The Citizen, 1989-07-12, Page 5THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1989. PAGE 5.
Prosecuting the molester
Speakers say they are doing what they can to achieve justice
(Second of a two part series)
BY BONNIE
Last week we showed you the
difficulties in bringing a child
molester to trial. However, the
problem doesn’t stop there. As
great as the difficulty in getting the
child to admit that a crime has been
committed is the difficulty in
obtaining justice after.
According to Paul Bruno, a
Detroit prosecutor since 1976 and a
founding member of Detroit’s
Child Abuse Unit, there are pre
dictable patterns and behaviour
used by the defense to create doubt
in the victim’s story. “The defense
will do their best to discredit the
child,’’ says Mr. Bruno.
“In Ontario, 70 charges were
laid against teachers. Of those, the
majority were not convicted. Why?
In most cases the teacher is well
prepared and the child is not,’’
explains Mr. bruno. “It is unfortu
nate but true.”
Mr. Bruno suggests that the
defense will do everything in their
power to demonstrate what an
unreliable witness the child is. He
says that it is important to note that
during a trial, children are being
judged by adults with adult ideas of
memory and perception. Children
are inferior in this area and Mr.
Bruno says that they should only be
expected, when interviewed by
investigators, to deal in the rele
vant issues and only essential
details should be used in the
reports they give. Also, he points
out the language used in a court of
law is extremely difficult for a chid
to understand.
Another trick used by the de
fense is to bring forward prior
“bad acts’’ committed by the child
that would be consistent with lying
about a sexual abuse. “However,
not many children will lie about
really important issues,’’ states
Mr. Bruno.
The defense may try to prove the
child had a motive for making up
such a story, but if the accused has
claimed ignorance of any such
motive before, that will weaken the
defense’s claim.
A personal tragedy, that Mr.
Bruno refers is kept confidential,
has contributed to his advocacy
against child abuse. When his
office decided to form a child abuse
unit in 1986, he was only one out of
two who was willing to tackle the
job. While he is no longer with
them he still handles the overflow.
“I handle as many child murder
and/or assault cases as I do adult.
I’m still dealing with it just not as a
program. When I think of someone
causing pain to a healthy happy
child I need to see that justice is
done,’’ said Mr. Bruno.
It is with that commitment and
passion that Mr. Bruno handles his
cases and his prosecuting strate
gies rival those of any defense
lawyer. He believes that children
must be well prepared for trial.
“When I interview a child I ask
them to provide a narrative de
scription, to explain what happen
ed to them during the sexual
attack,’’ explains Mr. Bruno. “Al
so, I use language that is familiar to
the child, even in the courtroom.
Otherwise, it can look contrived. Or
worse. I remember a specific
incident when one child told a
Children must
be prepared
courtroom full of people that her
brother had put his peanut in her
pyjama.’’
Mr. Bruno likes to determine
whether the child understands the
difference between truth and fal
sity. He recalls a situation which
involved siblings - one had been
the victim, the other the witness.
Their mother was a drug addict,
who was at that time incarcerated
on a murder charge. The children
were incapable of testifying as they
had never been taught the differ
ence between fact and fiction.
Within two months, after the
children moved in with their father,
they were competent witnesses.
However, Mr. Bruno continues
sardonically, “the defendent was
incompetent by then.’’
He also will ask children what
interesting or identifying charac
teristics the perpetrator may have
that could establish his guilt furth
er, for example scars or tatoos.
“This corroborates the fact that
they have undergone some sort of
intimate abuse,” says Mr. Bruno.
During his closing remarks to the
jury, Mr. Bruno refutes the nega
tive thoughts put forward by the
defense. However, he adds the
‘Buck stops’
with judge
or jury
weight lies with the judges. They
have complete discretion as to what
can be allowed.
Judge Frank G. Carter of the
District Court of Ontario has been
on the bench for 16 years and he
says that people must bear in mind
that “in matters of the court the
buck stops with me or the jury. I am
very conscious of reasonable
doubt.” Judge Carter remembers
one case where allegations of
sexual abuse were made. “They
even had a psychiatrist from the
; Upiversity of Toronto testify, who
had tapes and everything to prove
guilt.” On the ninth day of the
trial, the mother who had made the
allegations requested that she
again be permitted to take the
stand. After being warned of the
consequences, she was permitted
and retracted every statement of
abuse. “I might well have found
the defendent guilty,” said Judge
Carter “so I’m always aware of
reasonable doubt.”
According to Judge Carter on
January 1, 1988, a new law was put
in force creating new offenses and
redefining the existing offenses.
“Taken as a whole it balances the
evidence of the children against
the alleged perpetrator,” explains
Judge Carter.
For sexual interference with
anyone under the age of 14 there is
a maximum sentence of 10 years.
An invitation to sexual touching
with anyone under the age of 14
carries the same maximum sent
ence. The penalty for sexual exploi
tation which concerns individuals
who are in a position of trust, such
as parent, guardian or babysitter
varies with age. The maximum
sentence of five years is if the child •
was between the ages of 14 and 18
while the penalty for under 14
years of age increases to 10 years
maximum. For the offense of anal
intercourse with anyone under the
age of eighteen there is a maximum
penalty of five years. Anyone
committing bestiality in front of a
child or forcing the child to commit
it could also face a five year
penalty. If a parent or guardian
procures sexual activity for a child
under 14 they could receive a five
year sentence of two years if the
child is between the ages of 14 and
18. The sentences are the same for
a householder who permits sexual
activity in their home by a young
person. Living off the avails of
prostitution for anyone between the
ages of 14 and 18 is an indictable
offense as is solicitation involving
anyone under the age of 18, and
carries a maximum sentence of five
years.
In the area of consent Judge
Carter explains that “it is no
defense to say that a child under
the age of 14 consented to the act
unless the aggressor is under 16
years of age and less than two
years older than the 12 to 14 year
old. Also, he can not be in a<
position of authority with the
child.”
If the capacity of a witness is
challenged the court shall conduct
an inquiry according to Judge
Carter. If the witness understands
the nature of the oath and can
communicate the evidence they will
be permitted to testify. If, however,
the witness can not understand the
oath but promises to tell the truth
the court will also allow it. If they
are unable to understand the oath
or tell the truth they will not be able
to testify. Judge Carter cited one
instance in May of 1989 where the
judge felt that the unsworn testi
mony required corroboration.
In Goderich Court House there is
a four by five foot screen that can
be placed in front of the accused at
International Scene
Continued from page 4
and then stood back and waited for
the reply.
I am afraid I disappointed him. I
made it clear that he was talking to
the wrong person when it came to
prejudice. I had been, I emphasiz
ed, a minority of one so many times
in my life and in so many countries
that I could pinpoint prejudice
without any« difficulty. His essay
was not really that good; I had
indicated the sections that needed
revision and, if he would start
learning to take criticism construc
tively when it presented itself, he
would be far less concerned about
prejudice.
By now you may have noticed a
problem. It is one thing to show
prejudice but what happens when
you do have reasonable criticisms
of a member of a minority and he or
she takes them for prejudice?
There is no pat answer but it does
demonstrate that prejudice tends to
feed on itself.
As far as rooting it out, you have
to realize that predjuce can arise
from a number of causes. In many
cases it is due to some fear or
apprehension on your part. The
minority is seen to be a threat
because he or she will compete in
the job market, reduce the price of
Letter to the Editor
Riddell explains rebates
THE EDITOR,
Since my announcement last
week of changes to the Farm Tax
Rebate program, which is handled
by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food, there have been a number of
misunderstandings circulating in
the countryside about the revi
sions, and I wish to clear up those
misconceptions.
First of all, the program is NOT
being axed, but will be streamlined
to be targeted to those whose
income depends mainly on farm
ing. The following series of ques
tions and answers will more fully
just the proper angle so that the
accused may see the complaintant
but not vice-versa. Sometimes the
child will be permitted to testify by
closed circuit television as well.
However, this has not been tested
in Canada yet. These methods
encourage the child to give a full
accurate account without trauma,
says Judge Carter. “These will be
used primarily when the child is
very young, usually under the age
of six, or if they are being treated
for emotional trauma. Sometimes a
videotaped disclosure is admiss-
able as well.
While the protection of our
children and the persecution are of
the utmost priority both Judge
Carter and Paul Bruno remind that
the accused is rightfully assumed
innocent until proven guilty. Mis
takes do happen and Mr. Bruno
states that before a case is put into
the system those involved should
be certain of guilt. “It has been my
experience that if I feel uncomfort
able with the facts 1 do not proceed.
To put someone through that is
going to destroy their lives. But, if 1
believe a crime has been committ
ed I will be aggressive in putting
someone through that system,” he
says. “1 am doing what I can to
achieve Justice for our children.”
your property, do things differently
than you do or even do them better.
They may even show characteris
tics that may be acceptable to them
but not to our society. There is
admittedly a fine line between
behaviour that is acceptable and
which is not. That fine line may
even change from day to day
depending on how you feel.
Unfortunately there are a great
many instances of prejudice that is
of the subtle kind. I’m sure we can
all think of examples but I find that
when I travel, I often sense it in the
way I am handled just because I am
not one of the locals. Perhaps the
most obvious example in my life is
when I am mistaken for an Ameri
can in Europe because of my
English and subjected to one or
more of the slights that they have
to endure in other countries. I don’t
speak English very often when I am
abroad but now and again I have to
and I am fully aware of the slight.
Perhaps I can end by saying that
prejudices are frequently of the
subconscious nature; we literally
are not aware that we are showing
one or, if we are, we try to
rationalize. This is all the more
reason for us to work extra hard to
rid ourselves of such excess bagg
age.
explain the much needed changes.
FARM TAX REBATE PROGRAM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. What is the purpose of the
Farm Tax Rebate Program?
The purpose of the Farm Tax
Rebate Program is to relieve the
undue burden of property taxation
on farmers.
2. How long has the Farm Tax
Rebate Program been in place?
The Farm Tax Rebate Program
was introduced in 1970 as a result
of the 1969 Report of the Commit-
Continued on page 19