Attacking Defense and Denial: An Overview of Common Defense Strategies in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

As child abuse professionals, we know that offenders accused of sexual abuse of children often employ common defense arguments to try and mitigate or deny their actions. It is important that we are aware of these arguments and the strategies employed by defense attorneys to ensure that we are prepared to effectively counter them in court.

Accusations of False Allegations or Coaching:

Defense arguments centered around accusations of false allegations or “coaching” are very commonly used in sexual abuse cases. In these cases, the defense may argue that the victim has falsely accused the offender or that the victim's story has been coached by someone else, such as a parent, social worker, or therapist. The defense may claim that the victim has a motive to lie, such as revenge or attention-seeking behavior. They may also suggest that the victim's memory is unreliable, particularly if the allegations are based on events that occurred many years ago. In cases where the victim has undergone therapy or counseling, the defense may argue that the therapist has coached the victim to make false accusations.

To counter these defense arguments, prosecutors must present evidence that supports the victim's allegations and discredits the offender's claims. This may involve gathering witness testimony or physical evidence that supports the victim's version of events. Additionally, prosecutors may choose to hire expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide context and support for the victim's allegations. It is also important for prosecutors to address these defense arguments in their opening statements and closing arguments. By acknowledging the potential for false allegations and coaching, prosecutors can provide a compelling narrative that focuses on the credibility of the victim and the evidence supporting their allegations. Prosecutors may also emphasize the fact that false allegations are relatively rare, and that victims of sexual abuse often face significant social and emotional challenges when coming forward with their allegations. By providing context and support for the victim's story, prosecutors can help jurors to understand the complexities of sexual abuse cases and the impact that these crimes can have on victims and their families.

Consent and Victim Initiation:

Another common defense argument is that the contact between the offender and the child was consensual, particularly in cases involving teenagers. Defense attorneys may argue that the victim was a willing participant and that the contact was not non-consensual or abusive. In these cases, it is important for investigators to demonstrate that the victim was underage and legally incapable of giving consent. It is also important to provide education to the judge and jury about the dynamics of power and control in these types of situations.

Victim consent or victim initiation defense strategies are used by offenders to argue that the sexual acts were consensual and that the victim initiated or participated in the behavior willingly. The defense may claim that the victim led the offender on or that the victim actively participated in the sexual activity without coercion. This defense can be particularly effective in cases where the victim is an adolescent or older teenager, as the defense may argue that the victim was capable of making informed decisions about their sexual behavior. The defense may also argue that the victim was aware of the potential consequences of their actions and that they chose to engage in the behavior regardless.

To counter this defense argument, prosecutors may present evidence that suggests the victim was coerced or forced into the behavior. This may involve presenting witness testimony or physical evidence that supports the victim's allegations of abuse. Additionally, prosecutors may choose to hire expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide context and support for the victim's allegations. Prosecutors may also emphasize the power dynamic that exists in many cases of sexual abuse, particularly when the offender has a position of authority or control over the victim. By highlighting the ways in which the offender may have manipulated or coerced the victim into participating in the behavior, prosecutors can help to undermine the defense's argument that the behavior was consensual. It is also important for prosecutors to prepare the victim for cross-examination, as the defense may attempt to use victim blaming or other tactics to discredit the victim's testimony. By working with the victim to develop effective strategies for responding to these tactics, prosecutors can help to protect the credibility of the victim and strengthen their case.

Character Assassination and Victim Denigration:

The use of character assassination of the victim or their family (also known as “victim denigration”) is also very commonly seen in child sexual abuse cases. Defendants or defense attorneys may try to discredit the victim or their family, painting them as unstable or untrustworthy. Victim denigration is one of the most common defense strategies used in sexual abuse cases, particularly in cases where the victim and the offender have a close relationship, such as family members, caregivers, or authority figures. This strategy involves discrediting or attacking the character of the victim in order to undermine their credibility and make it more difficult for the prosecution to prove their case.

Victim denigration can take many forms. For example, the defense may claim that the victim is lying, exaggerating, or fabricating the allegations of sexual abuse. They may also suggest that the victim has a history of mental illness or emotional instability, which makes them less reliable or trustworthy as a witness. Alternatively, they may argue that the victim is motivated by financial gain, revenge, or attention-seeking behavior. Victim denigration can be a particularly effective defense strategy when the victim is a child or has a history of abuse or trauma. In these cases, defense attorneys may argue that the victim's allegations of sexual abuse are the result of false memories or fantasies, or that they are the product of external influences, such as therapy or leading questions from investigators.

It is important for prosecutors to be aware of the potential for victim denigration in sexual abuse cases and to take steps to counter these arguments. One way to do this is to gather as much evidence as possible to support the victim's allegations, including physical evidence, witness testimony, and the victim's own statements. Prosecutors may also choose to hire expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide context and support for the victim's allegations. Another way to counter victim denigration is to provide education to the judge and jury about the dynamics of power and control in sexual abuse cases. By helping them to understand the manipulative tactics employed by sexual abusers and the impact of trauma on victims, prosecutors can help to establish the credibility of the victim and undermine the defense's attempts to discredit them.

Playing the “Hero” or the “Victim” and Revenge Motive Allegations:

Playing "the hero" or "the victim" and revenge motives are additional defense arguments that are commonly used in sexual abuse cases. In some cases, the offender may claim that they are the victim of a false accusation or that they are being unfairly targeted by law enforcement or the victim's family. This strategy is known as playing "the hero" or "the victim," and it is designed to elicit sympathy and support from the judge and jury. The offender may claim that they were only trying to help the victim, or that they were misunderstood and wrongly accused.

Revenge motives are another common defense argument in sexual abuse cases. This strategy involves suggesting that the victim has a motive to lie or fabricate the allegations of abuse in order to get revenge against the offender. For example, the defense may argue that the victim is angry or resentful towards the offender for other reasons, such as a previous conflict or rejection.

To counter these defense arguments, prosecutors must present evidence that supports the victim's allegations and discredits the offender's claims. This may involve gathering witness testimony or physical evidence that supports the victim's version of events. Additionally, prosecutors may choose to hire expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide context and support for the victim's allegations. It is also important for prosecutors to anticipate and address these defense arguments in their opening statements and closing arguments. By acknowledging the potential for playing "the hero" or "the victim" and revenge motives, prosecutors can provide a compelling narrative that focuses on the credibility of the victim and the evidence supporting their allegations.

Minimize, Deny and Shifting of Blame:

Another common defense strategy used by sexual abuse offenders is to minimize, deny, and blame others for their behavior. This strategy involves downplaying or denying the seriousness of the offense, shifting blame onto others, or suggesting that the victim is exaggerating or lying.

Offenders may use minimizing tactics to make their behavior seem less serious than it really is. They may claim that they were just joking or that they did not intend to cause harm. They may also suggest that the victim is overreacting or that the behavior was consensual.

Denial is another common defense tactic, which involves outright denying that the offense occurred. The offender may claim that the victim is mistaken or lying, or that they have been falsely accused. In some cases, the offender may even attempt to discredit the victim's character or credibility in order to support their denial.

Blaming others is another common tactic used by sexual abuse offenders, particularly in cases where the offender has a close relationship with the victim. Offenders may suggest that the victim was the one who initiated the behavior or that someone else, such as a family member or caregiver, was responsible for the abuse.

To counter these defense arguments, prosecutors must present strong evidence to support the victim's allegations and disprove the offender's claims. This may involve gathering witness testimony or physical evidence that supports the victim's version of events. Additionally, prosecutors may choose to hire expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide context and support for the victim's allegations.

It is also important for prosecutors to anticipate and address these defense arguments in their opening statements and closing arguments. By acknowledging the potential for minimizing, denial, and blame-shifting, prosecutors can provide a compelling narrative that focuses on the credibility of the victim and the evidence supporting their allegations.

Discrediting Witnesses:

Discrediting witnesses is a common defense strategy used in sexual abuse cases, especially at a trial. This may involve attempting to discredit the victim or other witnesses who testify against the defendant, such as outcry witnesses, police officers, or other members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

One way that defense attorneys may attempt to discredit witnesses is by questioning their credibility or motives. They may argue that the witness is biased against the defendant, or that they have a personal vendetta or ulterior motive for testifying. This may involve attempting to show that the witness has a history of dishonesty or that they are not a reliable source of information. In cases where the victim has made an outcry to a family member or other trusted individual, the defense may attempt to discredit the outcry witness by questioning their motives or suggesting that they may have coerced or coached the victim into making false allegations. The defense may also suggest that the outcry witness has a personal bias against the defendant, or that they are not a reliable source of information due to their emotional involvement in the case. Similarly, the defense may attempt to discredit police officers or other members of the MDT by suggesting that they have a bias against the defendant or that they mishandled evidence or other aspects of the investigation. This may involve questioning the credibility of the officer's testimony or suggesting that they did not follow proper protocol during the investigation.

To counter these defense strategies, prosecutors must work to establish the credibility of their witnesses and to address any concerns or biases that may be raised by the defense. This may involve presenting additional evidence or witness testimony that supports the victim's allegations, as well as emphasizing the professionalism and objectivity of police officers and other MDT professionals involved in the investigation. Prosecutors may also prepare their witnesses for cross-examination, helping them to anticipate the types of questions that may be asked and to develop effective strategies for responding to these questions. By working to establish the credibility of their witnesses and to address any concerns or biases raised by the defense, prosecutors can help to strengthen their case and hold offenders accountable for their actions.

The Child is Mistaken or Misinterpreted What Really Happened:

Another common defense argument in sexual abuse cases is that the child/victim misinterpreted the act and sexualized it (or someone else sexualized the act and suggested to the child that it was sexual abuse), when the act was not intended to be sexual. This defense strategy is often used in cases where the offender claims that they did not realize their actions were inappropriate or that they did not intend to engage in sexual behavior with the victim. This argument may be particularly effective in cases where the offender and victim have a close relationship, such as family members, caregivers, or authority figures. In these cases, the defense may argue that the offender was simply showing affection or providing care for the victim, and that any sexualized behavior was a result of the victim's misinterpretation.

However, this defense argument can be difficult to sustain in court, as it requires a high degree of evidence to support the offender's claim of innocence. Prosecutors can present evidence of the offender's behavior, statements made by the victim, and any physical evidence to support the victim's allegations. Expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, may also be hired to provide context and support for the victim's allegations. It is important for prosecutors to recognize and address this defense argument in order to protect the credibility of the victim and hold the offender accountable for their actions. By presenting strong evidence and expert testimony, prosecutors can establish the fact that the offender's behavior was sexual in nature and that the victim's misinterpretation was not the result of innocent behavior.

Conclusion:

Overall, it is important for child abuse professionals to be prepared to counter these common defense arguments in order to bring perpetrators to justice and protect vulnerable children. It is crucial that investigators gather as much evidence as possible to corroborate the victim's statements and that prosecutors have expert witnesses to counter any claims made by the defense. By staying vigilant and well-informed, we can ensure that these common defense arguments do not impede our efforts to protect children and hold perpetrators accountable.

Understanding the common defense arguments made by offenders accused of sexual abuse of children is crucial for child abuse professionals. By anticipating these arguments and gathering as much evidence as possible to support the prosecution's case, we can counter the defense's claims and ensure that justice is served. As child abuse professionals, it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to protect vulnerable children and bring perpetrators to justice.