Facts and Myths

Myth Normal-appearing, well educated, middle-class people don’t molest children.

One of the public’s most dangerous assumptions is the belief that a person who both appears and acts normal could not be a child molester. Sex offenders are well aware of our propensity for making assumptions about private behavior from one’s public presentation. In fact, as recent reports of abuse by priests have shown, child molesters rely on our misassumptions to deliberately and carefully set and gain access to child victims.

According to Dr. Anna Salter, Ph.D., a foremost expert in sex offenders, “a double life is prevalent among all types of sex offenders . . . . The front that offenders typically offer to the outside world is usually a ‘good person,’ someone who the community believes has a good character and would never do such a thing” (Salter, 2003, p. 34).

People are too quick to believe an abuser is guilty, even if there is no supporting evidence.

In truth, people are too quick to believe that the accused is innocent, even if there is plenty of supporting evidence. According to Dr. Salter, ” Normal , healthy people distort reality to create a kinder, gentler world than actually exists” (p. 177). She notes that in order to find meaning and justice in everyday life, most people assign victims too much blame for their assaults and offenders too little. In truth, it is hard for most people to imagine how any person could sexually abuse a child. Because they can’t imagine a “normal” person doing such a heinous act, they assume that child molesters must be monsters. If the accused does not fit this stereotype (in other words if he appears to be a normal person), then many people will disbelieve the allegation, believing the accused to be incapable of such act.

• Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York : Basic Books.

Child molesters molest indiscriminately.
Not everyone who comes in contact with a child molester will be abused. Although this finding may seem obvious, some interpret the fact that an abuser didn’t molest a particular child in their care to mean that those children who do allege abuse must be lying. In truth, sex offenders tend to carefully pick and set up their victims Thus while sex offenders may feel driven to molest children, they rarely do so indiscriminately or a plan.

Research with sex offenders confirms that they tend to carefully select and “groom” their victims (Conte, Wolf, & Smith, 1989). For instance, Elliott, Browne and Kilcoyne (1995) interviewed with 91 child molesters, the all-male sample reported that they most often chose children who had family problems, were alone, lacked confidence, and were indiscriminate in their trust of others — especially when the child was also perceived to be pretty, “provocatively” dressed, young, or small.

Rather than being a sudden, initially traumatic occurrence, most sex abuse involves a gradual “grooming” process in which the perpetrator skillfully manipulates the child into participating (Berliner & Conte, 1995). To ensure the child’s continuing compliance, sex offenders report using bribes, threats and force (Elliott et al.,1995).

Children who are being abused would immediately tell their parents.

The fact victims often fail to disclose their abuse in a timely fashion is frequently used as evidence that an alleged victim’s story should be doubted. Research, however, shows that children who have been sexually assaulted often have considerable difficulty in revealing or discussing their abuse.

Estimates suggest that only 3% of all cases of child sexual abuse (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Timnick, 1985) and only 12% of rapes involving children are ever reported to police (Hanson et al., 1999). A nationally representative survey of over 3,000 women revealed that of those raped during childhood, 47% did not disclose to anyone for over 5 years post-rape. In fact, 28% of the victims reported that they had never told anyone about their childhood rape prior to the research interview. Moreover, the women who never told often suffered the most serious abuse. For instance, younger age at the time of rape, a family relationship with the perpetrator, and experiencing a series of rapes were all associated with delayed disclosure (Smith et al., 2000).

Sex offenders typically seek to make the victim feel as though he or she caused the offender to act inappropriately, and convince the child that they are the guilty party. As a result, children often have great difficulty sorting out who is responsible for the abuse and frequently blame themselves for what happened. In the end, fears of retribution and abandonment, and feelings of complicity, embarrassment, guilt, and shame all conspire to silence children and inhibit their disclosures of abuse (Pipe & Goodman, 1991; Sauzier, 1989).

Boys seem to have a particularly difficult time dealing with sexual abuse and are even less likely to report it than girls. A review of 5 community-based studies revealed that rates of non-disclosure ranged from 42% to 85% in abused men ( Lyons , 2002). Research with abused males has found that the more severe the abuse, the more likely the boy is to blame himself and the less likely he will disclose the abuse (Hunter et al., 1992). In addition to self-blame, reluctance of boys to disclose abuse may be traced to the social stigma attached to victimization, along with fears that they will be disbelieved or labeled homosexual (Watkins & Bentovim, 1992).

• Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as Victims of Violence: A National Survey. Pediatrics, 94 (4, :413-420.
• Hanson, R. F., Resnick H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. (1999). Factors related to the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 559-69.
• Hunter, J. A., Goodwin, D. W., & Wilson, R. J. (1992). Attributions of blame in child sexual abuse victims: An analysis of age and gender influences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 75-89.
• Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation . Arlington VA: National Victim Center .
• Lyon, T.D. (2002). Scientific Support for Expert Testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation. In J.R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (on-line: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?65+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+97+(Winter+2002 )
• Pipe, M. E., & Goodman, G. S. (1991). Elements of secrecy: Implications for children’s testimony. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 33-41.
• Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455-69.
• Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 273-87.
• Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: A review of current research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 197-248.

Hundreds of innocent men and women have been falsely accused and sent to prison for molesting children.
Over and over again, the media has raised the question whether America is in the midst of a hysterical overreaction to the perceived threat from pedophiles. Actual research, however, shows that, as a whole, our society continues to under-react and under-estimate the scope of the problem.

Prior to the 1980s, child sexual abuse was largely ignored, both by the law and by society as a whole. In the 1980s, when the scope of the problem began to be acknowledged, the police began to arrest adults accused of child abuse. A backlash quickly formed and police and prosecutors were soon accused of conducting “witchhunts.” Although some early cases were handled badly — mainly because the police had little experience in dealing with very young child witnesses — there is little evidence to back the assertion that there was widespread targeting of innocent people.

In fact, research has consistently shown that few abusers are ever identified or incarcerated. Estimates suggest that only 3% of all cases of child sexual abuse (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Timnick, 1985) and only 12% of rapes involving children are ever reported to police (Hanson et al., 1999).

Further research reveals that of the few cases reported to authorities, relatively few accused offenders are ever investigated or charged. For instance, the first National Incidence Study (Finkelhor, 1983) found that criminal action was taken in only 24% of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse — a finding replicated by Sauzier (1989). After reviewing numerous studies, Bolen (2001) noted that in the end, offenders may be convicted in only 1-2% of cases of suspected abuse known to professionals. And even then, most convicted child molesters spend less than one year in jail.

Based on the high prevalence of sexual crimes against children on our society, it strains credulity to assume that the small number of cases that are actually prosecuted constitute a “witchhunt”, or that somehow mostly innocent people are targeted for prosecution. In fact, statistics suggest quite the opposite: child abusers are rarely identified or prosecuted.

• Bolen. R. M. (2001). Child sexual abuse: Its scope and our failure . New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-39.
• Finkelhor, D. (1983). Removing the child – prosecuting the offender in cases of child sexual abuse: Evidence from the national reporting system for child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 195-205.
• Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A national survey. Pediatrics, 94, 413-20.
• Hanson, R. F., Resnick H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. (1999). Factors related to the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 559-69.
• Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington VA : National Victim Center.
• Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455-69.
• Timnick, L. (August 15, 1985). The Times poll: Twenty-two percent in survey were child abuse victims. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.

Retroactive Civil Window

MYTH: “Cases 20, 30 years old are difficult to defend.”

FACT: Cases 20, 30 years old are very, very difficult to win. The rules of evidence and burden of proof are still in play. It remains the responsibility of the accuser to prove the accusations.

MYTH: “Lawyers tell me this window which is retroactive is unconstitutional.”

FACT: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a retroactive criminal law is unconstitutional (Stogner v. California). However, in 2004, the state of California passed a one-year window for victims to seek redress in civil courts. It was challenged several times by the church in appellate courts and the courts rightly held that the law is constitutional. More importantly, Delaware has precedent of a retroactive civil window in the case of U.S. military veterans who discovered years later that they had suffered the effects of exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

MYTH: “The California one year civil window was a disaster…over 600 claims by 1,000 victims.”

FACT: The law was an unqualified success because the point of the law was to give victims their day in court and therefore flush out and expose sexual predators.

MYTH: “There is no precedent for the look-back provision.”

FACT: California did this several years ago when they amended their statue of limitations to help child abuse victims. The Delaware General Assembly has previously done this as well for Vietnam Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange. They realized the harm after the statute of limitations had already expired. A civil window was enacted in Delaware for Vietnam War Veterans to file lawsuits for exposure to Agent Orange.

MYTH: “The look-back provision violates the due process and equal protection rights contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

FACT: The U.S. Supreme Court has twice rejected this argument about statutes of limitations in civil courts. This is within the statute of limitations context because “the Fourteenth Amendment does not make an act of state legislation void merely because it has some retrospective operation” (holding that it is well within the legislature’s prerogative to retroactively revive time-barred claims). The California state courts have upheld their retroactive child abuse statutes as well. In fact, due process for victims of childhood sexual abuse in Delaware is denied by not allowing a civil window.

MYTH: “If this bill passes ? frivolous lawsuits may be filed.”

FACT: The courts have processes in place to throw out these types of lawsuits. The discovery process will not allow lawsuits to go forward if there is no basis to do so. The bill contains a provision for defendants to recover attorneys’ fees in the unlikely case of false claims.

MYTH: “Plaintiffs will be denied their constitutional right to due process. It will be one person’s word against another person’s word.”

FACT: Schools, churches and institutions keep written records of child abuse complaints. They also keep records of their finding and actions of these serious charges. The records can be subpoenaed and brought into evidence. For example in the grand jury investigations of the clergy child abuse scandal in Philadelphia, over 10,000 pages of documents were entered into evidence. This can prove or disprove accusations and help settle “his word against my word” cases.

Repressed Memory

• MYTH: “Flawed or incomplete memories can jeopardize the innocent.”
• “I don?t believe there is such a thing as repressed memory.”

FACT:

1. Doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists have recognized repressed memory for many years. The American Psychiatric Association?s textbook of diseases called the DSM4 officially lists repressed memory as a medical fact. Repressed memory and disassociation are recognized just as surely as amnesia, clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition, APA, 1994, is the current reference used by mental health professionals and physicians to diagnose mental disorders.)
2. In order to survive, let alone to get on with a productive life, people often repress memories of harmful childhood events. If they didn?t they would have trouble functioning in society. If the victims allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by the horrific memories of sexual abuse, they would have trouble focusing on the productive goals of their lives. Repressed memory can serve as a coping mechanism for sexual abuse victims.
3. Experts say children who are sexually abused often do not know how to cope with the trauma and some repress memory for decades; others never tell anyone. Some child victims are so young they do not even know the name of what is happening to them. Others have been groomed, threatened and bribed into silence by the perpetrator to the point where secrecy and compartmentalization become a way of life.
4. A federal court in 1988 in a trial in Illinois recognized repressed memory
5. A law was passed in Illinois recognizing unlocking repressed memory in 2003. It gave victims five years after unlocking memories to sue sexual predators.
6. A Delaware Superior Court judge ruled in December 2006 that recovered memory could be used in a case against the former principal of Salesianum.

Coalition Statement

Coalition to Support the Civil Rights of Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse

GOAL:
We want Maryland to change its image from being a ‘sex offender friendly state’ to one in which children and adult survivors civil rights are protected.

Synopsis:

• Repeals the statute of limitations in civil suits relating to child sexual abuse cases.
• Provides a “window” in which victim/survivors can bring a civil action in cases previously barred by the current statute.

Rational:

1. Murder has no statute of limitations. The rape of a child is a heinous crime that ranks with murder and kills the child’s innocence – therefore there should be no statute of limitations.
2. A civil window is a limited period of time when the previous statute of limitations is suspended and victims of child molestations may go to court to identify and punish past and present child predators.

Objectives:

1. To recognize child sexual abuse as a serious crime with long-term consequences and to close loopholes that exist allowing child predators to get away without being punished because of an inadequate existing law.
2. A civil window will:

a. Help to identify and bring to public account past and presently active pedophiles in our time-honored system of justice.

b. Hold individuals and institutions, which hide and enable these abusers accountable – this will have a chilling effect on this activity in the future.

c. Give childhood sex abuse survivors a chance to find justice.

UNACCEPTABLE

Our coalition will not accept amendments that weaken and turn a good civil rights bill into a “do nothing – feel good” bill. Some examples of these unacceptable amendments are:

1. Limiting the bill to punishing individuals (the teacher, priest, employee) and not to hold employees or institutions liable if they are guilty of gross neglect in protecting children.

• This type of an amendment would render the bill totally ineffective. In most cases civil damages could only come from the institutions that enabled these crimes. The individual predators in many cases have little resources. We will not support qualified immunity for the state or any other group.

2. An amendment not allowing civil action to go forward by eliminating cases in which repressed memory is a factor.

• Doctors recognize repressed memory as a valid disease process. Also, state and federal courts throughout the United States have recognized repressed memory as valid.