No Child Molester Left Behind

This is my Wednesday post.

It was a good financial day today. In fact, it has been a fairly strong week. That always helps right before a long weekend, of course. I really wish that I did not have to worry so much about how much income I generate, but the truth is that I do have to. Debt from student loans, mortgage, etc. just seems so insurmountable at times. The money I make is fine, but the debt is out of control. I am actually hopeful that the sale of some real estate may alleviate this problem in the near future.

It looks like I am going to be hired for a sex offense case against a child next week. That will certainly improve my financial situation. I don't know too much about the allegations yet, but based on what degree the person has been charged with I believe that it will involve improper touching of a ten or twelve year old. It is not going to be a vaginal intercourse case.

Sex offense cases are difficult. Society is revolted by such actions. But the cases are almost impossible to prove. If there is semen or something, then it is a slam dunk for the state. But in the absence of semen or an adult witness, it is a difficult thing to prove. Often, it is simply the child's word that comprises the entirety of the state's evidence. We think to ourselves, "Well, why would a child make something like that up?" Indeed, why would they? But they might. They have exposure to those concepts and ideas now. The idea can get put in their head. They can be directed to make allegations at the request of someone who wants to get at the defendant. You just never know. But I think it is much more likely that the kids are telling the truth.

So I find myself having to defend cases by suggesting that someone -- maybe a kid -- is not telling the truth. And I feel strongly that my client is guilty. These are the kinds of situations that earn lawyers the ire of society. People think that lawyers are pond scum for defending child molesters, etc.

But what are we to do? Our job is to make sure that the state can prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before entering a guilty plea. What happens if lawyers stop doing that in sex offense cases? People would start being convicted just for being accused. It would provide even more power to those who would accuse. By defending cases like sex offense cases, I believe that I am directly helping to avoid having people persecuted by the state. We don't want a world where someone is convicted of a crime simply because of the color of his skin. Nor should we want someone to be convicted of a crime simply because of the nature of the allegations. Our system of government demands proof, and I am simply trying to make sure it happens.

In law school I had a really great professor who equated the Salem Witch Trials to the present-day environment for sex offense cases. In our society, being accused with committing a sex offense ruins an accused's life. The accused is never looked at the same again by his family, friends, co-workers, etc. Even in the rare case that it can be proven that the person in not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused will have that label attached to him. It is a label that sticks more than it would from any other type of allegation. In Salem, people were convicted and hung based merely on allegations of others without the need for supporting evidence. We all know where that got us as a society. Accused child molesters face a similar situation today. The need help. If I turn my back on them, then it is just Salem all over again.