Criminal Defense Attorney for Sex Crimes

Why Child Sex Crimes Require an Experienced Attorney

In almost every aspect of daily life, adults tend to question children’s judgment and the accuracy of the information they receive from them.  When dealing with fights at school, excuses for poor school performance, or coming home after curfew, adults seek ways to verify what a child tells them rather than accept it at face value.  But, when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct, many people tend to believe whatever a child tells them.

“Me too” and “believe victims” movements only further this tendency.  It is easy to sympathize with these movements based on the facts of certain high-profile stories.  However, to apply a “believe victims” mentality across the board in criminal justice is a dangerous proposition and contrary to the foundations of our justice system. 

The Constitution’s default view is not to “believe victims.”  It is the opposite.  It presumes the innocence of the accused.  However, many well-meaning aspects of our criminal justice system have the effect of flipping this presumption on its head. 

There are laws designed to accommodate the limitations of child witnesses that tend to make them appear more believable. For example, alleged victims are permitted to have a “support person” present with them on the witness stand when they make their accusations in court. The effect reinforces the narrative that the alleged victim has been traumatized (why else would they need a support person?) and imprints the court’s stamp of approval on this narrative.  It invites the jury to blame the accused for the trauma this child has apparently suffered, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.

A prosecutor is allowed more leeway in questioning a child witness. They are often permitted to ask them leading questions, essentially putting words in the witness’s mouth.  A child is arguably the last type of witness for whom the law should permit this type of questioning.  More than any other type of witness, children are most likely to simply adopt the story of the person questioning them, especially an authority figure like a prosecutor.

Each of the accommodations that courts make for child witnesses is a recognition that unassisted children often do not make good witnesses.  If the successful prosecution of child sex abuse allegations is the goal, it makes sense to take steps to boost the credibility of child witnesses.  However, this is NOT the goal of an even-handed justice system that is supposed to favor the accused and presume their innocence.

PRACTICE AREAS

HOW CAN WE HELP?

If you or a loved one needs help in one of the following areas, please fill out the form and someone from our office will respond as quickly as possible.  

Criminal Defense Attorney for Sex Crimes

Why Child Sex Crimes Require an Experienced Attorney

In almost every aspect of daily life, adults tend to question children’s judgment and the accuracy of the information they receive from them.  When dealing with fights at school, excuses for poor school performance, or coming home after curfew, adults seek ways to verify what a child tells them rather than accept it at face value.  But, when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct, many people tend to believe whatever a child tells them.

“Me too” and “believe victims” movements only further this tendency.  It is easy to sympathize with these movements based on the facts of certain high-profile stories.  However, to apply a “believe victims” mentality across the board in criminal justice is a dangerous proposition and contrary to the foundations of our justice system. 

The Constitution’s default view is not to “believe victims.”  It is the opposite.  It presumes the innocence of the accused.  However, many well-meaning aspects of our criminal justice system have the effect of flipping this presumption on its head. 

There are laws designed to accommodate the limitations of child witnesses that tend to make them appear more believable. For example, alleged victims are permitted to have a “support person” present with them on the witness stand when they make their accusations in court. The effect reinforces the narrative that the alleged victim has been traumatized (why else would they need a support person?) and imprints the court’s stamp of approval on this narrative.  It invites the jury to blame the accused for the trauma this child has apparently suffered, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.

A prosecutor is allowed more leeway in questioning a child witness. They are often permitted to ask them leading questions, essentially putting words in the witness’s mouth.  A child is arguably the last type of witness for whom the law should permit this type of questioning.  More than any other type of witness, children are most likely to simply adopt the story of the person questioning them, especially an authority figure like a prosecutor.

 

Each of the accommodations that courts make for child witnesses is a recognition that unassisted children often do not make good witnesses.  If the successful prosecution of child sex abuse allegations is the goal, it makes sense to take steps to boost the credibility of child witnesses.  However, this is NOT the goal of an even-handed justice system that is supposed to favor the accused and presume their innocence.

HOW CAN WE HELP?

If you or a loved one needs help in one of the following areas, please fill out the form and someone from our office will respond as quickly as possible.