Reaction to tragedy raises some troubling questions
A tragedy last week in the Halifax area has generated a discussion that is producing some troubling suggestions.
For those not aware, a 12-year old girl was murdered by a friend of her family in what appears to be a sexual attack followed by murder and suicide. This "friend of the family" was trusted enough by her that she let him pick her up after school. What was not known to her or to her family was that this "friend" had been charged with sexually touching at least five young girls in the 1990's. For reasons that I haven't discovered, he wasn't convicted in any of the cases.
If he had been found guilty, he would have been placed on the child abuse registry and the parents might have had a chance to know about this guy before letting him into their lives. Or so goes the argument. However, he was cleared of charges and was not placed on the list. This might change if Nova Scotia's Community Services Minister has his way:
Community Services Minister David Morse said he wants people accused of serious charges involving children automatically considered for inclusion in the provincial child abuse registry.
As a father of two girls, I understand the fear that parents have of such things, though thankfully I don't understand the terror and sorrow of going through it. With that caveat, I have concerns about the possible affect such a proposal would have on people that have never been found guilty of a crime.
The wording of the statement, "automatically considered", leaves it open such that perhaps not every person so accused would be actually put on the list. But having said that, I can imagine that whoever administers this list is going to have a tremendous amount of pressure to err on the side of safety in close calls; and this will result in some names of innocent people getting placed on this list.
Mr. Morse goes on:
"You can still end up there (on the list) if, based on the balance of probabilities, there’s a reasonable suspicion that he may have committed an indecent act against a child, whereas in a criminal prosecution he has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And there’s quite a difference between the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt," Mr. Morse said.
So, we can add a person's name to a list that automatically places restrictions on them "on the balance of probabilities"? On "reasonable suspicion"? Why do politicians say stupid things like this, especially when most of them are lawyers or golf with same? Do they actually think that something like this would pass the sniff test in court? I think there is good reason the Justice Minister declined to make a comment on this.
Perhaps this is just a little harmless political posturing, after all, we're in a minority government and the writ could be dropped at any time. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
On writing this, I did a little research on this Child Abuse Registry. I'm not sure what I expected to find, maybe a list of child abusers or something, but I haven't. What I have found is that you need to have a child abuse registry check in order to work in the school system, in residential care, to work or volunteer in the park system, essentially anywhere that you might come into daily contact with children. Probably in many other places, too.
What I did not find was how to determine if someone that I know is considered a child abuser. I still don't know how this girl's family would have known if this "friend" was a potential child abuser even if he was on the list.
And so I have to ask how adding someone's name to this list would have prevented this tragedy? Its purpose appears to be to keep child molestors out of organizations and occupations that would put them in potential contact with children, which is good. However, it doesn't look like it is the mechanism to get the names of child molestors into the public domain where the parents of this child could have seen them. Even if this guy had been convicted in the first place, he would have been on this list, but no one would have known unless a child abuse registry check was done. I don't know about you, but I haven't done any checks on my friends lately. Maybe I should...
So now we're back to the political posturing, I guess.
That is such an incredibly bad idea - just google the name 'Wanda Young' - actually, here's an excellent summation of the case, except to add that the Supreme Court just recently upheld her position and awarded her the money, but it does go to show what damage can be done by an unsubstantiated rumour, which is basically what the Minister is talking about enshrining into law.
Posted by
Dan |
Fri Mar 10, 11:58:00 AM
Oh yeah, Dan I remember her case now. They just settled matters in court, didn't they?
Posted by
kevvyd |
Fri Mar 10, 12:17:00 PM
Yes, back in January - unanimous decision in her favour.
Posted by
Dan |
Fri Mar 10, 12:30:00 PM
Dan,
you are right that if the man's name was on the list the mother would have no way of finding out, unless she went to the police station and asked for them to check for her. Of course, she would have to have to have some suspicion that he was not a "friend" to her child. In this case, the mother said herself that she did not have any inclination that he might be a threat.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Fri Mar 10, 10:06:00 PM
Actually, it was Kev that made that point, but I'll agree with you nonetheless. There is a lot of this story that is being left unsaid - if he was a friend of the family - how close a friend and for how long. Plus, don't they have any mutual acquantices? I don't know about anyone else, but if I knew that someone who had been hauled up into court 5 times for sexual assault was hanging around a family with a young daughter, then I'd be at the very least inclined to give some kind of warning to the parents, acquittal or no damn acquittal.
Posted by
Dan |
Fri Mar 10, 10:50:00 PM
So Paul, what you're saying is that you agree to posting a list of convicted sex offenders, but acknowledge that it would have been useless in this case. That's exactly the misfit here.
For what it's worth I think that the current list and the one that would be necessary to have prevented this tragedy are different lists. The list that might have worked in this case is the one that gets put on the internet or otherwise published that results in neighbourhoods protesting when someone on it moves in. It's the kind of list that makes it impossible for someone, who according to the law, has paid the price for his crime, to possibly start over again.
I honestly don't know how you strike a balance between these two types of lists. For sure you shouldn't take someone "accused" of a crime and put them on either one. The first list is harmful enough, as Dan points out in his first comment, I can't imagine what the lingering damage of getting put on that second one would be. Being wrongfully convicted of a sex crime and then put on a list of potential sex offenders puts another verdict in our judicial system, "innocent, but..."
However, to get back to the subtext of the post - these questions were not the ones that were being advanced by the minister in his response to this; therefore I have to presume that he was trying to score some quick political points. That is the real problem with thorny issues like this one - politicking can lead to bad decision making.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Sat Mar 11, 07:00:00 AM