May 11 2022

Default belief

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Default belief

Consider these two distinct wrongs, with largely different sets of victims – but which share some common ground. One is: being sexually or violently assaulted, especially by someone more powerful than you. The other is: being wrongly accused and judged as someone who has done such a terrible deed. Each of these experiences is likely to be seriously traumatic and have possibly lifelong damaging effects.

The common ground is the heinous deed in question. Of course the exact nature and level is subject to considerable variation, with corresponding differences in consequences. At the mildest end – for example, (a) being inappropriately touched; (b) being falsely called a paedophile when no-one believes it – it is possible to over-react and overstate the wrong that has been done. Step up the seriousness a little bit, and we begin to get troubling outcomes; and the most extreme levels – for example, (a) forcing a child or adult to engage in sexual acts; (b) imprisoning an innocent person found guilty of those crimes – are among the worst experiences that can be inflicted on human beings.

Zero-sum game
While both forms of victimisation are supported by distinct professional groups and organisations, being falsely accused and being abused are two sides of the same coin. Both types of victim need to have their experiences taken seriously and believed. And that is feasible, until we start talking about the same incident – in which case it becomes a zero-sum game. Both claims can’t be true.

Hence supporters of each are likely to be oppositional. Because this type of alleged incident would not typically be witnessed nor leave behind a crime scene or objective evidence, and what people say happened or didn’t happen becomes all-important, mistakes of judgement are likely to be made.

Campaigners for innocence groups may be unintentionally supporting some who are not innocent. Campaigners for victims of child abuse and rape may be unintentionally supporting some who have erroneously or vengefully made a false (untrue) accusation. There are two types of errors here, which are analogous to types of errors anticipated in experimental science and statistical probability models.

Research begins with a hypothesis; likewise, when someone is arrested the police hypothesise that the individual may have committed a crime. The null hypothesis in experimental science is that the theoretical hypothesis does not apply. In the justice process the null hypothesis is the presumption of innocence.

False positives, false negatives
In the absence of absolute proof, statistical probability tests are used in science to reject the null hypothesis; and in judicial systems it has to be rejected beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’. Errors can occur in both cases if some crucial evidence is missing or when a misjudgement is made in evaluating the existing evidence. Therefore the initial hypothesis may be accepted as significant when it is not; and, in the case of a trial, the null hypothesis of innocence may be rejected for the same reasons and an innocent person found guilty. In the language of statistics, this is a ‘false positive’ or a type I error. Similarly, missing evidence or mistakes of judgement can result in errors in the other direction with a guilty person being acquitted; or with the hypothesis in a scientific experiment being abandoned even though the study was onto something. This second type of error is known as a ‘false negative’ or type II error.

Understandably, campaigners for each of these causes will not want doubts to risk adulterating their cause. Single cases of mistakes can be highly publicised and public opinion seems prone to over-generalisation. The temptation is to ignore false positives and false negatives so as not to throw doubt on those genuine cases.

So errors can be made on either side. I say ‘sides’ but these are like neighbouring communities who mostly close their eyes against each other, but when crossing paths have confrontations to challenge each other’s truth. Ironically, this absolutism rather than strengthening each case surely weakens it – because such black and white thinking is an enemy to truth and rationality. When there is no forensic proof, no proof that a crime has even occurred, as in so-called historical cases, sometimes we simply cannot ever categorically establish that we are right. That doesn’t mean we should relinquish the effort to investigate each case impartially and fully.

We are at a moment in time though when child protection and supporters of rape victims may not see the need for or value of such moderation. From the moral high ground of outrage against abuse of women and children, any questioning of assumptions can be taken as an affront.

These are shocking times. Child abuse and rape and sexual harassment are endemic, and we’ve only recently woken up to that or been able to acknowledge its prevalence. The care homes scandal in the 1990s followed closely by revelations of extensive child abuse by priests, the Soham murders by a school employee, abuse of vulnerable people in nursing homes and hospitals, and the Savile scandal and numerous other claims of historical child abuse.

No wonder there is a now a sense of collective guilt, an urge to make recompense by never again disbelieving people who claim abuse and a determination not to allow the same mistakes to occur again. That means no more cover-ups, no more denials, no more suggestion that anyone could be lying or wrong. In consequence, any doubts about the veracity of abuse claims now seem wrong.

In that case, what hope for the falsely accused? If the default belief is that anyone claiming to be a victim of abuse is indeed a victim, the denial by the accused is not only a lie, it is tantamount to a further offence adding to the suffering of the accuser. Indeed, to consider the plight of the wrongly accused or to be seen as concerned about such an outcome may seem inappropriate – that’s if it is even allowed that someone accused of rape or historical child abuse could be innocent.

More than a willingness to err on the side of type I errors in bringing a guilty verdict, there is increasingly an unwillingness to recognise that such errors can be made. The accuser is unquestionably a victim of abuse. The mistake in the past has been one of incredulity. Abused children were told no-one would believe them and that things would only be worse for them if they spoke up. Women who were raped were not believed when they complained, and the tendency to blame them or deny that rape had occurred and call them liars added to their suffering. Now we all know better, and in place of the denial is a corrective to have learned the lessons from the past, never to make it again, which means not questioning the accuracy of claims.

As well as correcting the past by a default belief that allegations of abuse are true, we are now convinced of the commonness of such kinds of abuse, that it is endemic in some professions, and that there is indeed a paedophile on every corner that would act on those impulses if left alone with a child.

No-one would question the need to make every effort to prevent child abuse from occurring as far as is humanly possible. If there had to be a trade off between different categories of possible victims, it seems right to prioritise children. Our compassion and sense of moral outrage can’t be reserved only for children though. Some plights for adults are every bit as intolerable: for example, lengthy imprisonment of people who haven’t committed any crime.

For anyone who might think that is a price worth paying to redress the evil of child abuse, then consider this. The children of people who are falsely accused of child abuse and sexual crimes do themselves become victims of a form of child abuse – not by their innocent parents, but by others who condemn and hate their presumed guilty parent. The revulsion and hostility against sexual crimes and child abuse is visited upon their families. Their children are forced to imagine their parent committing those deeds, to bear the insults of their school friends, and the loss of their normal relationship with that parent now imprisoned, perhaps to choose between loyalty to that parent and the company of their peers. When a father or mother is imprisoned as a ‘nonce’, guilty or innocent, no child is likely to recover from that.

11 responses to “Default belief”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I can’t help wondering what the statistics are for children damaged by wrongful accusations visited on their parents. I know from personal experience the damage can be severe. I don’t think I have ever seen this acknowledged before. The cruel irony is that you can’t protest about it, as you risk increasing the damage to the children.

    • Ros Burnett says:

      An under-researched topic, for sure. There are a few studies on the stress and harms done to children and families of sex offenders but nothing I’ve seen relating to the children of those falsely accused and wrongly convicted. A researcher might argue that there is enough common ground for a
      study on the families of convicted child abusers and sex offenders to include
      those who are related to someone falsely accused and maintaining innocence – but lumping them together would feel like adding insult to injury. I suppose
      the cruel ways that the child is treated by those who believe the parent to be guilty are much the same. This video is heartbreaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRLnEtAvq8
      But the parent being innocent yet not believed adds another painful dimension
      and the unrelenting sting of injustice.

  2. Hi says:

    I’d imagine making up false allegations against someone knowing the horrendous trouble it will get the person into and not caring how much stress it could cause them and the huge problems it will create for, not just that individual, but their family and loved ones as well is just as evil as rape – and, I’d imagine a lot easier to carry out.

    What makes it worse is when some false accusers then go on to bask in the sympathy their false accusation has brung, and even more sickening, in somecases, go on to write and sell books about it.

    This does happen.

    • Ros Burnett says:

      If it is done maliciously and callously, yes; and I’m aware of such cases. For those new to ‘false allegations’ though, as a category of errors and miscarriages of justice, it is worth emphasising that not all false allegations come into that bracket. ‘False’ more generally means ‘untrue’ and includes errors of judgement; maybe by someone who was abused who years later targets or scapegoats the wrong person; mistaken identity and false recovered memories. Some are errors, or extreme exaggeration of something that did occur but wasn’t abuse or illegal. Often they relate to something that simply did not take place.

  3. No Smoke says:

    An excellent article here, looking at the issue in a more holistic way. The compounding problem all the time is that clear sense of right .v. wrong. It is generally in our value system, as well as ingrained in our natural instincts, that our children must be protected. However, if the protection of children is the goal, the pitchfork wielding hatred mob is not the way to go about it. The catch-all phrases like “most prolific predatory paedophile ever” that has been lauded on the likes of Savile seem to raise this behaviour to the level of something that can be “achieved” if society “lets its guard down”.

    Therefore, we have been warned not to do the same again…not to take our “eyes of the ball”…not to let another “slip through the net”. Calls come for more checks, more scrutiny, more control…and yet numerous factors are left out from this reaction. Firstly, the knee-jerk reaction to the media’s deliberate agenda setting is unhelpful: skewing public perception of “abuse” in one direction, distracting us from the much wider issue and problem of abuse.

    To sound crass, the media won’t write about the thousands of children whose parents who’d rather buy their alcohol than stock the cupboards with food. They also won’t write about the children who never get to school on time, or the those whose reading and writing is so behind before they get to school. The public won’t hear the truth of the wider scale problem with abuse because a “scandal” in the papers of a “predatory paedophile” is simply more interesting.

    The knock-on effect of this is to stir up the emotions against the “monsters” who do such things to children. The public have a thirst to feed their need to know who to “look out for”. And when that person, that “predator” is found then a triumph has been achieved. Even if their guilt can never be proven, the sense that “we will always KNOW what they did…” is promoted as a reward for our civic duty. We don’t have to do anything but show our collective admonishment for their abhorrent behaviour, and our “huff” and “guffaw” about the accused, our assertions than we “always knew there was something not-quite-right…” seem devoid of a responsibility to know the difference between “fact” and “perception”. Moreover, that we understand that “perception” is not enough…it is only a judgement, and is open to varying interpretations…

    …and at the very tail end of all this, forgotten and ignored, are the victims of when it goes wrong: many of whom are children too!

    • worriedandconcerned says:

      I am a father who was falsely accused of abuse by my daughter back in 2011.
      Although I can fully understand that if an allegation is made it has to be investigated fully and the accuser not disbelieved the truth is that right from the moment the allegation is made they are called a victim. The police are supposed to investigate in a fair way and follow any line of enquiry that leads to showing the allegation happened or did not. The truth is they do not do this and in my case did not even send off forensics which would have shown it did not happen. I was completely cleared of all charges and am trying to rebuild my life but it has totally destroyed my faith in people and especially those so called professionals who should be ashamed of there behaviour.

  4. Martin says:

    While I accept & acknowledge that there are lots of reported cases of rape & sexual assaults on children there are many cases of child abuse that can & is proved to be false. False allegations of child sex abuse does as much damage to the falsely accused & his family as a true victim however there appears to be little to no understanding of the heartache & devastation that is endured by the person accused.
    It still astounds me everyday how one persons word can & will destroy another’s, life, no evidence or conscious is required.

    There are very few false accusers ever prosecuted or brought to justice for their wrongdoings ,in fact a considerable amount of false accusers prior to the alleged abuses acquittal acquire considerable amounts of compensation from the tax payer.

    I feel & believe the level of compensation available & paid with or without a guilty verdict is the motivation & is highly probable in most cases of false accusers.

  5. Ros Burnett says:

    ‘No Smoke’, I’ve only just spotted your response here. Excellent points in this comment – almost an article in itself.

  6. Vivien Dunn says:

    interested in the comment reasonable doubt ,,,are you aware that most cases of rape and sexual abuse are judged in court of the alleged victims statement alone ..and convicted on her word only .. that is not beyond reasonable doubt …

  7. Buccaneer says:

    How about one set of (historic) false allegations being believed, then Social Services “working with the family to show how adult abusers work” groom a child of similar age to that of the then age of the false accuser, securing a further set of allegations resulting in a further lengthy sentence? It happened to me!

  8. It seems to me that when it’s one person’s word against another’s and there are no forensics, it’s impossible to say that a case is proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. especially if it’s a majority verdict: it is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ at best. When first questioned, the accused is advised to say ‘No comment’ to everything, rather than describe what happened or didn’t happen in his own way; this leaves it all in the hands of his barrister, and the question-and-answer format of the courtroom also doesn’t allow him to tell it in his way. If his barrister doesn’t really believe his innocence, but presents his case just enough for there to be no grounds for appeal, it is not surprising if the jury convicts.

Related Posts