With scores of Inquiries already under its belt, and dozens more currently underway, Britain must break the mould with the nation’s inquiry into child abuse, and implement an investigation that is truly ground-breaking. If it does not, it will be consigned to history as an expensive exercise, which helped no one.
To date, there have been over 70 inquiries focusing on child abuse in the UK, 67 of which have taken place in England. Today, we have 18 working child abuse inquiries in the United Kingdom, the largest in scope being the nation’s Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse, which will be looking at historic and present day child sexual abuse in England and Wales. If we needed confirmation that cautionary tales and lessons highlighted by previous investigations have gone unheeded, the sheer number of predecessors to the nation’s Inquiry serves to remind us. The prevailing inadequacies of serious case reviews for child abuse scandals also paint a grim picture of justice and welfare systems that either don’t understand how to implement effective child protection policies, or don’t have the resources to do so. The latest research into departmental responses suggests that both are obstacles to prevention. And with children’s services departments around the country still struggling in the aftermath of scandal after scandal, progress is often slow at best and at worst, fleeting.
In some ways, the bar has been set low for the nation’s Inquiry – very little positive change on the ground means that any recommendations the Inquiry makes are likely to be well received, but they are in danger of being repetitive. Every Inquiry that has gone before it has made recommendations, and reading through them the similarities are at once encouraging, and disheartening. That there appears to be, still, a very limited understanding of how child sexual abuse prevails and a continued and worrying variance in the quality of response to this type of abuse within government departments highlights the questionable impact Inquiries have on improving the welfare of children at risk. Needless to say, tolerance levels for more of the same when it comes to Inquiries, is at an all time low. So it is not unreasonable for the public to ask what the Statutory Inquiry thinks its investigations can genuinely offer the many victims of child abuse, both past and present.
The Inquiry, which officially gets underway this month as Chair Justice Goddard takes the helm on 13th April, has taken considerable inspiration from Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses Into Child Sexual Abuse. There are many aspects to the Royal Commission’s approach that are to be applauded, and emulated, if we must emulate rather than innovate. Their online presence offers an excellent blueprint for our own Inquiry. Engaging and accessible, the Commission has a polished and user friendly website, as well as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts. All a must in the technology era, both for accessibility and transparency purposes. Getting to grips with child sexual abuse as a phenomenon, has led the Commission into difficulty, however. After its establishment in 2013, and two years on, the Royal Commission has come to realise that it cannot make sense of the case studies before it without a deep understanding of child abuse itself, and so faced with a growing knowledge gap, it has now decided to conductextensive academic and policy research in order to fill the void. The Child Abuse Inquiry must radicalise to succeed
This is likely to be the first revelation of several, that in order to make sense of why and how government departments failed to respond appropriately to child abuse allegations, any inquiry will need to extend its remit beyond life-stripped institutions and look to individuals for answers.
Individuals play a vital role in the child abuse narrative. That may sound obvious, but our Inquiry is to focus only on inanimate wrongdoing; that of local authorities and schools failing to tick boxes and make phone calls, rather than individuals who failed to act, or those who engaged in abuse. This is likely to jeopardise the Inquiry’s success and alienate victims and survivors further. No justification for the Inquiry’s decision not to probe individuals has been given, and so the question remains: how can the Inquiry hope to explore the mechanisms which carry child abuse and its victims, enabling some of the worst crimes imaginable to happen to our most vulnerable? What then, is the purpose of the Inquiries Act’s powers, compelling witnesses to give evidence, if not to discover or understand better the parts they played in the nation’s shame?
There is too, the added imperative for survivors to feel seen and heard. Part of that process involves being vindicated. Often accused of dishonesty, trouble making and disgracing their communities, vindication is an integral part of the recovery process for survivors and victims of abuse. And whilst Home Secretary Theresa May has assured the public that any allegations will be handed to the police, this will not be enough. It is not that victims want to embarrass or publicly humiliate their abusers in the main – they just want the opportunity to show their communities and family members that their abuse was real. Many have been accused of lying for so long, their culture now demands an open recognition of their story, and their abusers.
Difficulties with allegations unproven and what will inevitably be large numbers of survivors wanting to tell their story, make the logistical aspects of questioning individuals difficult, but the Inquiry must find a solution to this problem, if it is to document child abuse in its entirety, and offer meaningful avenues of redress and recovery for victims and survivors. One such solution could be that if a name appears in a significant number of victim statements, that individual should automatically be summoned to the Inquiry for questioning. This would not create confidence in the Inquiry, but would allow the Inquiry a window into abuse within specific contexts, creating a complete picture of how abuse transpires, those who engage in it and how they are enabled. There is talk amongst activists highlighting domestic violence that the Inquiry must include this area too, in their investigation. Domestic violence is often at the root of child sexual abuse, and goes hand in hand in many cases. Current research in these areas is helpful, but it is piecemeal. The Inquiry would do well to embrace a comprehensive approach, bringing institutions, organisations, political movements and other bodies who may have abused children, together. Such an approach would be pioneering, and offer a template which could be reproduced around the world, and go on to provide key information which could protect children on a global scale.
The Inquiry is already looking to investigations around the world to ensure that its own is robust, reflective and worthy of its mission, but following good examples must only be part of its strategy. It must set an international standard in tackling child sexual abuse, for it is a global phenomenon and think like a radical, rather than an inquiry that is run of the mill.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2015-04-03 11:53:392015-04-03 11:53:39Natasha Phillips, The Child Abuse Inquiry Must Radicalise to Succeed, Family Law
WILL THE HIDDEN PREDATOR ACT BECOME LAW? We still need your help! The Bill must be called before the House for a vote to accept the changes made in the Senate. THURSDAY is the only day this can happen. Please call/email Speaker of the House, David Ralston and respectfully ask him to call the The Hidden Predator Act for a vote. Legislators have been working tirelessly on hundreds of Bills, each important in it’s own right. We must finish strong by inspiring Speaker Ralston to call HB17 to the floor for the final vote.
Hundreds of people have protested against the ordination of a Catholic bishop in the Chilean city of Osorno. They’ve accused him of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of children.
Demonstrators protest against Monsignor Juan Barros Madrid during his appointment as Bishop of Osorno
Juan Barros was ordained on Saturday in the cathedral of Osorno amid the shouts of hundreds of protesters who accuse him of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of young boys. Fifteen of the country’s 35 bishops and many priests from the diocese also shunned the ordination of the new bishop.
While Barros himself has not been accused of molestation, at least three victims of sexual abuse claim he was present when they were molested by one of Chile’s most prominent priests, Father Fernando Karadima, in the 1980s and 1990s. A Vatican investigation found Karadima guilty of sex abuse in 2011 and sentenced the now 84-year-old man to a life of “penitence and prayer.”
In a letter sent to priests in the diocese on Monday, Barros stated that he did not know about Karadima’s abuses when they happened.
More than 1,000 Catholics, along with about 30 priests from the diocese and 51 of Chile’s 120 congress members, sent letters to Pope Francis last month urging him to revoke the appointment of Barros. However, the pope confirmed his decision to appoint Barros after recently meeting with him.
“I hold the pope responsible,” Juan Carlos Cruz, a 51-year-old journalist who is one of the accusers, told news agency AP. “As victims, we had become used to the slaps in the face by the Chilean hierarchy, but we never expected a slap in the face from the pope.”
Raymond McCloude raped her on April 24, 1994. And, no one believed her. The detective assigned to her case wrote in the report that the case “couldn’t be prosecuted” because the victim was a “crackhead.” It’s no wonder she left the hospital before being examined. No one believed her.
I did.
On Jan. 31, 2008, the morning of trial, McCloude pleaded guilty to rape. There was no DNA evidence linking him to that crime; it was not a cold case sitting on a shelf magically brought to life by new technology. Sadly, he raped another woman and I was one of the prosecutors handling that case. Because another dedicated prosecutor and an amazing detective joined me in the fight for justice, we tracked down the victim and told her three simple words, “we believe you.”
Fourteen years after she was raped, she received the small measure of justice she so desperately deserved.
I spent over a decade as a criminal prosecutor and never understood why rape, an offense I call soul-murder, carries a 20-year statute of limitations. Now, as a legislator, I have an obligation to correct that woeful legal flaw.
I was delighted to hear that other legislators were introducing a bill in both the Senate and the House addressing the issue. And then, I read it. House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 13 aim to extend the statute of limitations 20 additional years on rape only in cases where “DNA implicates an identified person.”
What does that mean? Who will make the determination of “implication?” What’s the standard for “implication?” Does the DNA have to come from the rape kit or can it come from the environment where the crime occurred? When I asked those questions — all of them, there were no answers. Just the echoing response of, “we have to do something and we think this could pass.” It probably will. I have no idea how I will vote.
We need to go further.
This legislation isn’t only empty and devoid of true hope for all victims; it does worse. It creates a second-class victim. It immediately made me think of her, the victim — now, survivor. Her, whose case wouldn’t matter in this new legislation. Sure, we found her within the already existing 20-year limit and we forced the wheels to turn for her. But, what if her champions just found her today? This new legislation tells her that her case “cannot be prosecuted.” This legislation tells her and all other victims whose cases don’t bear DNA fruit, “we don’t believe you.”
Requiring DNA evidence to “implicate an identified person” first requires an entity to make that implication: The detective? A detective isn’t a DNA analyst. They don’t have the training to unlock the science the DNA analyst works through every day. The DNA analyst working for the Attorney General’s Office?
Real life isn’t CSI or Law & Order. The scientists don’t take the stand, hold the evidence in one hand and point at the bad guy with the other and say, “this is his DNA! It was him!” Instead, they use statistics and probability and talk about how often the DNA profile would occur in certain populations. The analysts’ job is science, and to put them in the position of implicating the suspect removes the impartiality required for their job.
The next question is, what will the standard for implication be? DNA profiles that occur one in 6,000? Six million? Six trillion? Where must this evidence come from — the rape kit or the crime scene? When does the “implication” become official and the clock starts to run?
These concerns speak nothing to the rights of the implicated — the alleged rapist. There is a standard in the law called “rational basis.” There must be a rational basis to treat one rapist differently than another. A barely competent defense lawyer could make an argument that, just because there is forensic evidence in his client’s case, his client should be treated no differently than the rapist who committed his offense on video but left no DNA behind.
Lifting the statute of limitations on rape does not mandate a case be prosecuted. It merely gives the prosecutors discretion to advance a case to grand jury. The argument that statutes of limitations are in place because memories fade and evidence diminishes is trite: There is no statute of limitations on aggravated murder. The state of Ohio can put a defendant to death for that within any time frame, no forensic evidence necessary.
I want to lift the statute of limitations on rape. Period. No DNA required. Just good police officers and ethical, determined prosecutors. I believe in them and in our victims. So should the rest of our state legislators. #liftthestatute
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2015-03-31 12:09:422015-03-31 12:09:42Greta Johnson,Proposed changes to Ohio rape statute of limitations don't go far enough, Cleveland.com
Natasha Phillips, The Child Abuse Inquiry Must Radicalise to Succeed, Family Law
/in International /by SOL ReformTo date, there have been over 70 inquiries focusing on child abuse in the UK, 67 of which have taken place in England. Today, we have 18 working child abuse inquiries in the United Kingdom, the largest in scope being the nation’s Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse, which will be looking at historic and present day child sexual abuse in England and Wales. If we needed confirmation that cautionary tales and lessons highlighted by previous investigations have gone unheeded, the sheer number of predecessors to the nation’s Inquiry serves to remind us. The prevailing inadequacies of serious case reviews for child abuse scandals also paint a grim picture of justice and welfare systems that either don’t understand how to implement effective child protection policies, or don’t have the resources to do so. The latest research into departmental responses suggests that both are obstacles to prevention. And with children’s services departments around the country still struggling in the aftermath of scandal after scandal, progress is often slow at best and at worst, fleeting.
In some ways, the bar has been set low for the nation’s Inquiry – very little positive change on the ground means that any recommendations the Inquiry makes are likely to be well received, but they are in danger of being repetitive. Every Inquiry that has gone before it has made recommendations, and reading through them the similarities are at once encouraging, and disheartening. That there appears to be, still, a very limited understanding of how child sexual abuse prevails and a continued and worrying variance in the quality of response to this type of abuse within government departments highlights the questionable impact Inquiries have on improving the welfare of children at risk. Needless to say, tolerance levels for more of the same when it comes to Inquiries, is at an all time low. So it is not unreasonable for the public to ask what the Statutory Inquiry thinks its investigations can genuinely offer the many victims of child abuse, both past and present.
The Inquiry, which officially gets underway this month as Chair Justice Goddard takes the helm on 13th April, has taken considerable inspiration from Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses Into Child Sexual Abuse. There are many aspects to the Royal Commission’s approach that are to be applauded, and emulated, if we must emulate rather than innovate. Their online presence offers an excellent blueprint for our own Inquiry. Engaging and accessible, the Commission has a polished and user friendly website, as well as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts. All a must in the technology era, both for accessibility and transparency purposes. Getting to grips with child sexual abuse as a phenomenon, has led the Commission into difficulty, however. After its establishment in 2013, and two years on, the Royal Commission has come to realise that it cannot make sense of the case studies before it without a deep understanding of child abuse itself, and so faced with a growing knowledge gap, it has now decided to conductextensive academic and policy research in order to fill the void.
The Child Abuse Inquiry must radicalise to succeed
Individuals play a vital role in the child abuse narrative. That may sound obvious, but our Inquiry is to focus only on inanimate wrongdoing; that of local authorities and schools failing to tick boxes and make phone calls, rather than individuals who failed to act, or those who engaged in abuse. This is likely to jeopardise the Inquiry’s success and alienate victims and survivors further. No justification for the Inquiry’s decision not to probe individuals has been given, and so the question remains: how can the Inquiry hope to explore the mechanisms which carry child abuse and its victims, enabling some of the worst crimes imaginable to happen to our most vulnerable? What then, is the purpose of the Inquiries Act’s powers, compelling witnesses to give evidence, if not to discover or understand better the parts they played in the nation’s shame?
There is too, the added imperative for survivors to feel seen and heard. Part of that process involves being vindicated. Often accused of dishonesty, trouble making and disgracing their communities, vindication is an integral part of the recovery process for survivors and victims of abuse. And whilst Home Secretary Theresa May has assured the public that any allegations will be handed to the police, this will not be enough. It is not that victims want to embarrass or publicly humiliate their abusers in the main – they just want the opportunity to show their communities and family members that their abuse was real. Many have been accused of lying for so long, their culture now demands an open recognition of their story, and their abusers.
Difficulties with allegations unproven and what will inevitably be large numbers of survivors wanting to tell their story, make the logistical aspects of questioning individuals difficult, but the Inquiry must find a solution to this problem, if it is to document child abuse in its entirety, and offer meaningful avenues of redress and recovery for victims and survivors. One such solution could be that if a name appears in a significant number of victim statements, that individual should automatically be summoned to the Inquiry for questioning. This would not create confidence in the Inquiry, but would allow the Inquiry a window into abuse within specific contexts, creating a complete picture of how abuse transpires, those who engage in it and how they are enabled. There is talk amongst activists highlighting domestic violence that the Inquiry must include this area too, in their investigation. Domestic violence is often at the root of child sexual abuse, and goes hand in hand in many cases. Current research in these areas is helpful, but it is piecemeal. The Inquiry would do well to embrace a comprehensive approach, bringing institutions, organisations, political movements and other bodies who may have abused children, together. Such an approach would be pioneering, and offer a template which could be reproduced around the world, and go on to provide key information which could protect children on a global scale.
The Inquiry is already looking to investigations around the world to ensure that its own is robust, reflective and worthy of its mission, but following good examples must only be part of its strategy. It must set an international standard in tackling child sexual abuse, for it is a global phenomenon and think like a radical, rather than an inquiry that is run of the mill.
Hon Justice Peter McClellan, Keynote address: 14th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect
/in Australia, International /by SOL ReformProfessional Knowledge and judicial understanding
GA Alert. Action needed today on SOL reform
/in Georgia /by SOL ReformWILL THE HIDDEN PREDATOR ACT BECOME LAW? We still need your help! The Bill must be called before the House for a vote to accept the changes made in the Senate. THURSDAY is the only day this can happen. Please call/email Speaker of the House, David Ralston and respectfully ask him to call the The Hidden Predator Act for a vote. Legislators have been working tirelessly on hundreds of Bills, each important in it’s own right. We must finish strong by inspiring Speaker Ralston to call HB17 to the floor for the final vote.
House Speaker David Ralson
404.656.5020
david.ralston@house.ga.gov
AP, Chilean Catholics protest bishop over alleged cover-up of child abuse, DW
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformHundreds of people have protested against the ordination of a Catholic bishop in the Chilean city of Osorno. They’ve accused him of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of children.
Demonstrators protest against Monsignor Juan Barros Madrid during his appointment as Bishop of Osorno
Juan Barros was ordained on Saturday in the cathedral of Osorno amid the shouts of hundreds of protesters who accuse him of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of young boys. Fifteen of the country’s 35 bishops and many priests from the diocese also shunned the ordination of the new bishop.
While Barros himself has not been accused of molestation, at least three victims of sexual abuse claim he was present when they were molested by one of Chile’s most prominent priests, Father Fernando Karadima, in the 1980s and 1990s. A Vatican investigation found Karadima guilty of sex abuse in 2011 and sentenced the now 84-year-old man to a life of “penitence and prayer.”
In a letter sent to priests in the diocese on Monday, Barros stated that he did not know about Karadima’s abuses when they happened.
More than 1,000 Catholics, along with about 30 priests from the diocese and 51 of Chile’s 120 congress members, sent letters to Pope Francis last month urging him to revoke the appointment of Barros. However, the pope confirmed his decision to appoint Barros after recently meeting with him.
“I hold the pope responsible,” Juan Carlos Cruz, a 51-year-old journalist who is one of the accusers, told news agency AP. “As victims, we had become used to the slaps in the face by the Chilean hierarchy, but we never expected a slap in the face from the pope.”
Chilean Catholics protest bishop over alleged cover-up of child abuse _ News _ DW.DE _ 21.03
Greta Johnson,Proposed changes to Ohio rape statute of limitations don’t go far enough, Cleveland.com
/in Ohio /by SOL ReformRaymond McCloude raped her on April 24, 1994. And, no one believed her. The detective assigned to her case wrote in the report that the case “couldn’t be prosecuted” because the victim was a “crackhead.” It’s no wonder she left the hospital before being examined. No one believed her.
I did.
On Jan. 31, 2008, the morning of trial, McCloude pleaded guilty to rape. There was no DNA evidence linking him to that crime; it was not a cold case sitting on a shelf magically brought to life by new technology. Sadly, he raped another woman and I was one of the prosecutors handling that case. Because another dedicated prosecutor and an amazing detective joined me in the fight for justice, we tracked down the victim and told her three simple words, “we believe you.”
Fourteen years after she was raped, she received the small measure of justice she so desperately deserved.
I spent over a decade as a criminal prosecutor and never understood why rape, an offense I call soul-murder, carries a 20-year statute of limitations. Now, as a legislator, I have an obligation to correct that woeful legal flaw.
I was delighted to hear that other legislators were introducing a bill in both the Senate and the House addressing the issue. And then, I read it. House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 13 aim to extend the statute of limitations 20 additional years on rape only in cases where “DNA implicates an identified person.”
What does that mean? Who will make the determination of “implication?” What’s the standard for “implication?” Does the DNA have to come from the rape kit or can it come from the environment where the crime occurred? When I asked those questions — all of them, there were no answers. Just the echoing response of, “we have to do something and we think this could pass.” It probably will. I have no idea how I will vote.
We need to go further.
This legislation isn’t only empty and devoid of true hope for all victims; it does worse. It creates a second-class victim. It immediately made me think of her, the victim — now, survivor. Her, whose case wouldn’t matter in this new legislation. Sure, we found her within the already existing 20-year limit and we forced the wheels to turn for her. But, what if her champions just found her today? This new legislation tells her that her case “cannot be prosecuted.” This legislation tells her and all other victims whose cases don’t bear DNA fruit, “we don’t believe you.”
Requiring DNA evidence to “implicate an identified person” first requires an entity to make that implication: The detective? A detective isn’t a DNA analyst. They don’t have the training to unlock the science the DNA analyst works through every day. The DNA analyst working for the Attorney General’s Office?
Real life isn’t CSI or Law & Order. The scientists don’t take the stand, hold the evidence in one hand and point at the bad guy with the other and say, “this is his DNA! It was him!” Instead, they use statistics and probability and talk about how often the DNA profile would occur in certain populations. The analysts’ job is science, and to put them in the position of implicating the suspect removes the impartiality required for their job.
The next question is, what will the standard for implication be? DNA profiles that occur one in 6,000? Six million? Six trillion? Where must this evidence come from — the rape kit or the crime scene? When does the “implication” become official and the clock starts to run?
These concerns speak nothing to the rights of the implicated — the alleged rapist. There is a standard in the law called “rational basis.” There must be a rational basis to treat one rapist differently than another. A barely competent defense lawyer could make an argument that, just because there is forensic evidence in his client’s case, his client should be treated no differently than the rapist who committed his offense on video but left no DNA behind.
Lifting the statute of limitations on rape does not mandate a case be prosecuted. It merely gives the prosecutors discretion to advance a case to grand jury. The argument that statutes of limitations are in place because memories fade and evidence diminishes is trite: There is no statute of limitations on aggravated murder. The state of Ohio can put a defendant to death for that within any time frame, no forensic evidence necessary.
I want to lift the statute of limitations on rape. Period. No DNA required. Just good police officers and ethical, determined prosecutors. I believe in them and in our victims. So should the rest of our state legislators. #liftthestatute
Heather Crawford, Ga. lawmakers consider hidden predator act, WTLV
/in Georgia /by SOL ReformGa