Countering the Myths of Sexual Child abuse

This argument is one of the most common, and on the surface most persuasive, put forward by the apologists. As with most propaganda, it's main strength is that it contains just enough truth to make it plausible, while at the same time falling to pieces with anything approaching serious examination.

First, a word about syllogisms

The syllogism is the most basic logical argument there is. Briefly it can be defined as follows:
A sequence of three propositions such that the first two imply the third, the conclusion.
There are true syllogisms such as this one:

1)All oranges are citrus fruits
2)This is an orange.
Therefore
3)This is a citrus fruit

There are also false syllogisms:

1) All oranges are citrus fruits
2) This lemon is a citrus fruit
Therefore
3)this lemon is an orange

1) Some citrus fruits are oranges
2) This is a citrus fruit
Therefore
3)this fruit is an orange

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Well, the syllogism that the apologists use is thus:

1) False accusations of sexual child abuse are more likely to occur during an acrimonious divorce proceeding.
2) The parents of the alleged victims were in the midst of an acrimonious divorce, therefore
3) The accusation was false.

Number one is somewhat true, but incomplete. What it should say is "False accusations of sexual child abuse by one parent against the other are slightly more likely during an acrimonious divorce proceeding. In the current case the accusation came from the child himself, and Jackson is not a parent, so this part of the argument is false to begin with.

Number two is true, but with number one being false, this has no bearing on the argument at all, therefore number is totally bulldookey.

It must be stressed that the fact that number three is not a true argument does not imply that the opposite (i.e. that the accusation was true)--only that this syllogism is not proof that the accusation was false.

So where does this argument originate from? From none other than our old friend, Dr Underwager (see :Does Michael Jackson Fit "The Profile" of a Pedophile" for an overview of Dr Underwager's career highlights).

Here's what other (and to my mind more credible) sources have to say on the topic:

From the Office of the Attorney General of California website:

How will I know if I can believe allegations about sexual assault–do people make false accusations?

The majority of victims tend to minimize sexual assault, or out of self-blame, fear, or shame do not disclose the abuse. This is particularly true of child victims. Research indicates that sexual assault is no more falsely reported than any other crime. The best approach is to believe the victim, listen to his or her allegations, offer your support, and support the victim in getting the help that he or she needs.

Judith Herman, author of Trauma and Recovery, reports in the Harvard Mental Health Letter that false child abuse allegations by children are "rare, in the range of 2-8 percent of reported cases. False retractions of true complaints are far more common, especially when the victim is not sufficiently protected after disclosure and therefore succumbs to intimidation."

From the Texas Police Central Training website:
[Myth]:Children lie and fantasize about sexual relations with adults.
Most children speak from their own experiences. They do not tend to make up this information. False reports may be initiated by one adult against another, using the child as a pawn, but this is rare. Children sometimes retract or change a sexual abuse statement if they fear that they will suffer more distress for having spoken.

Examining The Child's Story
[W]e know that children do not make up stories asserting they have been sexually molested. It is not in their interests to do so. Young children do not have the sexual knowledge necessary to fabricate an allegation. Clinicians and researchers in the field of sexual abuse are in agreement that false allegations by children are extremely rare [7]. Further in those unusual instances where they do occur, there is usually some serious malfunction in the family.
KATHLEEN COULBORN FALLER, M.S.W, PH.D. South Eastern Center Against Sexual Assault

I believe that children *rarely* lie about sexual abuse or exploitation, if a lie is defined as a statement deliberately and maliciously intended to deceive. The problem is the oversimplification of the statement. Just because a child is not lying does not necessarily mean the child is telling the truth. I believe that in the majority of these cases, the victims are not lying. They are telling you what they have come to believe has happened to them. Furthermore the assumption that children rarely lie about sexual abuse does not necessarily apply to everything a child says during a sexual abuse investigation. Stories of mutilation, murder, and cannibalism are not really about sexual abuse.
Children rarely lie about sexual abuse or exploitation. but they do fantasize, furnish false information, furnish misleading information, misperceive events, try to please adults, respond to leading questions, and respond to rewards. Children are not adults in little bodies and do go through developmental stages that must be evaluated and understood. In many ways, however, children are no better and no worse than other victims or witnesses of a crime. They should not be automatically believed, nor should they be automatically disbelieved.”
“INVESTIGATOR'S GUIDE TO ALLEGATIONS OF RITUAL CHILD ABUSE “
Kenneth V Lanning , Behavioral Science Unit,
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Return to the Previous Page.

Return to the INDEX