More specifically, let us abolish 1-800-xxA-BUSE hotlines. More specific than that, let us abolish anonymity on such abuse hotlines. And while doing that let us put criminal penalties for false and unfounded reports on these hotlines.
It started in the early 1980s. Congress discovered there was child abuse going in their districts. Congressrat Foghorn found he had 38,431 cases of child abuse in his district each day. That could not be permitted to continue. Something had to be done and done right now.
The good Congressrat also discovered the only things standing in the way of stopping abuse immediately were the US Constitution and his state's constitution and a few other minor details such as at least two centuries of legal precedent. But then, as long as it was being done "for the children" such things were not of serious concern.
It was "discovered" in this testimony that people had so little concern for children that they would not report abuse cases if they had to give their name so anonymous allegations were permitted. After all, under the relevant constitutions a person has the right to be faced by their accusers, unless of course there are children involved. If children are involved there is no such right.
As centuries of due process would have it, a criminal matter (and if this is not criminal what is the point?) is investigated by criminal investigators. This would be the police at least, perhaps detectives, people versed in criminal law.
If there is evidence of a criminal offence then an arrest is made and rights are read. And if it is a false arrest the citizen has redress. All that is "too hard" in matters where children are involved. In those cases children are simply removed without a charge of criminal wrong doing. And of course the people doing this have immunity from civil prosecution as does the government agency for which they work. After all, it is "for the children."
It is admitted that one story of a dead child is worth a thousand constitutional rights. It is further admitted that there are in fact some horrible examples of child abuse in the country. But I have to ask, does this justify figurative and literal witch hunts?
We have this general concept of justice, that it is better for many guilty to go free rather than a few innocent be convicted. Where is it written this does not apply when there are children involved? Does not a person have a right to defend himself against clearly stated accusations of violation of clearly stated law? Why not in cases when there are children involved?
The hotline calls go to an on the job trained person who is immune from all but civil service administrative procedures for improper actions. This person can take actions based upon any ideas that are currently popular rather than those which have been established in law. This person is the sole arbiter of actions that can disrupt a family for months if not years on opinion rather than facts which are subject to impartial review by peers.
But then, children are involved and anything can be done for the children in to their detriment, just in case. I point out that some women, many less than the feminists would have us believe, die because they refuse to prosecute in abusive relationships. If the rules were the same, a social worker should have the power to force such women out of the home and into a shelter on their own say so. Save the ACLU among sixteen other groups would be vying for the right represent the woman in a case they could not lose.
I will grant there are dozens of successful cases we do not hear about but then that success is in the eye of the case worker. The claim the removal of the child prevented harm to child is in the "we can never know" category. We have to presuppose something would have happened had the child been left with the family but that can never be known as the child was not left with the family.
Some states, such as Florida, have used the child abuse hotline and anonymity and immunity as a model and have extended this "protection" to everyone. Some would call this progress but what do we have as a result?
The majority of cases by busybody neighbors who just do not like the person or their life style or the way they treat their children. We have malicious cases by ex-spouses trying to cause problems for former spouse even decades after the divorce. And in a few cases we have truly criminal cases, a very few but perhaps enough to keep the system going under the foreign principle that it is better that a thousand be hassled than one be harmed.
Is this a hassle? It may come as a surprise to many that there really are people in this world who do not like the state showing up and inquiring as to the details of their family lives. And if people act hostile toward the intrusion of course they must have something to hide.
People suddenly find themselves confronted by a stranger, implementing procedures they know nothing about, who has powers they do not know the extent of, based upon an unknown accuser. And someone is surprised they are not fully cooperative? even aggressive? This procedure is the closest thing to "The Trial" we have in this country.
Are there remedies? Certainly and there are and they have been around for centuries. Since when is there such a thing as an anonymous accuser? Eliminate that. And the penalty for a false accusation? The same as it is for calling 911 with a false crime report. Up front that eliminates most of the abuses.
Of the remaining, real crimes are investigated by real criminal investigators. And the action is not the removal of the "victim" but the arrest of the perpetrator. And if there is no perpetrator in the eyes of those skilled in the art, in whose eyes can there by one?
The loss of constitutional, civil and due process rights in the "abuse" cases is obvious. The potential for harm is obvious. It is not necessary to bring up the horror stories of psychotic social workers and even delusional prosecutors who believe in the witches to make this case. A person has more rights when stopped for running a stop sign than when alleged to have sexually abused their own children.
When will the abuse of human rights end when done "for the children"? Some would say, never!, as the allegation is too horrible. Others might remember our system of justice does not make such exceptions. After all, if they only come for others why should you speak?