Article: “Why Sexual Abuse Goes Unnoticed� (some CC)

[Elizabeth86]

Yes. Times 10. We can assume no one would have people in their life who they know would molest their children. But you have to be realistic that SOMEONE is molesting children.

 

You want to hear a secret? I didn't trust my Dh with my son. Ds was 10 when we married and I never left him alone with him until he was MUCH older. Do I think my Dh would molest my son? Obviously I would not have married him if I did. But I was just so worried that I would be one of 'those' women that I just made sure I would t have to worry.

 

Don't trust people with your kids.

I don't blame you one bit. I hate when women instantly trust their new man alone with their kids. A relative of mine did this with her son and he ended up getting physically abused. There is a person in my family I have my questions about and you can bet I keep my eyes on him at all times. Someone dropped a hint once that he may have been in an inappropriate relationship with a young girl once, but this person is known to exaggerate quite a bit and no one usually believes her. I didn't dismiss what she had to say because the story added up in my mind.

[Bluegoat]

I think the question of privacy and rapport with kids is a good one, especially since it really affects all age groups.  I even think about it with doctors, as I've heard people here say that they would never let even teens be alone with a doctor, and it makes me wonder how they can access health care or just talk about problems which they want to keep private.

 

In most cases I think age is a factor in how to respond.  I'm just not sure about continuing to keep teens in chaperoned situations only - to be really effective I think it would need to be very universal.  (I remember going about town on the bus at 15 and 16, to the library, the all-ages club, coffee shops.  I was often alone or nearly alone with many people - friend's dads or brothers, bus drivers or other weird passengers, male friends around my own age.  At one time, these things would not have been allowed alone, and in large part to prevent situations where someone takes advantage.)  I think the better approach is to help them understand their boundaries, help them understand why people are taking advantage in cases that might seem unclear to them, and give them tools and strategies to respond.  They need to start using these before they leave home in a year or two or three.  

 

The other element to me is psychological - it just isn't always going to work to avoid situations where people behave inappropriately.  Yet when it happens, in most cases young people don't need to get the impression that they are permanently damaging or something that makes them a different person.  My own experience has been that feeling like you've been permanently marked, can be in some ways be worse than the original incident (depending obviously what that was.)  And there is something of a relationship between making things into a really big deal and a sense that something has happened that you can't cope with - it's a difficult line to walk.

[8circles]

Generally speaking, from my own experience both as a child and also seeing it as an adult, I think people are afraid of confronting anything that is uncomfortable. All the important things, unless we're talking about it in very high-level general terms and it doesn't affect anyone personally, we just. don't. talk. about.

 

Can't talk about it in church, "friends" don't want to talk about it because they "are trying to be positive", can't talk about it on FB because yuck - such a downer. I mean you CAN talk about it in any of those places but people will start avoiding you.

[PrincessMommy]

I think the question of privacy and rapport with kids is a good one, especially since it really affects all age groups.  I even think about it with doctors, as I've heard people here say that they would never let even teens be alone with a doctor, and it makes me wonder how they can access health care or just talk about problems which they want to keep private.

 

In most cases I think age is a factor in how to respond.  I'm just not sure about continuing to keep teens in chaperoned situations only - to be really effective I think it would need to be very universal.  (I remember going about town on the bus at 15 and 16, to the library, the all-ages club, coffee shops.  I was often alone or nearly alone with many people - friend's dads or brothers, bus drivers or other weird passengers, male friends around my own age.  At one time, these things would not have been allowed alone, and in large part to prevent situations where someone takes advantage.)  I think the better approach is to help them understand their boundaries, help them understand why people are taking advantage in cases that might seem unclear to them, and give them tools and strategies to respond.  They need to start using these before they leave home in a year or two or three.  

 

The other element to me is psychological - it just isn't always going to work to avoid situations where people behave inappropriately.  Yet when it happens, in most cases young people don't need to get the impression that they are permanently damaging or something that makes them a different person.  My own experience has been that feeling like you've been permanently marked, can be in some ways be worse than the original incident (depending obviously what that was.)  And there is something of a relationship between making things into a really big deal and a sense that something has happened that you can't cope with - it's a difficult line to walk.

 

And also it depends on the person.  Some people will be traumatized (whether mildly or not) and others seem to shake some things off with a "Boy, that person is an asshat.  Must avoid next time around." 

 

Just like siblings of alcoholics seem to process and handle it differently. 

[Bluegoat]

And also it depends on the person.  Some people will be traumatized (whether mildly or not) and others seem to shake some things off with a "Boy, that person is an asshat.  Must avoid next time around." 

 

Just like siblings of alcoholics seem to process and handle it differently. 

 

Yes, different people are different, probably as a result of nature and nature.

 

I wonder though what can be done to develop that capacity - I think it's something that is really useful in life beyond this kind of situation.

 

I get the sense that this isn't something people are comfortable talking about because it seems to imply that people who are really bothered are just weak or silly.  But I think it's an important topic.

[Liz CA]

That was hard to read.  I had a doctor who forked around in my private areas WAY too much.  I'll spare you the details.  He did this for years right in front of my mother.  It got to the point where I'd cry any time she announced she was taking me to the doctor's for something.  He would insist I needed an examination of my private areas no matter what she brought me there for.  So finally I begged her not to let him touch me there.  She said she would tell him no.  So she did and he became very angry and combative.  She found me a new doctor.  I don't know how she could not have known he was being inappropriate, but I guess he was that good at making it seem routine/normal.  He treated her like she was just stupid when she called him out on it.  Years later my mother read that he had been accused by others and lost his license.  I don't know the details beyond that.  At the time he was older so he's probably been dead for many years.

 

 

Your mother's lack of "seeing" goes back to the neuroscience part of what we see. I have read and studied this multiple times but have to constantly remind myself of this. Another reason could be that your mother thought he is the doctor and who is she to question him. My mother was like that. They could have almost sold her any procedure because they wore the white coat.

While this should have never happened to you your mother believed you and stood up to him! But I am sorry you lived through this.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Liz CA

[Entropymama]

I think the question of privacy and rapport with kids is a good one, especially since it really affects all age groups.  I even think about it with doctors, as I've heard people here say that they would never let even teens be alone with a doctor, and it makes me wonder how they can access health care or just talk about problems which they want to keep private.

 

 

A few years ago, when we lived in CA, I was informed by the girl at check in that since my dd had turned 12 her medical records were now private and I wasn't allowed access to them unless she consented. I was also informed that I was no longer allowed in the exam room with her and the doctor. At the time I was appalled. Not only did it make it much more difficult for me to provide my child with health care, I couldn't believe they would bar me from the room. I was livid. As it turned out, though the policy was in place, it wasn't carried out to the letter. I asked the pediatrician about it and he said it was up to dd, and she preferred me to stay. It was no big deal. It was frightening because we were new there and didn't know any of the doctors. I can still see how a creepy doctor would use such a policy to his or her advantage, and I think the pendulum has swung too far in that situation. And 12 is just too young, IMHO. 

 

On the other hand, now that my dc are getting older, I do think it's important for them to have trusted adults apart from their parents to talk to. 

 

Your mother's lack of "seeing" goes back to the neuroscience part of what we see. I have read and studied this multiple times but have to constantly remind myself of this. Another reason could be that your mother thought he is the doctor and who is she to question him. My mother was like that. They could have almost sold her any procedure because they wore the white coat.

While this should have never happened to you your mother believed you and stood up to him! But I am sorry you lived through this.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this may be generational. I have been appalled at the things my grandmother is okay with because someone in authority says so. (She also grew up in an authoritarian home in the 30's and married a Naval officer, so maybe it's lifestyle.)

[Terabith]

I think it’s important for older kids and teens to be able to be alone with trusted adults. We want them to have adults they feel like they can confide in. If they are never allowed to have any privacy (maybe with an open door or a window), how can they confide? That would be awful for me as an adult, to never be able to talk to anyone one on one. Would be even worse for kids. I think part of why media (phones, internet, etc) is so appealing is because it’s the only time kids have any semblance of confidential conversations with peers or adults.

[Word Nerd]

This related news story just keeps getting worse and worse as more reports of possible abuse are being made. It sounds like he slipped through the cracks for several reasons, including that parents second-guessed themselves.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Your mother's lack of "seeing" goes back to the neuroscience part of what we see. I have read and studied this multiple times but have to constantly remind myself of this. Another reason could be that your mother thought he is the doctor and who is she to question him. My mother was like that. They could have almost sold her any procedure because they wore the white coat.

While this should have never happened to you your mother believed you and stood up to him! But I am sorry you lived through this.

 

Well, my mother had a severe mental illness too.  A combo of literally being unable to make good decisions and a doctor praying on a person who is mentally ill probably had the most to do with it. 

 

But yes it meant a lot that my mother stood up for me.  It wasn't the only time.  She had a lot of issues, but she always stood up for me.

[TechWife]

This related news story just keeps getting worse and worse as more reports of possible abuse are being made. It sounds like he slipped through the cracks for several reasons, including that parents second-guessed themselves.

Why in the world would a parent report only to the preschool and not the police? This happens in churches all the time. This is a crime. The “appropriate protocol,†as one father claimed no knowledge of, is to report crimes to police. I have seen this pattern of reporting to institutional authorities and not police over and over and over. It’s time we take the mystery out of what happens when you report an assault to the police (maybe they are scared) and that we encourage people to report to the police. I’m not diminishing the difficulty of doing this, by any means. Adults have the capacity to weigh the pro/cons of reporting. However, adults should act on behalf of vulnerable children, the infirm and the elderly. Report, report, report.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Why in the world would a parent report only to the preschool and not the police? This happens in churches all the time. This is a crime. The “appropriate protocol,†as one father claimed no knowledge of, is to report crimes to police. I have seen this pattern of reporting to institutional authorities and not police over and over and over. It’s time we take the mystery out of what happens when you report an assault to the police (maybe they are scared) and that we encourage people to report to the police. I’m not diminishing the difficulty of doing this, by any means. Adults have the capacity to weigh the pro/cons of reporting. However, adults should act on behalf of vulnerable children, the infirm and the elderly. Report, report, report.

 

I wonder the same thing.  Even students reporting a rape only to college campus authorities?  Hell I'm calling the police!

[eternalsummer]

You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. By the time these perpetrators are proven guilty, too much damage has been done. This is exactly how they work this to their advantage, it seems. It's sad that one person has no power. It seems to take a lot of people coming forward at once......

 

Predators are so good at what they do that only the people being abused can see it. To others, there is complete blindness to what is really happening.

 

 

The law is supposed to hold you innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think that is good.

 

But as parents, we are (imo) not supposed to hold other people innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If my kid says so-and-so has been acting inappropriately with them, or I have a suspicion that is has been happening for some other reason, I don't have to wait for physical evidence or eyewitness accounts or something to exclude that person from our lives.

[eternalsummer]

I think the question of privacy and rapport with kids is a good one, especially since it really affects all age groups.  I even think about it with doctors, as I've heard people here say that they would never let even teens be alone with a doctor, and it makes me wonder how they can access health care or just talk about problems which they want to keep private.

 

In most cases I think age is a factor in how to respond.  I'm just not sure about continuing to keep teens in chaperoned situations only - to be really effective I think it would need to be very universal.  (I remember going about town on the bus at 15 and 16, to the library, the all-ages club, coffee shops.  I was often alone or nearly alone with many people - friend's dads or brothers, bus drivers or other weird passengers, male friends around my own age.  At one time, these things would not have been allowed alone, and in large part to prevent situations where someone takes advantage.)  I think the better approach is to help them understand their boundaries, help them understand why people are taking advantage in cases that might seem unclear to them, and give them tools and strategies to respond.  They need to start using these before they leave home in a year or two or three.  

 

The other element to me is psychological - it just isn't always going to work to avoid situations where people behave inappropriately.  Yet when it happens, in most cases young people don't need to get the impression that they are permanently damaging or something that makes them a different person.  My own experience has been that feeling like you've been permanently marked, can be in some ways be worse than the original incident (depending obviously what that was.)  And there is something of a relationship between making things into a really big deal and a sense that something has happened that you can't cope with - it's a difficult line to walk.

 

 

Well, speaking just for me: I would not allow my daughters, and probably not my sons, to be alone with a male doctor.  I would allow them to be alone with a female doctor, and I make every effort to find female pediatricians when I can.  It's a numbers game: men, both heterosexual and homosexual, are vastly more likely to molest children than women are.

 

There are places and situations in which I'd trust men to be alone with my kids; a bus driver of a public bus doesn't make me nervous, or some random person in a coffee shop, or a male friend of the same age as the kid, give or take.  But in situations where the man is set up in a profession that allows and encourages regular private contact with children, and especially in which he has some authority or control over children, I just would rather stay on the cautious side where possible.  

[eternalsummer]

I wonder the same thing.  Even students reporting a rape only to college campus authorities?  Hell I'm calling the police!

 

 

I have read that the reason many women report rape or sexual assault only to college campus authorities and not to police is that the standard of evidence is much lower for a campus authority to take action against the accused student - not legal action, but expulsion or other censure from the school.

[LMD]

Why in the world would a parent report only to the preschool and not the police? This happens in churches all the time. This is a crime. The “appropriate protocol,†as one father claimed no knowledge of, is to report crimes to police. I have seen this pattern of reporting to institutional authorities and not police over and over and over. It’s time we take the mystery out of what happens when you report an assault to the police (maybe they are scared) and that we encourage people to report to the police. I’m not diminishing the difficulty of doing this, by any means. Adults have the capacity to weigh the pro/cons of reporting. However, adults should act on behalf of vulnerable children, the infirm and the elderly. Report, report, report.

I do like that, take the mystery out of it. But, first the system has to actually work to help victims. At the moment only about 6 in every 1000 rapes sees the rapist do any time in prison. There are states with thousands of unprocessed rape kits. People don't report, in part, because they don't trust that the system will help.

[eternalsummer]

I think people also don't report in part because rape and sexual assault can be a difficult thing to prove, and the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings (not on college campuses, but with police and DAs and etc.) makes a rape or sexual assault conviction hard to get for some situations, especially where there is no physical evidence of trauma or eyewitness account from a third party.

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

There are states with thousands of unprocessed rape kits. People don't report, in part, because they don't trust that the system will help.

 

I once read about a grant that gave a city enough money to process some of the backlog. It enabled them to catch maybe ten guys because their DNA was already on file for other crimes. Imagine how many could be caught if all the kits nationwide were processed in a timely manner.

 

Maybe it's time for a private non-profit to administer and process rape kits.

[TechWife]

I think people also don't report in part because rape and sexual assault can be a difficult thing to prove, and the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings (not on college campuses, but with police and DAs and etc.) makes a rape or sexual assault conviction hard to get for some situations, especially where there is no physical evidence of trauma or eyewitness account from a third party.

I see your point, but In all honesty, we have to get away from the idea that it is the victims job to provide evidence or to determine if there is enough evidence for a conviction. It is the responsibility of the police department to collect evidence and the DA to prosecute, not the victims. Additionally, I think there is value in bringing the incident to the police, even if, in the end, the police are unable to get enough evidence against the perpetrator. Why? Because the second time they get a report on the same person, they might dig wider and deeper, and the third and so on. Most of all, though, I think it sends a message to our children and other vulnerable people that we are willing to stand with them and do all we can to protect them. That should not be undervalued when someone is in the position of having been violated. When an innocent, weaker party cannot stand for themselves, we must use our strength to stand for and with them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I once read about a grant that gave a city enough money to process some of the backlog. It enabled them to catch maybe ten guys because their DNA was already on file for other crimes. Imagine how many could be caught if all the kits nationwide were processed in a timely manner.

 

Maybe it's time for a private non-profit to administer and process rape kits.

 

Or we could properly fund our crime labs.

 

[eternalsummer]

I see your point, but In all honesty, we have to get away from the idea that it is the victims job to provide evidence or to determine if there is enough evidence for a conviction. It is the responsibility of the police department to collect evidence and the DA to prosecute, not the victims. Additionally, I think there is value in bringing the incident to the police, even if, in the end, the police are unable to get enough evidence against the perpetrator. Why? Because the second time they get a report on the same person, they might dig wider and deeper, and the third and so on. Most of all, though, I think it sends a message to our children and other vulnerable people that we are willing to stand with them and do all we can to protect them. That should not be undervalued when someone is in the position of having been violated. When an innocent, weaker party cannot stand for themselves, we must use our strength to stand for and with them.

 

 

I agree; I wasn't saying that people shouldn't make reports to the police, I definitely think they should. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I once read about a grant that gave a city enough money to process some of the backlog. It enabled them to catch maybe ten guys because their DNA was already on file for other crimes. Imagine how many could be caught if all the kits nationwide were processed in a timely manner.

 

Maybe it's time for a private non-profit to administer and process rape kits.

 

 

 

Why don't we just fund existing labs appropriately?

[JumpyTheFrog]

Or we could properly fund our crime labs.

 

That would be best. But in the mean time, it would be nice if some organization made it part of its mission.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That would be best. But in the mean time, it would be nice if some organization made it part of its mission.

 

Handing over rape kits to an outside entity opens up some ethical considerations.

[Bluegoat]

My impression reading that last article was at least some of the parents actually weren't sure what had gone on.  Which I can see - it can be difficult to interpret a toddler.  What they probably thought is that the pre-school would be able to put what they said in the context of any complaints from other parents, suspicious behavior, or they could keep a close eye on the guy to make sure he was above board.

 

 

 

 

[Greta]

I have read that the reason many women report rape or sexual assault only to college campus authorities and not to police is that the standard of evidence is much lower for a campus authority to take action against the accused student - not legal action, but expulsion or other censure from the school.

 

 

But it's not an either/or choice, is it? 

[Bluegoat]

But it's not an either/or choice, is it? 

 

For some they might not get a conviction or even enough for the person to be charged by police.

[TechWife]

Handing over rape kits to an outside entity opens up some ethical considerations.

 

Government contracts various tasks all the time. The people that work the contract are supposed to be appropriately vetted in the same manner as a government employee. 

[eternalsummer]

Right, I agree that if you're going to report something to campus authorities, you should also report it to the police - but I understand why some women only report to the former and not the latter, because it seems to them like the latter will be a waste of time or possibly less sympathetic (because of the higher burden of proof).

[TechWife]

But it's not an either/or choice, is it? 

 

No it is not. I think the first stop should be the police. Then, if the person wants to, they can drop by institutions office and make a report there. However, I'm also fine if the first time an institution learns about a complaint is when the police show up. But no, one can tell as many people as one wants to and whoever one wants to about being sexually abused. 

[Greta]

As little faith as I have in the police to handle rape cases properly, and believe me that’s very little, I guess I’m even more skeptical about institutions who have a vested interest in protecting their image and/or income, and in pretending it never happened.

 

 

 

(Edited for grammar)

Edited February 9, 2018 by Greta

[TechWife]

Right, I agree that if you're going to report something to campus authorities, you should also report it to the police - but I understand why some women only report to the former and not the latter, because it seems to them like the latter will be a waste of time or possibly less sympathetic (because of the higher burden of proof).

 

I think historically it's been proven than in most situations, institutions approach such reports from a CYA perspective. They don't want to admit a predator is in their midst for liability reasons. There is also a history of victim shaming, IIRC. The institution is also limited in how it can act as far as consequences as well. The most they can actually do is kick someone off of their campus. Criminal consequences have to come down through the court system. If the person reported to administration, that is not the same thing as reporting it to campus police. Not all campuses have a real police department, and even those that do, the police department has a conflict of interest, IMO, in investigating crimes in which the university may be partially or fully liable. 

[TechWife]

As little faith as I have in the police to handle rape cases properly, and believe me that’s very little, I guess I’m even more skeptical about institutions who have a vested interest in protecting their image and/or income and pretending it never happened.

 

I liked your post, but just because I agree with you. It's awful the way things are handled. Just look at MSU. Horrible. 

[TechWife]

My impression reading that last article was at least some of the parents actually weren't sure what had gone on.  Which I can see - it can be difficult to interpret a toddler.  What they probably thought is that the pre-school would be able to put what they said in the context of any complaints from other parents, suspicious behavior, or they could keep a close eye on the guy to make sure he was above board.

 

The man who saw blood in his little girl's panties and didn't report to police? No excuse. None. He's the one who said he didn't know the "protocol." Yet, he knew enough to take his daughter to the pediatrician - the pediatrician saw no evidence of trauma, but what other explanation was there for blood in a toddler's panties? It doesn't add up when common sense is used. 

 

It is the police department's job to put things into context, not the preschool's job. That is what an investigation does and is for - establishing the context of a crime. If every single parent that had a concern had called the police instead of going to the school - maybe things would have been different. We will never know. 

[Bluegoat]

The man who saw blood in his little girl's panties and didn't report to police? No excuse. None. He's the one who said he didn't know the "protocol." Yet, he knew enough to take his daughter to the pediatrician - the pediatrician saw no evidence of trauma, but what other explanation was there for blood in a toddler's panties? It doesn't add up when common sense is used. 

 

It is the police department's job to put things into context, not the preschool's job. That is what an investigation does and is for - establishing the context of a crime. If every single parent that had a concern had called the police instead of going to the school - maybe things would have been different. We will never know. 

 

Well, I thought that was a bit odd.  But that was only one example, there were a number of parents described.

 

I didn't suggest that the pre-school should "investigate" anything.  But parents who have concerns that might be nothing, on their own, could look a bit different if several parents mentioned them.  I seriously doubt people are going to report things to the police if they aren't even sure if they should ask the school about them.

[Bluegoat]

As little faith as I have in the police to handle rape cases properly, and believe me that’s very little, I guess I’m even more skeptical about institutions who have a vested interest in protecting their image and/or income, and in pretending it never happened.

 

 

 

(Edited for grammar)

 

It looks evidently like the opposite is also likely to happen - in an effort to cover their butts they act inappropriately against people who are accused.

 

In either case, they aren't really any good at handling it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Government contracts various tasks all the time. The people that work the contract are supposed to be appropriately vetted in the same manner as a government employee. 

 

Contracting rape kit tests out to an advocacy group is different than most government contracts. Further what the poster is suggesting is that these groups pick up the cost, which is why I would have some ethical concerns.  Anytime you are dealing with evidence you have to be very cautious with chain of custody issues.

 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Contracting rape kit tests out to an advocacy group is different than most government contracts. Further what the poster is suggesting is that these groups pick up the cost, which is why I would have some ethical concerns. Anytime you are dealing with evidence you have to be very cautious with chain of custody issues.

I didn’t think my idea was ideal. I’m just trying to think of ways to help if the crime labs can’t get their act together and get the kits processed. Maybe a better approach would be for a non-profit to raise money and give grants for the labs to hire extra people until all backlogs are caught up.

[Terabith]

Historically, and honestly even today, nothing is done until there are three or four women all reporting that a man has assaulted them.  I understand "his word against hers" but for reporting purposes, victim's voices seem to be about 1/4 of a voice.  Especially if there is no physical evidence, why would anyone want to go through the public humiliation and questioning and doubting, when it's unlikely to achieve anything.  It requires someone to be both courageous and selfless to report, honestly.  I totally get why people aren't reporting to the police. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I didn’t think my idea was ideal. I’m just trying to think of ways to help if the crime labs can’t get their act together and get the kits processed. Maybe a better approach would be for a non-profit to raise money and give grants for the labs to hire extra people until all backlogs are caught up.

 

That is a much better idea but I take issue with your "get their acts together" comment.  The backlog is due to a lack of funding and staffing.

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Entropymama]

Handing over rape kits to an outside entity opens up some ethical considerations.

 

 

Drug testing is often contracted out, as are polygraph exams, depending on the city/county. I imagine there are ethical concerns, but they could be overcome. 

[The Governess]

Historically, and honestly even today, nothing is done until there are three or four women all reporting that a man has assaulted them. I understand "his word against hers" but for reporting purposes, victim's voices seem to be about 1/4 of a voice. Especially if there is no physical evidence, why would anyone want to go through the public humiliation and questioning and doubting, when it's unlikely to achieve anything. It requires someone to be both courageous and selfless to report, honestly. I totally get why people aren't reporting to the police.

Although if four women were assaulted and all four reported, that is worlds better than four being assaulted and none reporting. Even if it's true that they only have 1/4 of a voice.

 

I think that destroying the stigma about reporting and that it won't matter/isn't worth it is going to be a huge part of the solution. I really hope that the #metoo movement is the first step of many in this direction.

[TechWife]

Well, I thought that was a bit odd.  But that was only one example, there were a number of parents described.

 

I didn't suggest that the pre-school should "investigate" anything.  But parents who have concerns that might be nothing, on their own, could look a bit different if several parents mentioned them.  I seriously doubt people are going to report things to the police if they aren't even sure if they should ask the school about them.

 

The greater question is why don't they know they should go to the police? Do they really not know that or do they not want to go to the trouble? If it's the latter, why in the world don't they care enough?  Why does asking the school even enter into the picture? It is the police department's job to collect information. It is much more likely that the police will put multiple incidents together and act on them. Why? Because it's their job!  Institutions are much more likely to engage in CYA procedures without regard to the victims. 

[Bluegoat]

The greater question is why don't they know they should go to the police? Do they really not know that or do they not want to go to the trouble? If it's the latter, why in the world don't they care enough?  Why does asking the school even enter into the picture? It is the police department's job to collect information. It is much more likely that the police will put multiple incidents together and act on them. Why? Because it's their job!  Institutions are much more likely to engage in CYA procedures without regard to the victims. 

 

I don't know.

 

My thought is that they don't want to go unless they are fairly sure, or say it meets some line in their mind.  Because really - accusing someone, even just making that report, and it turns out to be wrong - you likely have screwed that guy's life up forever.  You've affected his family.  And possible the care centre will be seriously hurt and unable to recover too.

 

It's easy enough to condemn someone when you know, after the fact, that he was guilty all along.  But most people are not completely callous to the fact that they are holding someone else life in their hands and they have to be convinced enough to take the step that will make that happen.

 

I don't have a difficult time understand why they might prefer to try and find out if there is anything else that could be suggestive one way or another before doing something they can't fix.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Carrie12345]

The greater question is why don't they know they should go to the police? Do they really not know that or do they not want to go to the trouble? If it's the latter, why in the world don't they care enough?  Why does asking the school even enter into the picture? It is the police department's job to collect information. It is much more likely that the police will put multiple incidents together and act on them. Why? Because it's their job!  Institutions are much more likely to engage in CYA procedures without regard to the victims. 

 

 

I don't know.

 

My thought is that they don't want to go unless they are fairly sure, or say it meets some line in their mind.  Because really - accusing someone, even just making that report, and it turns out to be wrong - you likely have screwed that guy's life up forever.  You've affected his family.  And possible the care centre will be seriously hurt and unable to recover too.

 

It's easy enough to condemn someone when you know, after the fact, that he was guilty all along.  But most people are not completely callous to the fact that they are holding someone else life in their hands and they have to be convinced enough to take the step that will make that happen.

 

I don't have a difficult time understand why they might prefer to try and find out if there is anything else that could be suggestive one way or another before doing something they can't fix.

 

 

I do suspect that there's a lot of legit psych stuff going on that people aren't even aware of when trying to process their worst fears in these situations. Cognitive dissonance is powerful.  Stack that with the knowledge of what happens to accused abusers (guilty or not), AND the accusers (right or wrong), and the mind can throw out some very questionable protective measures.  

[Sandwalker]

I have read that the reason many women report rape or sexual assault only to college campus authorities and not to police is that the standard of evidence is much lower for a campus authority to take action against the accused student - not legal action, but expulsion or other censure from the school.

And once the victim goes to campus authorities, she is very often discouraged from contacting the actual police. It looks bad for campuses to have students attacked. And if a student athlete is the accused attacker,even the local police urge the victim to drop it and do cursory investigations (Florida State U, I'm looking at you after that quarterback Jamis Winston case.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And once the victim goes to campus authorities, she is very often discouraged from contacting the actual police. It looks bad for campuses to have students attacked. And if a student athlete is the accused attacker,even the local police urge the victim to drop it and do cursory investigations (Florida State U, I'm looking at you after that quarterback Jamis Winston case.)

 

In fairness, the TPD claim is that the victim initially refused to cooperate.  Not sure that I believe them but that is what they said.

Edited February 11, 2018 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Sandwalker]

In fairness, the TPD claim is that the victim initially refused to cooperate. Not sure that I believe them but that is what they said.

The TPD did a shoddy "investigation", not even bothering to look at the multiple cc cameras in the bar from which she left with the accused and his friends. She was discouraged by the campus police and by TPD to pursue the case. She was doxed at the school, vilified by the local media, and on social media was bullied unbelievably. She was a teenager, and forced to drop out of the university because of the harassment.

[MedicMom]

I don’t want to over shelter my kids. I don’t know what we’ll do about sleepovers and stuff when they’re older.

My BFF growing up was an only child of incredibly fearful parents. She was a miracle child to start with and her mother was a naturally anxious person. She didn’t go to sleepovers, didn’t come play at my house without her mom(and her mom and mine were best friends since junior high, so not strangers), wasn’t even allowed to go to non sleepover birthday parties because the nebulous “something†might happen. The only place she went alone was her maternal grandparents. She was homeschooled and her parents only let her go to Sunday School alone because it was in the open church basement, not a classroom, and people wandered in and out all the time.

 

She finally had a nervous breakdown at about 18. And it came out that all those years of protection, she’d been being molested by her grandpa(who had not molested her mom, thought I’m sure over all the years of being a pillar of society he’d had other victims).

 

There’s a balance, and I don’t know where it is.

 

There’s also a cultural silence, especially in Christianity. A local church had an issue where the married, 30 something youth pastor had been grooming and inappropriately texting a young teen over several years. She didn’t have a dad in the picture, but Mom seriously thought it was just okay for married youth pastor to pick up teen girl and take her alone to the movies? Wtf??? Everyone knew, and no one did anything until the girl’s school teacher saw a text and made a big deal. Still, they couldn’t prove anything but everyone in the church clammed up, including girl’s mom, and no charges were ever filed.

 

It boggles the mind. But there’s a line somewhere in between the extremes, but I don’t know where it is.

Edited February 11, 2018 by MedicMom

[Pam in CT]

And once the victim goes to campus authorities, she is very often discouraged from contacting the actual police. It looks bad for campuses to have students attacked. And if a student athlete is the accused attacker,even the local police urge the victim to drop it and do cursory investigations (Florida State U, I'm looking at you after that quarterback Jamis Winston case.)

 

 

To my mind this is the issue.

 

A bazillion years ago when I was a resident counselor at my college, we were expressly told that "protocol" in case of assault was to refer the student to counseling and report the incident to campus authorities.  I don't recall expressly being directed NOT to refer to police (and... I've had ample reason and opportunity to try to recall).  But "protocol" was campus authorities and only campus authorities.  And, in fact, victims were counseled "down" -- to keep it private, to doubt their own recall, to consider how unlikely consequences would be, the undesirability of messing with a young man's prospects, etc.  I know of NO EXCEPTIONS to this pattern, no matter how unambiguous the circumstances or violent the assault.  

 

Coincidentally or not, the financial and PR interest of the university.

 

OTOH, if a student's car was broken into, that went straight to police.  

 

In the intervening years I've wondered about that difference.  It's almost as if property rights are valued more highly than women's physical autonomy.