nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What about a child who's molested but doesn't say anything out of fear for awhile (and after any physical evidence is gone)? Just too bad, so sad?
You're moving the goal post. Anyway, I'll answer this too. Child abuse has a standard that is very different from a criminal trial, we assume the accused is guilty until proven otherwise and remove the child for their own safety. It doesn't change the fact that the child could be lying (which is very often) or wrong about who abuse them. The people who investigate these things should consider more than the child's word to make any conclusions - like signs of actual physical or sexual abuse, and whether the accuse has the opportunity to conduct the alleged abuse.
Currently police bring charges against someone based only on the word of a single victim all the time. Those of you who argue they don't, are just inaccurate. To do anything else ignores the realities of how and where crimes are committed. It's up to the jury if they believe the witness by the high standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
You didn't ask if people bring charges base on their own beliefs, you asked if the police should believe someone base on that person's words and nothing else. Two very different things. The police and definitely the jury should consider more than eyewitness testimonies, even from the allege victim him/herself.