so he didn't have to face this either.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know what a lawyer would advise, but if I was absolutely innocent of a crime, I don't think I would accept a plea bargain. I would trust that since I was innocent, there would not be evidence to convict me.

I used to think this too. Unfortunately it's just not reality for many people. Unless you have a lot of money, it can be absolutely debilitating to fight charges. And innocent people are charged, often because they trust the system and trust that there won't be evidence since they are innocent. Evidence comes in many different forms, and innocence is not the protection that it should be.

As for the rest of the thread, I hope that everyone who us ganging up on Kevin can see how much kettle they are to his pot. I don't agree with how he has stated his opinions, but there are others who have been his equal on many levels.

[DrPhil]

DubaiSis, what I'm wondering is do "we" always hold on to the "innocent people are sometimes found guilty" theme? If "we" do, what's the point of guilty verdicts?

Originally Posted by pbear19

As for the rest of the thread, I hope that everyone who us ganging up on Kevin can see how much kettle they are to his pot. I don't agree with how he has stated his opinions, but there are others who have been his equal on many levels.

The thread seems to be moving beyond Kevin so if you take issue with this back and forth don't hypocritically perpetuate the back and forth.

[DubaiSis]

The point of guilty verdicts is to be able to mete out punishment. Our justice system is good but in no way perfect. So short of insisting that people actually, dare I say it, do the right thing, what can you do beyond argue about it? Hopefully you keep up the good fight, hold judges to account for bad decisions when you think they've occurred, and actually serve on juries when you're called. What else can we do? OK, raise kids to be good people and good citizens, not watch news that is known to be ridiculously flawed, but watch more that is known to be more accurate...

[DrPhil]

LOL. I was more wondering when it is appropriate to use the "sometimes a guilty verdict doesn't mean guilty" argument. That argument is definitely not used across crimes and across demographics.

I can think of plenty of times when someone is found guilty, some people are still arguing the person's innocence, and the response is to either find the resources to appeal or get over it.

[AGDee]

This article gives a lot more detail about all of it-
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2014303190072

This includes information that he admitted to molesting his son as well, after he was already on probation from the plea bargain he accepted for the original charges of molesting his daughter.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

There's no such thing as not taking a side. If you choose to decide that you don't know what happened, you are then saying you don't believe the victim and her testimony. When we talk about the legal system, you can say that you don't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are saying that you think the victim is not trustworthy, and that means you have taken a side.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

There's no such thing as not taking a side. If you choose to decide that you don't know what happened, you are then saying you don't believe the victim and her testimony. When we talk about the legal system, you can say that you don't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are saying that you think the victim is not trustworthy, and that means you have taken a side.

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

Right.

I'm also reminded of the McMartin preschool scandal where most of the kids have come forward and admitted that they said what they said to please the adults who were asking. They weren't abused.

From the article Dee posted, it sounds like there was medical evidence consistent with what was alleged. Interviews get a little murky.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

The point is that *someone* has to be lying. The accused, the child, or I suppose in some scenarios, a third party who is trying to use the child to damage the accused (see: Woody Allen). If you say "I don't know who is telling the truth," you are deciding that the accused is not credible, and you'd rather err on the side of believing him than on the side of believing her. As far as the law goes, that's a good thing...innocent until proven guilty and all that, but as far as a bunch of us jerks Monday-morning quarterbacking on a GC thread, I will choose to believe a child who has been victimized over an adult who has shown a pattern of sexually predatory behavior towards children.