The last few days I have been bombarded with links to a news article, most of them from Facebook friends. When today I received this article in a GOP newsletter, I decided it was time for a reality check.
One of the first things students in journalism class are taught is: present the facts, and when it comes to opinions, interview and quote from both parties. This article would have received a "rewrite" or an "incomplete" had it been in my high school journalism class.
I'm also greatly bothered not just because it only presents one party's viewpoint, but also because I've sat on the other side of the fence. While the father may be reacting as any normal father would do, he's making an awful lot of assumptions and unfounded accusations.
No one with a civilized mind likes a child molester. Courts almost always tend to go heavy in a child's favor. And I think that is where we often go astray. America's policy is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. And one person's word against another person's word is not proof of anything. Children do lie. How many rape and assault cases has this nation convicted, only to have the "guilty" set free ten-fifteen years down the road because the child/accuser changed their testimony? Yes, we have a lot of sick people in this world who do some very sick things. But when such accusations are made, a person's reputation, job, family, friends, and life is on the line. That is a VERY serious accusation.
Twenty years ago, a very godly man I attended church with was accused of the very same thing. No one thought he did it, except the boy and his father. There wasn't enough evidence to go to court, and after two years of wrestling with allegations and mediation and insurance companies, the public school system's lawyer said "settle". The man didn't want to, but if he didn't, he would have lost his job, his home, and any hope of ever getting another job in the school system. When your boss says "settle" or pay out of pocket, and you have no money, what else are you going to do? I know many people in our church felt he should have kept fighting, but his wife wearily said "We are tired of fighting a losing battle. The courts will not accept our innocent testimony against the testimony of a troubled child."
This last year a young man in our church committed a crime. He did not deny it; he was heartbroken and very penitent. He's willing to take whatever punishment comes his way. As part of his sentencing for court, he needs character references for the judge. Where else would you go for a charcter reference but to the very people who know you? He's not requesting them to agree with what he did, but simply share how they know him. Why would anyone turn on a friend when they are down and need help the most?
I don't fault the teachers for speaking on their co-worker's behalf. One child's accusation does not change their interactions with him. Even if he did this horrid thing, it does not undo all the good things they knew about him. If he's guilty, then yes, he should be punished. But, punishments are to fit the crime. We have no way of knowing whether or not this child has been a problem student at school, whether or not he's falsely accused other teachers of anything (and trust me, once a child has falsely accused you of targeting them, disliking them because "they're a boy and she only likes girls", you tend to keep your distance and not trust a thing that student says), or if they feel the punishment was over-reaching. For all we know, the "molestation" could simply be a hug to a crying child. (Think back to how many teachers we heard say "I know we're not supposed to hug a kid or tell them "I love you", but..." during the school shooting or deadly tornadoes of the last year. Those policies are in place for a reason.) Rape only elicits 5-10 years. Why should molestation be 15-30? And if the school system tried to fire them for testifying in court, specifically for being character witnesses, then the school system should be sued for wrongful termination. You can't take a person's livelihood just because they testify in court if they themselves have not done anything wrong.
And last but not least, the father doesn't know whether it was the church or a group of members in the church that paid the bail. I assume the man was a member of that church, but the reporter didn't even verify that information. He simply quoted unsubstantiated claims from the accuser's family.
There are no winners in situations like this. If the child was truly molested, then he has to be feeling doubly wronged. Either way, he'll always question whether or not a teacher has it in for him, even if he has a bad attitude in the classroom. The faith in the school system for that community is gone. Even if the boy turns out to be a liar who was desperately wanting and needing some attention, there will always be a question mark in people's minds now.
Things like this make me appreciate all the more the Old Testament laws that an accuser had to present two witnesses whenever a person was accused of anything. There's wisdom in that. I agree it would make it very hard to prosecute cases with those requirements, but it would easily eliminate many cases that divide communities. Defenders would truly be innocent, unless proven guilty. Mob accusations, even on the internet, never justly settle anything.
One of the first things students in journalism class are taught is: present the facts, and when it comes to opinions, interview and quote from both parties. This article would have received a "rewrite" or an "incomplete" had it been in my high school journalism class.
I'm also greatly bothered not just because it only presents one party's viewpoint, but also because I've sat on the other side of the fence. While the father may be reacting as any normal father would do, he's making an awful lot of assumptions and unfounded accusations.
No one with a civilized mind likes a child molester. Courts almost always tend to go heavy in a child's favor. And I think that is where we often go astray. America's policy is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. And one person's word against another person's word is not proof of anything. Children do lie. How many rape and assault cases has this nation convicted, only to have the "guilty" set free ten-fifteen years down the road because the child/accuser changed their testimony? Yes, we have a lot of sick people in this world who do some very sick things. But when such accusations are made, a person's reputation, job, family, friends, and life is on the line. That is a VERY serious accusation.
Twenty years ago, a very godly man I attended church with was accused of the very same thing. No one thought he did it, except the boy and his father. There wasn't enough evidence to go to court, and after two years of wrestling with allegations and mediation and insurance companies, the public school system's lawyer said "settle". The man didn't want to, but if he didn't, he would have lost his job, his home, and any hope of ever getting another job in the school system. When your boss says "settle" or pay out of pocket, and you have no money, what else are you going to do? I know many people in our church felt he should have kept fighting, but his wife wearily said "We are tired of fighting a losing battle. The courts will not accept our innocent testimony against the testimony of a troubled child."
This last year a young man in our church committed a crime. He did not deny it; he was heartbroken and very penitent. He's willing to take whatever punishment comes his way. As part of his sentencing for court, he needs character references for the judge. Where else would you go for a charcter reference but to the very people who know you? He's not requesting them to agree with what he did, but simply share how they know him. Why would anyone turn on a friend when they are down and need help the most?
I don't fault the teachers for speaking on their co-worker's behalf. One child's accusation does not change their interactions with him. Even if he did this horrid thing, it does not undo all the good things they knew about him. If he's guilty, then yes, he should be punished. But, punishments are to fit the crime. We have no way of knowing whether or not this child has been a problem student at school, whether or not he's falsely accused other teachers of anything (and trust me, once a child has falsely accused you of targeting them, disliking them because "they're a boy and she only likes girls", you tend to keep your distance and not trust a thing that student says), or if they feel the punishment was over-reaching. For all we know, the "molestation" could simply be a hug to a crying child. (Think back to how many teachers we heard say "I know we're not supposed to hug a kid or tell them "I love you", but..." during the school shooting or deadly tornadoes of the last year. Those policies are in place for a reason.) Rape only elicits 5-10 years. Why should molestation be 15-30? And if the school system tried to fire them for testifying in court, specifically for being character witnesses, then the school system should be sued for wrongful termination. You can't take a person's livelihood just because they testify in court if they themselves have not done anything wrong.
And last but not least, the father doesn't know whether it was the church or a group of members in the church that paid the bail. I assume the man was a member of that church, but the reporter didn't even verify that information. He simply quoted unsubstantiated claims from the accuser's family.
There are no winners in situations like this. If the child was truly molested, then he has to be feeling doubly wronged. Either way, he'll always question whether or not a teacher has it in for him, even if he has a bad attitude in the classroom. The faith in the school system for that community is gone. Even if the boy turns out to be a liar who was desperately wanting and needing some attention, there will always be a question mark in people's minds now.
Things like this make me appreciate all the more the Old Testament laws that an accuser had to present two witnesses whenever a person was accused of anything. There's wisdom in that. I agree it would make it very hard to prosecute cases with those requirements, but it would easily eliminate many cases that divide communities. Defenders would truly be innocent, unless proven guilty. Mob accusations, even on the internet, never justly settle anything.
Comments