The variations of the defense of child abuse allegations are multi-faceted, but consistently simple: I didn’t do it.
The emotionally charged nature of child abuse cases – and the public ostracism resulting from merely being accused – means that few people ever admit to child abuse. (Compare this to the different types of murder defenses: I did it, but it was in self-defense; I did it, but it was in the heat of passion; I did it, but it was an accident; etc.) None of these admit-then-explain justifications applies to sex abuse charges. Thus, every person accused of child abuse offers the same denial, which law enforcement, the prosecution, and most juries disregard as insincere and self-serving.
In the face of false accusations, the three fundamental questions are: Was the child really abused? If so, was it by the person accused? If not, why would the child lie?
Unless the jury understands how the child made a false outcry, mere denials of wrongdoing and protestations of innocence will prove to be painfully inadequate. For an explanation of how the defense strategy must take into account the evidentiary hurdles of child sex abuse cases, click here. |
