Response to Our Critics
OUR CRITICS WANT TO PROTECT THE WRONG THINGS
Over the past five years of fighting in Florida’s legislature to change the law to put kids first, we have faced several misleading claims by our critics and opponents. Here is what they have said and what our response is to them – supported by the facts:
1. Our Critics Say That:
Eliminating statutes of limitation in child sex abuse cases is not necessary. Victims can come forward within the present time deadlines.
Our Response:
No deadline should be put on child safety and stopping child sex predators who will attack more and more children until they are stopped. Under present Florida law, most criminal prosecutions for child sex abuse are cut off when the victim turns 21 and civil prosecutions when the victim turns 25. The law does not match the reality of the victims’ recovery process. Most victims report the crimes they suffered after they turn 26. This is because – as shown in multiple psychological studies – the psychological impact of abuse causes a delay in reporting child sexual abuse in most cases until the victim is an adult. In fact, a full 60 to 70 percent of all cases are reported when the victim is an adult and those cases are usually reported after age 26. It takes victims an average of 15 years to disclose the abuse they suffer as children. See, “Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; American Psychological Assoc., 2005, vol. 11, No. 1, 194 – 226.
This means, statistically speaking, that most child sex abusers know that – in Florida – more likely than not, they will escape any legal consequence simply because of the ticking of the clock and can keep pursuing victims to abuse and silence. This is dangerous public policy that puts the interests of child abusers ahead of the safety of children.
_________________________________________________
2. Our Critics Say That:
Statutes of limitation are necessary to protect defendants against long delays in the filing of criminal charges and lawsuits. Delays promote false claims and “frivolous” lawsuits.
Our Response
We must protect children before we protect adults from alleged frivolous legal charges or claims. Moreover, adults already have the legal protection they need against stale evidence and frivolous or false claims. Florida Statutes section 57.105 and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procure impose sanctions for frivolous or false claims. State and federal rules of evidence protect against unreliable evidence in numerous ways.
Concern over false claims in a few cases is exaggerated and no excuse for risking the safety of children in thousands of cases. Numerous studies have found that children rarely make false allegations of sex abuse. Even considering all forms of child abuse, the rate of intentionally false claims in Florida is a miniscule .004 percent. In short, thousands of substantiated claims are made for any single intentionally false claim — more than 99.99 percent of the time the allegation is found to have merit. See, annual “Child Maltreatment” reports by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau.
States with longer statutes of limitation do not have more false allegations of child sexual abuse than those, like Florida, with shorter periods. History in and out of Florida simply proves our critics wrong. In 2003, Florida law was changed to allow criminal prosecution of first-degree felony offenses of child sexual battery on victims under age 12 (Law of Florida 2003-116). That did not cause an increase in false claims of sex abuse. Other states that have eliminated statutes of limitation for various sex crimes against children, such as Delaware and Alaska, have not experienced an increase in false claims. States that have much longer limitations periods to file civil claims also suffer no rash of false claims (for example, Connecticut allows claims through the victim’s 48th birthday; Wisconsin through age 35; Pennsylvania and Ohio allow claims through age 30.)
___________________________________________
3. Our Critics Say That:
Eliminating statutes of limitation would not encourage the prompt reporting of abuse. Claims should be filed with reasonable promptness.
Our Response:
Child safety must be put before the unrealistic expectation that children will report sex abuse because of a shortened statute of limitations. Most children do not even know what statutes of limitation are and certainly do not use them as an excuse to delay reporting sexual attacks. While it is certainly better when child sex abuse crimes are reported early, laws demanding that do not put child safety first. It is unrealistic to expect prompt reporting in many cases. Rather, it is the threats, intimidation and psychological harm imposed by abusers that silence child victims, often throughout childhood and years into adulthood. This is well documented by numerous psychological experts who study these issues and treat child victims and adult survivors.
These facts were summed up by the American Psychological Association (APA) when it supported extending statutes of limitation for child sex crimes in California (available at: www.apa.org/psyclaw/stogner-v-california.pdf). The APA brief was based on numerous psychological studies and stated at pages 10 - 11:
Most child molesters will escape prosecution with or without the extended statute of limitations of Section 803(g). That is because most children victimized by sexual violence will never report those crimes to law enforcement. For those few who report the crimes, it often takes years before they are ready to discuss the traumatic events and confront their abusers. Regardless of whether they report the crimes, childhood sexual abuse victims often suffer from physical and psychosocial problems throughout their lives. At the same time, perpetrators often remain at risk for reoffending throughout their lives. Although Section 803(g) cannot completely prevent offenders from reaping the benefits of their victim’s immaturity and the psychological trauma they inflict upon them, it does provide redress for those victims who find the courage to report the crimes.
Simply put, it takes time to recover and find the courage to come forward, speak the truth and confront perpetrators. When victims come forward, the courthouse doors need to be unlocked. Where there is one victim, there are usually many more. And more children remain at risk.
_________________________________________________
4. Our Critics Say That:
Eliminating statutes of limitation would create uncertainty as to potential liability that may have occurred decades in the past and would be extremely difficult to defend against. Organizations such as churches and child recreation programs would face higher liability insurance premiums from “open ended” limitations periods.
Our Response:
Child safety must be put first before the costs of liability insurance premiums. It is simply immoral and dangerous to put a price on the rape of children.
Liability insurance against child sex abuse claims does not have be purchased by any organization. If they protect children and do not allow them to be abused, there will be no claims and no need for insurance. Doing the right thing is free and children need to be protected regardless of whether insurance is purchased.
The claim that higher liability insurance premiums will result and and cause cutting of programs by churches, child recreation programs, and other child programs is simply false. History proves our critics are wrong and they are making up baseless excuses to save a few bucks. Organizations in states that have expanded or eliminated statutes of limitation in child sex abuse cases have not suddenly cut programs. The churches and child recreation programs are still there, but the children are safer. That should be Florida’s goal too.
For the public that wants to put child safety first, eliminating the statute of limitations is the cheapest child safety insurance money can buy. Keeping the courthouse doors open tells organizations and institutions that they must protect children because they will never again benefit from the ticking of the clock and the intimidation and psychological harm that abusers inflict on their innocent child victims.
_________________________________________________
5. Our Critics Say That:
The 2003 change to Florida law, which eliminated the statute of limitation to criminally prosecute cases if the victim was 11 or younger, was enough. No more change is needed.
Our Response:
At least 55 percent of child sex abuse victims under age 16 do not report the crimes they suffer until they are in adulthood. See, “Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; American Psychological Assoc., 2005, vol. 11, No. 1, 194 – 226. There is no child developmental reason why age 11 is the cut off under Florida law. In fact, approximately a third of all child sexual abuse victims are between the ages of 12 and 15, and therefore left out of Florida’s legal protection. See, “Child Maltreatment 2007,” published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, page 47, Table 3-11 (2007).
NOTICE
This entire web site is a Pd Pol. Adv.,
Paid for and approved by Protect Our Kids First, PO Box 32577, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
