Beyond the written law, the idea of anonymous abuse reports an government intervention in people's lives has an immoral dimension. It something that goes beyond law to a more fundamental aspect of human nature. It invokes a fundamental response when a stranger knocks on your door and you are told there is a rumor circulating about you, prove yourself innocent.
Most people will respond to authority they recognize, the police, a person with a badge, some recognized symbol of authority. Even though that person often exceeds his authority at least it is something recognized. When a social worker shows up what are people to think?
Since when is a person required to defend themselves against rumors? On the other hand it not the normal reaction to a false accusation on the order of, lets hear that son of a bitch say it to my face!" But there is no son of a bitch. There is only an anonymous voice on a hotline.
And then there is the intrusion of a stranger into family's life. Upon what grounds is this done in this country? For the children of course. And by extension in many states to anyone. In some states it is even possible for a person to abuse themselves. I would be the last to deny a flagellant is a bit off in the head but I really do not see the reasoning here. I am reminded that suicide is illegal and the penalty is death.
By what presumption can any person judge the lifestyle of others? Certainly we have laws and they are written by our legislatures and they rarely deviate from the known standards of harm to another. But these laws are nebulous, the not only establish life styles but they assign roles to people who never had them.
One person can be found negligent of another in the household when there was never a custodial relationship in the first place. Why? A custodial relationship is assumed. Why? Because that is what would be expected. And if people do not live up to this standard? They are at fault of course.
Far fetched? No. This "no penalty" rumor hotline creates more cases than the most honest worker can deal with. There is not the time, presuming people are cooperative and are able to explain their family relationships, for the investigator to understand what is going on. Some mold has to be found to fit the situation.
And what does an anonymously accused individual feel like in this case? Whatever the nearest mold that fits, that is him. And then the person is "cooperating" with his judge, jury and executioner. This stranger has the power to turn his life upside down at the determination permitted in the time available.
This is a moral wrong and that is the way it strikes anyone on the receiving end. And if a person refuses to cooperate then what is the presumption? It is the old, if you are innocent what do you have to hide gambit.
If a report is made of witches and warlocks abusing children, guess what? They have to be investigated by law. If you are accused of being either you have to defend yourself. And we know from very prominent cases that the very absence of evidence is often considered proof of guilt. And this proof is not required to be demonstrated in court but rather the accused must prove his innocence. Not in my constitution but certainly it is acceptable if it is done for the children or the old or those in some manner "challenged."
What is missing in all of this are the protections for the accused that we have all come to expect if we are the accused. If we are accused of some form of abuse we have no protections in law. And of course findings against a person are confidential to the point the "guilty" can not even obtain the findings without swearing not to make them public.
That means there are criminal penalties for a person going to the media to publicize the unfairness, inequities and plain falsehoods, in addition to any sloppy work and poor investigative procedures that may have occurred. Did you ever wonder why you never hear of abuses on the evening news save if they come out in court? Now you know why?
Where else is the accused committing a crime if he tells his side of the story to the media? Where else is a finding kept secret? Since when are secret trials held by one person never to see the light of day save if the person can afford to go to court -- and maybe not even then unless it is all elicited as testimony.
This is our system. It is for the children. It is good to think we are saving our children to be raised correctly in this world. After all, they will have children some day and they will be subject to these same kangaroo courts lacking any principle of justice since before the Magna Carta. It is the legacy we are passing on to them and for them.
After all, it only effects other people's children. Never our own.