Racist Tweets From Teens and the Adolescent Brain: Trying to Withhold Judgment

The online magazine Jezebel published a long and disgusting list of racist, sometimes violent tweets sent out by mostly teenagers in response to the re-election of the President. Today, editors reported on efforts to track down the schools the kids attend, in order to alert them to the behavior.  I don't blame Jezebel and I hope the people charged with educating these kids intervene while there's- perhaps- still time to correct their self-destructive behavior if not their poisoned thinking. One thing that should be kept in mind, though, is the neurological development level of the kids who are now being exposed, disciplined and in some cases very publicly punished. The American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Center has an excellent article on the subject: crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam. Bottom line is we don't learn to control impulse well until much later than has been previously believed. Actions have consequences and these kids are learning that fast. That's just. But as the floodgates of social media retribution open, it's fair to consider the source.

"Wut" Happens Next When An Older Child "Hits Him Back?"

Andre Curry has been acquitted of unlawful restraint for binding his 22 month old daughter's hand, feet and mouth with tape, and then posting a picture of her bound thusly on Facebook. The caption below read "This is wut happens wen my baby hits me back." Perhaps, as Curry's attorney successfully argued (on the unlawful restraint charges- battery verdict is still pending), what the father did was simply stupid and not cruel or- more to the point- criminal. Regardless, I remain quite concerned for the little girl in the situation who has no voice. I hope the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, CPD, and the involved child protection agencies stay vigilant for her sake.

A Great Explanation of the Zombie Phenomenon And How It Relates to Institutional Control

It's Halloween (a holiday I honestly just hate), and zombies are a fair topic. They're also instructional with regard to how institutions both formal and informal create myths to control adherents. Here's a great piece by Amy Wilentz in the NYT describing how Haitian slaves were controlled by myth- even beyond death. The same myths create opportunities for predators of all kinds. The nightmare is real; no movie magic needed. That's the cruelest truth.

It Shouldn't Take Blond Hair and Light Skin To Get a Country Up in Arms About Children in Poverty

But in Mexico, apparently it does. Worse, the original photographer who released the photo of her on Facebook sparked a response from authorities challenging whether the child's parents were actually hers. Race shouldn't matter in child welfare. But it absolutely does. If a child is white, blond, and meets European standards of beauty, she'll be valued, protected, searched for and vindicated in much grater numbers than a child with darker skin. It's shameful and deadly accurate.

On Sandusky: Gladwell Close, Deadspin's Cosentino Closer

Regarding child sexual abuse recently, Deadspin editor Dom Cosentino and blockbuster author Malcom Gladwell politely traded barbs. The issue was whether Jerry Sandusky was ignored and thus abetted by PSU's leadership (as Cosentino believes) or simply fooled- largely for understandable reasons- as Gladwell argues.The fact is, neither writer's take is inaccurate, and there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement where something as dark and misunderstood as this subject is concerned. That being said, I tend to side with Cosentino when it comes to wanting to hold the leadership of Penn State more responsible than Gladwell seemingly does. Cosentino believes Gladwell's error is trying to fit the Sandusky story neatly into a universalist "parable" by ignoring relevant facts. It's a criticism Gladwell has heard before, namely that the effort to make complex occurrences and dynamics explainable sometimes leads him to oversimplify.But after carefully reading Gladwell's description of victim identification, grooming, and hiding-in-plain-sight as predator characteristics, I don't think he's missed anything in terms of a general understanding. Indeed, and not surprisingly, Gladwell's take on how child molesters "get away with it" is spot-on. I'm especially impressed with how he appreciates that "grooming," the insidious, methodical process whereby predators seek to introduce sexuality into their relationships with children, is not just something predators engage in with individual children. In fact, families, organizations and entire communities are groomed by molesters. Gladwell cites a great example in a predator who didn't go looking for children directly, but rather for their parents, playing the sympathetic sounding board in bars for moms and dads who seemed to need help with familial situations.Sandusky, it is obvious now, groomed an entire region and dozens of communities, schools, organizations, families and individuals within that region. And beyond central Pennsylvania, his persona charmed sportswriters and other journalists, and won him no less than Presidential recognition for his Second Mile foundation. Gladwell is sharply accurate to state that Sandusky chose a perfect environment within which to hunt children. His boss was obsessed with the game and socially distant, disinterested and indeed lightly disdainful of Sandusky's constant parade of kids. The ethos around Sandusky was one of male-bonding and physical contact. Communal dressing and bathing were typical and expected. He relished in a cover of not only charity and selflessness but also of deep masculinity and social acceptance. And of course, both the PSU community and Second Mile provided him a steady, endless stream of trusting victims and unsuspecting families.However, this list of the things Sandusky enjoyed to the tragic detriment of so many and so much is not quite complete. The third crucial thing predators crave is the one Gladwell overlooks, and from which Cosentino's criticism seems to stem although he doesn't state it as such.Predators need a cover for what they're doing and/or who they are, and they need a victim pool. They also need, almost invariably, an institution of one form or another to protect them if they are detected, and to undermine efforts to shed light on their activities even if victims are lost as grist for the mill.To be fair, Gladwell discusses Sandusky's rich and protective environment as a factor that assisted him and it did. But what protected Sandusky wasn't just the cover of football culture and a distant, other-focused boss. It was the leadership of Penn State University- Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno- who made the series of crucial and damning decisions that allowed Sandusky to continue unchallenged. While none of them will ever admit it, or perhaps even be fully cognizant of it, those decisions were driven at least in part to protect the institution of PSU, it's money-machine of a program, and it's theretofore sterling reputation. How cynical a thought process this was surely differs for every one of the four. But doubtlessly it played a part.Thus is the lesson that Gladwell perhaps missed, and Cosentino perhaps sensed as deficient in Gladwell's analysis: The larger, more venerable and more powerful the institution, the more stubbornly its leaders will protect it. If necessary, to the detriment of anyone who stands vulnerable to something within its midst.

Father Groeschel and Reflections on Liberalism: What Protects Children?

A couple weeks back, a Franciscan friar on his television show made a terrible misstatement, suggesting that in many cases of priestly sexual abuse, the priests were themselves emotionally struggling and the adolescent victims "seducers." He was rightly criticized, but what's more disturbing is the continuing ignorance surrounding this crisis. Sexual abuse and exploitation is almost never an event that follows a valiant but failed struggle within the heart of an otherwise decent person.  Rather, it is almost always the methodical and predatory act of a hunter.As I've discussed before, the two most prevalent theories about the abuse crisis were both dead wrong. The anti-Catholic view that celibacy and the priestly life are turning young men into predators is complete bunk.  Equally foolish, and still stressed by many hardline conservative Catholics, is the idea that the abuse crisis is the inevitable result of the liberalization of the Church, and tolerance for things like homosexuality both within and without the vocations. The argument is that a "homosexual culture" within the priesthood exacerbates the problem. This is beyond foolish, of course; it's deeply offensive in that it falsely conflates same-sex attraction with the urge to hurt and exploit children or any weaker person.Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor any other religious institution, (and there are many aside from the Church who have similar issues) is manufacturing predators. Instead it's attracting them, unknowingly.  A cover, a steady stream of victims, and an institution willing to protect them are the three things predators have sought from the Church and other religious institutions since time immemorial.So while it's tempting to gain an advantage for one's view of the faith (or a view hostile to the faith) by claiming a solution to child endangerment, it's a fruitless endeavor. If liberalization were the issue, then the parish I grew up in should have been a terrible place for kids. Christ the Redeemer, a parish my parents helped to found, was staffed in the 70's by friars who were paragons of post Vatican II liberalization. There were guitars and brown robes, and a teen Bible called "The Way."  There was tolerance for other faiths, and other ways of living and thinking.What there wasn't, at least in my experience, was child abuse. Of course I can't say that categorically. But I can say that despite researching the issue, I know of no complaints from that parish.  I can also say I was in close contact on a weekly basis with our priests from the age of five through my teens. I was alone with both parish and visiting priests as an alter server, donning the alb for mass as they donned vestments. My parents were close with them. I never had a bad moment. I knew they were imperfect, of course. Although it was hidden from me as a small child, there were priests I knew who struggled with alcoholism, and probably with celibacy. I knew they were human; at least one or two probably would have identified as homosexual but for their vows.My point is not that the hippyish, folksy way the Friars of the Atonement did things then was the best expression of Catholicism. It worked for some, it didn't for others, and I'm hardly the authority on how it jived with larger doctrinal concerns. My point is that a liberal environment, tolerant and less authoritarian, is not an incubator for predatory behavior. In fact, the opposite is what we often see when child abuse occurs within any religious community. In environments that are more authoritarian, where religious leaders have more power and where the community is insular and isolated from outsiders, predators thrive. Not because they are made there. Because they are attracted there.It's the attraction to a favorable environment that must cease by changing that environment. That's the only chance the Church or any other institution has to protect the children it claims; predators can almost never be screened out. The Church is unfairly attacked for producing predators because of its traditions and demands. But the draw toward intolerance and the emerging call from within for a smaller but more militant, doctrinal Church will not protect its children either.

Todd Akin's Hornet's Nest: It Will Get Worse

The dark ignorance and insulting disregard beneath the remarks of Rep. Todd Akin go deeper than I've heard commented on so far. Both Akin and those like him should prepare for the backlash against that ignorance and disregard to go deeper as well.It's not "just" that Akin and men who think like him believe, however baselessly, that rape allegations are often fabricated, or at least embellished in order to create an excuse to procure an abortion. For enemies of choice, this suspicion- that women stretch the truth in order to seek support for terminating a pregnancy- is a natural outgrowth of the equally baseless male hysteria that birthed the myth that women regularly lie about rape in order to recapture their virtue.No, it's far worse in the effluent, boiling camps of thought that produced Todd Akin. Because as that thinking goes, there are really three classes of women who claim to be raped, and only one is worth caring about. In the first group (the smallest by far, in their minds) are the "real" victims- the chaste and blameless- attacked within narrowly defined and traditionally accepted scenarios. The second group (to them the largest) contains the liars and embellishers, either devil-women or  shame-shedders who will "cry rape" in order to avoid personal responsibility, or simply out of sheer malevolence.For many people, however badly misinformed, these two groups in whatever percentages make up the whole population of complainants. But for Akin and his ilk there is a third group as well: Women who may have been violated, but whose immodesty and ungodly behavior led directly to their victimization. These women are, perhaps, "real" victims in the sense that they lack the scheming underhandedness of the red-lipped Jezebels (and yes, a Freudian could and should have a field day with the projection and self-loathing going on here), but they fall short of a full measure of sympathy. There are teachings, after all, that if followed strictly, prevent that kind of unpleasantness. I'll stress here that I'm not only picking on Akin's apparent brand of Christianity. The idea that strict obedience to religious commandments will shield an observant woman from sexual assault precedes Christianity by millennia and is practiced by other religions as well. The adherence to religious rules, for those who obtain solace and fulfillment from them, are not bad in and of themselves (the sexist aspects excepted, but that's a much longer discussion). But as deliverance from the evil of sexual violence, they are worse than ineffective; they are insidiously and falsely reassuring.For me, Akin's comment about "legitimate rape," however botched an attempt at coherent thought, was a glimpse into the workings of a brain that sees a narrow band of true victimization in a spectrum of self-injury or worse.  While perhaps driven (in men like Akin) by deep-seated male hysteria and ancient angst, it is also used with precision by predators who rape again and again, gleefully protected by the shame, guilt and fear aimed miserably in the wrong direction.The irony involved (women viewed as hysterics while men hysterically consume rape-myth nonsense generation after generation) might be comical.But rape isn't funny.And the millions of women victimized (to say nothing- here- of the millions of men also) aren't laughing. Somewhere on the campaign trail in the great state of Missouri, Rep. Akin is doubtlessly wondering how he managed to kick over such a hornet's nest.  The quick answer, because he spoke ignorantly and insensitively on a topic deeply familiar to far more people than Akin probably suspects, is only a part of the larger explanation.The rest is answered, in my mind, by a tide of moral certitude and cultural defensiveness meeting an increasing demand for non-traditional recognition of other ways of life and self-determination. The backdrop is the continuing, widespread unease of an oddly stubborn recession, an exhausting war, and the flinty, itching suspicion in more and more minds- on either side of the debate- that everything they love and depend on is slipping away from them.People are angry.  They are frightened.  They are clinging more and more obdurately to their respective positions.It will get worse.

Kayla Harrison's Uncommon Valor, and Society's Far Too Common Shame

“I think,” she said, “it’d be pretty cool to be a kid.” – Kayla Harrison, the New York Times.If I knew her as a baby, with enough clairvoyance to know of her remarkable talent and drive, I would have made some assumptions about the path she’d take, for better or worse. I would have assumed she’d have a very different experience from most children, interacting less and less with them as she grew. I would have assumed confidently that, before adolescence, she would be at least partially separated from her family and entrusted with little oversight to a coach known for grooming champions. I would have assumed that the influence of that coach over her would be profound, and that she would have looked upon that person as an ultimate authority in many areas of her life.And I would have been very frightened.I’m in no way implying anything negative about the choices Kayla or her family made. Nor could I have been certain she would suffer any harm, much less the harm that found her. Some children gladly trade a “normal” childhood for the glories, rewards and growth that come with top levels of competition. Athletics aren’t the only activities that create these kinds of experiences; chess champions, musical prodigies and other unusually gifted children find themselves in similar situations. Whether a lifestyle of practice, pressure and endless drive is healthy depends in large measure on the child and the family dynamics involved. Some kids flourish, and the price exacted is balanced by the goals achieved.What’s undeniable though is that the typical environment of a child at a global competitive level will be at least challenging and at most very dangerous. For many parents, when a child’s abilities swiftly surpass their ability to coach or instruct her, the obvious next step is to entrust her development to coaches who can both assess her potential and then nurture it forward. For most parents, the intention is not to abrogate parental duties or to in any way abandon their child. But at world-class levels of competition, the time, intensity and level of commitment that must be sustained mean that mentors in many cases become surrogate parents. Their relationship with the child involves close-quarters time alone for hours on end, often on travel.  It involves emotional intensity and a high level of discipline and deference to the coach. The stakes grow higher as the child progresses.Enter the predator.As in all situations, it’s not because anything about the experience of working closely with a child or getting to know her somehow “warps” the coach into becoming predatory. Rather, predators go where victims are, where opportunities are, and where detection is least likely. The urge to harm a child and the ability to nurture one to glory are not at all necessarily joined. Most mentors, be they tough but benign or effective but cruel, are not predisposed to sexually abuse children. But as well, no link exists between professional ability and inherently decent character. For a predator who has the needed skills, child mentoring at the highest competitive levels is simply as good as it gets.Kayla’s experience was atypical in that she was moved eventually to disclose, and her abuser was imprisoned. This is a just and often healing outcome, but hardly a common one. Most victims bear the abuse, fold it into their lives, and go on, more commonly so, I’d bet, at Olympic levels of competition. As we stand in awe of the grace, beauty, poise and skill of our competitors, we should also be aware of the pain and abuse- most of it grossly under-reported- that might have been borne by them during the process.  We must assess whether our thirst for victory in our competitors is eclipsing our concern for their welfare.Kayla is a champion in every possible respect, content not only with a gold medal but an angelic desire to pave a better world going forward. We honor her best by acknowledging a cruel but accurate fact: Kayla Harrison is anything but typical. But her experience as a world-class athlete is far more common than most will acknowledge. Or anyone should tolerate.

Chik-Fil-A, Money and Jesus. And No, I Won't Give It A Rest

So I wrote on the sensitive subject of recent fast-food controversy, and I challenged the founders of the franchise. Since then, I’ve been "reminded" of three things:1. It’s not fair to compare the struggle for gay equality to that of racial equality. Gay people are sinning, black people weren’t.2. It’s not a sin to be rich, and in fact it’s what God wants for us.3. My blog is supposed to be about violence against women and children, so I should take up another point.The remainder of those who disagree with me really just want me to give it a rest.That won’t happen. No one, God willing, will give this a rest. And by “this” I don’t mean the Chik-Fil-A controversy. “This” isn’t about a restaurant, any more than racial equality was about lunch counters (they were restaurants, too, where offensive things happened). People didn’t like it. They made a big fuss. It went on and on. Until things changed.Instead of resting I’ll answer the questions posed to me and others like me:1. The secular law will never have an opinion on whether gay people are "sinning" by living in same-sex relationships. This is by the nature of a government we fought a revolution to form and untold amounts of blood and treasure to preserve. I seek no blessing of same-sex marriage by any religion. I seek equality under the law.2. I singled out the billionaire Cathy brothers, founders of Chik-Fil-A, because they spend millions of dollars on attempting to make the lives of others more difficult through support of groups who seek to prevent equal rights for those others. Period. Not for what they believe. For what they do. With buckets of fast-food profits.Sally Ride left behind a partner of 27 years who gets nothing in Federal benefits, thanks in part to the efforts of organizations the Cathy brothers pour money into. That seems cruel to me, religious beliefs aside, and so, believing them to be not cruel I assumed the Cathy's do what they do because they feel Biblically commanded, regardless of the objectively unfortunate consequences of their financial exertions. For that reason I encouraged them to, perhaps, consider attempting to follow another command of Jesus, one I’ve been aggressively told I have taken “out of context.” Because wealth is just another blessing, and Jesus wants us to have it.Sell that to someone who is buying it, because I am not. If His words aren’t good enough, at least look at His life, to the extent we can: He didn’t own much of anything.I don’t believe it’s sin to be wealthy. I don’t believe it’s what God wants for us either. I think it just is. And I think that using it to harm others, to make their lives harder to simply live in an already vicious and unpredictable world, is a far greater sin than loving someone for decades and caring for them while they endure pancreatic cancer.And so I challenged the Cathy brothers and I challenge them again: Give it away, boys. Happily keep 50, 60, even a 100 million if you want. Is that not  “blessing” enough? Give the other 4.49 billion to help eradicate the sea of misery around you.3. Yes, this blog is about, among other things, children. And violence that stalks them. Often, that violence comes from within. Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered youth (LGBT) commit suicide in numbers 4 to 6 times greater than straight youth, in large part because all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) in their stricter forms, reject what these youth discover themselves becoming.Due to that rejection, they are far more likely to be thrown out of those same religious homes and tossed, alone and marginalized, into a world far darker and more violent than most are willing to accept.  They’re victimized on the streets, in the brothels, the bars, the bus stations, the alleyways, and the cold, dead farm fields.They’re children, or damn close to it. I’ve written about them before. I’ll do it again. That’s my job. As far as I’m concerned, the job of the Cathy brothers and all who are similarly “blessed” is at very least to do them no further harm.

Bullying, Chik-Fil-A, and a Personal Plea For Help

I was bullied as a kid. Profoundly so in the worst years surrounding puberty. The reasons were varied and sometimes self-inflicted, but it came down to me being different. I got lucky and found a home in childhood friends I still count as my closest. But it could have gone differently. Suicide was not something I planned but I can’t say I didn’t contemplate it.Interestingly though, even for the worst of my abusers I never envisioned taking anything from them. I just wanted what they had, which was the ability to blend and disappear. As it happened I was never meant to do those things and I’m happier for it. But that simple invisibility was what I wanted in the darkest times; it was infinitely preferable to the alternative.Every gay couple I know craves no more than that same invisibility. The ability to be everyday, lawn-mowing homebodies, gently disgruntled spouses, fretful, scrambled parents of gloriously germy toddlers. I’ve yet to meet one gay person who wants to claw back or limit the rights of straight people. But if the Cathy brothers of Chik-Fil-A, with their $4.5 billion in net worth, get their way, that’s what will happen: The right of gay people to unite legally will be blocked. Their lives as couples will be less abundant and simply harder to live.The Cathy’s put their money where their mouth is. To gay people, it feels like being bullied. Pushed around. Limited. That’s what bullies do after all, and have done for time immemorial. They limit where their victims can go and how they can live. They strip them of dignity and individuality. It hurts, badly. Trust me.Hence the passion evoked by a sandwich.If there’s a mitigating factor to the Cathy brother's efforts, it’s that Biblical principles- to them- compel them to act as they do.  I remain in love with a woman who felt similarly compelled to believe and support causes that, in my mind, amounted to bullying. We were incompatible for a few reasons, but that was high among them. She is one of the most decent, loving and compassionate people I’ve ever known. She often didn’t like what she felt compelled to believe and support as a Bible Christian, but she believed it was God’s command for her to do so. If the Cathy brothers are anything like she is, I assume they struggle similarly.Alas, the Bible includes other admonitions, including one from Matthew which instructs Christians, if they want to be perfect, to sell their possessions, give the money to the poor, and them come follow Him. This was Jesus- the rabble-rousing Rabbi who also said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter His Kingdom. He had almost nothing to say about sexual morality. He had plenty to say about wealth redistribution and disparity. I’m well aware of theologians in every denomination who can provide comforting answers to the inconveniences posed by His commands to successful money makers. But they never fail to impress anything in me other than my gag reflex.Regardless, to the Cathy brothers my plea is simple, and should be just as compatible with Biblical restraints as their efforts against homosexuals:Sirs, if you would be perfect, liquidate your fortune, or perhaps a bit less. Over the next few weeks, myself and hopefully many friends in the business of eradicating violence against women and children will join forces and assist you in identifying areas where those billions could be spent. I know that the two of you and your corporation already give. Would you enlighten me as to how much, and how much remains? That should help us both to determine, perhaps, how much closer to perfection you might reach in this life with your considerable blessings.For now, in the spirit of this message, I’ll suggest bullying as something you could help eradicate.  It's a phenomenon that affects, conservatively, millions of children each year, driving some to suicide and truncating the lives of others. If you’d be so moved, there are great organizations (follow the link above for just one example) currently operating on shoe strings to make a difference.The well of need, of course, is bottomless. But a multi-billion dollar fortune has remarkable potential to make a dent in the suffering that surrounds us all. If perfection is your aim, I can’t imagine you’d resist the opportunity.Please, lets begin.

A Statue is Removed, and Still Warnings Will Go Unheeded

As a rookie prosecutor in Alexandria, Virginia, I brought my first cases before an ancient and distinguished judge who at times had a penchant for the impeccable and brilliant aphorism. One he used when adjudicating minor traffic cases has stuck with me throughout the years. “The world is basically divided into two groups. The caught, and the uncaught.”His meaning was simple: Folks, we’re all guilty of minor traffic violations. If you’re here, you’re probably just caught. If not, you’re uncaught, but only for now. That is the Penn State Community in a nutshell. It is devastated. It is bewildered. It is ashamed. It is grieving, reflecting, adjusting and hopefully persevering. But what’s important to remember is that PSU is not doing these penances because it is unique or alone. Simply put, PSU is going through these things because its leadership was- to put it bluntly- caught. They were caught harboring a predator for at least sentimental and naïve reasons, and at worst for cynical, self-protecting ones. But as the reality of the sanctions settles and the pain to this remarkable and time-honored community is fully realized, it’s worth noting a basic and persistent truth: Predators like Jerry Sandusky are everywhere, and operating- as my fingers type these words- as efficiently as ever.Sandusky’s circumstances were mournfully peculiar in that he was a god-like figure in his environment, backed by the most pervasive and defining aspect of the culture, Penn State Football. But far below these uncommon circumstances, predators like him have found havens, and are doing untold amounts of damage, in academic communities and organized social settings of all kinds, right this minute. Every venerable, time-honored and values-based institution has a predator problem. All that separates the exposed from the unexposed is the machinery of victimization, cloaking as it does- for a time- the horrors of the abuse and the cries of the abused.If there is anything positive that can emerge from the deep sadness permeating PSU, it is not the belief- for other institutions- that “there but for the grace of God go we.” Rather, it’s the darker and more terrifying reality of “there we are as well- simply unexposed as such.” This, while desperately needed, will be the pill  tragically unswallowed by similar organizations watching events at PSU unfold.Rather than do what they must, which is to take an unvarnished look at their own environments and the endless vectors for infiltration that exist, they will confidently and foolishly distinguish themselves somehow from Penn State and assure themselves that they “know” the mentors, coaches and leaders that direct and control their environments. They’ll fool themselves into believing, for a string of ironically specious reasons, that their venerable and respected enclaves are simply not the kinds of places that bad people would seek to infiltrate. Indeed, it is this terrible dichotomy- predators seeking prey and protection in an environment so antithetical to what they are- that has foiled so many great institutions blind to their own weaknesses and tricked into thinking they are somehow above the invisible but very real laws of osmosis that attract bad actors to good environments.Rather than do the difficult but crucial work of self-examination, rather than seek transparency within their own leadership structure with the help of outside observers trained to assist in making best-practice recommendations, they will retreat to a pernicious blind-spot and convince themselves they are somehow oddly enlightened, even “blessed” with introspection and unusual clarity- again because of the sanctity of their mission, whatever it is.Rather than engage internally in honest, open debate about whether they have at any time placed the reputation, value and productive capability of their institutions over the well-being of even the least notable of the people affected by it, they will delude themselves into believing they are led by an unassailable and internal moral compass.And the suffering will continue, until the stone is finally rolled away and light is allowed to penetrate, wounding the institution that believed itself protected and impenetrable. But this damage can only follow the most shameful of all- the destruction of human beings who looked to it for the opposite of what they received.

Simpler Times versus Child Safety? Err Toward Safety

In Queens this weekend on the E train, I sped past the stops my father used from childhood until his wedding day; Elmhurst Avenue, Newtown, Roosevelt/Jackson Heights. I don’t know why but there was something furtive about it, as if I was reading his diary. I can vaguely remember those subway platforms myself as a kid, in tow with my grandmother in the steaming summers of the 1970’s when New York seemed hopeless and dying.Childhood memories cascade through me when I’m in the country’s most diverse county, the glorious menagerie that is Queens. There was disco, and trash, and graffiti. There was a sense from everyone above me that the city and frankly the world beyond it was spinning headlong into oblivion.Alas, the obituaries for New York and the rest of us were premature. In fact, what I see more and more on places like Facebook are glorifications of that time, not so much in terms of expecting a 10 year-old to navigate the subway system alone (as my father did in the 40’s), but in terms of being a kid as we were in the 70’s and more so in times preceding it. I see endless shout-outs to drinking from garden hoses, not wearing helmets or knee-pads, rolling around as toddlers without car seats, playing until it was dark and wandering home, etc, etc.  Indeed, it was grand.It was also sometimes debilitating or deadly. Most of the writers of the “that’s just how we rolled” posts are just fondly remembering what they perceived were simpler times. But some decry the involvement regulation and law have taken with regard to how kids play or navigate their lives, insisting that without all that government intrusion, they turned out just fine.Presumably, they did turn out just fine. But not everyone did. Millions of children were crippled, scarred beyond recognition and killed before safety became more of an issue and governmental regulation underpinned it. In the 1970’s Sterling Park, Virginia I grew up in, wearing a bicycle helmet was an invitation to be bullied, and so, helmetless, I sought top speeds of 40 miles per hour, no hands, flying down streets on a ten speed. And I turned out “just fine” except for one terrifying spill that broke an arm when I was 13. Hardly the basis for “nanny-state” regulation of a kid on a bike, some would say. True, but with that wreck in particular, it was only the grace of God that put me in cast and not a wheelchair or a casket. And in fact, I knew kids who suffered fates exactly like that.I was reminded of this after two stark tragedies marred July 4^th celebrations, one in Tennessee and one in Long Island. In Tennessee two boys, swimming next to a houseboat, were electrocuted. In New York, three children perished when an overloaded boat capsized in the sound, trapping them below decks. Both are still being investigated, but shoddy electrical wiring on a nearby boat might have been responsible for electrocuting the boys, and having 27 people on a 34 foot boat might have led to the deaths in Long Island. I own a 34 foot sailboat with a 5000 pound keel (much harder to capsize than the one that sank) and I get sick just imagining packing 27 adults and children onto it, no matter the conditions.No one enjoys stodgy rules, fretful finger-wagging or government intrusion where our or our children’s play is concerned. Trial lawyers (full disclosure: I was one) are blamed for the litigious culture we live in where no one will allow sledding on their hill, or tubing on their pond, for fear of being sued. Those sentiments are understandable.  But there are hills too close to highways and ponds with deceiving depths with owners unconcerned and children too young to assume risk themselves. Litigation and regulation aren’t a cure-all, but they have made a difference.Not every kid is killed when caution is thrown to the wind. In fact, most aren’t. But when they are, the echo of that death rings forever in the lives of that child's family. It’s an echo that should not be drowned out by quaint but oversimplified sentimentality.

Central Mountain High School, Heal Thyself

The most frightening moment in my life as a prosecutor was not the moment I met a mother who couldn’t accept that her husband or boyfriend had grievously harmed her child. The most frightening moment was when I realized I’d met a mother who knew her boyfriend had viciously harmed her infant, shaking him within minutes of death, but really didn’t care.I think of that dark revelation often. I think about a NYPD Special Victims detective and I confronting her with the medical evidence and his confession, and her basically flipping us both off and walking away, even as her child lay in a neurological ICU at the edge of oblivion. The perp was a drug dealer. She was living large. The baby had pissed him off. C’est la vie.So I think of Central Mountain High School, where the young man known graciously only as “Victim 1” in the Sandusky case was forced to relocate because of bullying.Read that again. He was pushed out of CMHS by peers and their parents, furious at him for being unlucky enough to be part of an investigation that exposed a monster in the very community the bullies and their bullying parents came from.I try to stay even in this space and avoid looking for shock value. But some things are shocking enough on their own. Victim 1 was tortured, picked on and driven from the school he called home because he’d been victimized by a man far too many people thought was godlike and in any event untouchable.Some- maybe even most- of the people who bullied, isolated and rejected him because of his misfortune simply believed Sandusky to be the paragon of virtue that he seemed. Those people can be forgiven, as even the PSU leadership can be forgiven- to an extent- because they weren’t armed with the knowledge I have of predatory behavior and the ability of sex offenders to get over on entire communities for decades.But some, I fear very deep in an already troubled heart, really just didn’t give a damn. Sara Ganim, the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who broke the case, reports plainly and accurately how Sandusky was viewed at CMHS and other places in Centre County. He was a superstar. He graced the schools he visited or worked at with his presence. So to some, it didn’t matter what he did.For some, the first reaction might have been to believe what most believe, which is that celebrity, talent and acclaim always coexist with character and benevolence. Perhaps that eventually gave way to reality. But for others, even when clear signs emerged, when damning things became apparent, some miserable instinct kicked in which blocked the truth like drapes do sunlight and then hunkered down, wanting the spoils of attention and patronage, willing to reject anything threatening it.Victim 1 reluctantly came forward- and was ostracized- three years before Sandusky was formally charged. He endured rumors, stares, threats and whispers, but he remained quiet as investigators requested. Then, when charges were actually filed late last year, he was freshly and mercilessly bullied until he finally succumbed and left.Some who bullied him were ignorant, their ignorance fueled by the long shadow of Penn State football and its sad, institutionally blinding effect on their environment. That’s bad. But some internalized the accusations, felt the reality of their validity sinking like a blade, but then rejected them altogether. That’s worse.I’ve been told, in preparation for this post, that it’s unfair to focus on Central Mountain High School for an accusation of ignorance or worse, when it’s really Penn State University itself that should be called out where willful blindness is concerned.True, but in my mind, CMHS is where the future lies, and thus where hope lies. In the wake of Sandusky, the school has a chance to move forward molding its students differently than the ones who came before, too many of them worshiping the blue and white at all costs. That kind of worship simply can’t be. There’s too much at stake. If we don’t know that now, God help us, because we never will.

Matt Sandusky's "Delayed Report" and What it Really Means

After many years in this business, it was a brilliant young Army JAG who showed me an entirely different way of viewing the "delayed report" we almost always see in sexual violence cases."When you consider that most victims never report at all," she said, reasoning this out beautifully at a training we were conducting together, "then delaying is actually natural. What's unusual is when a victim is actually compelled to report, almost always after some time passes. That's usually because something triggers it, right?""Correct," I said, knowing that disclosure is a process, and one usually triggered, exactly as she put it, by any number of stressors or circumstances."So we should be calling them triggered reports, not delayed reports."Bingo, Captain. I could not have said it better. And I didn't. She did.The national lexicon on this subject, to the extent it's been expanded sadly but usefully by Sandusky, should lead the courts into the 21st century as well. Delay in reporting any sexual violence case is more than common- it's all but assured in most cases. Exceptions are the horrific but much rarer cases of stranger rape, the traditionally viewed crime that systems take to take much more seriously and that we hold victims the least responsible for. For those reasons among others, victims of stranger rape- an attack in parking garage by a masked assailant, for instance- are usually reported immediately. Many people equate an immediate cry for help with proof that a crime occurred rather than some sexual encounter now regretted.  But in stranger cases, the prosecution usually has that anyway- the circumstances almost always suggest that no consent occurred.Vastly more common are sexual violence cases where perpetrator and victim know one another, whether for a matter of hours in a bar or for years in a trusted, familial or mentoring relationship. It's these cases that produce the urge not to cry for help (in both children and adults) but instead to turn inward in order to process so much more. Why did this happen? How much of it was my fault? Is it really abuse/was it really rape anyway? Who would believe me? What will happen to my family, my life if I tell anyone?The questions go on. And on. The perpetrators, like Sandusky, know exactly how this process will play out. They know that in most cases, whether the victim is a child or an adult, the calculus will work in their favor. The victim will tell no one, let alone the police.  There's too much shame associated with what happened. Too much self-blame. Too much continued fear.  Too deep a feeling of helplessness. This is changing as awareness of the dynamics of victimization increases. But slowly.In Pennsylvania, a jury instruction must still be read to jurors (and was in Sandusky) that allows them to potentially discount the validity of "certain sexual offenses" because an ordinary person would be expected make a prompt complaint. Where this antiquated logic came from is no mystery. What's mysterious is that Pennsylvania continues to tolerate an instruction for its jurors that lacks even a passing acquaintance with reality.I don't know what exactly triggered in Matt Sandusky the decision to reveal the fact of his abuse to investigators during the trial itself. But I am confident that a triggered and valid report is what it was. He was, for a time, included in a circle of witnesses expected to testify on Sandusky's behalf. Maybe that constituted a final burden that the man could simply not bear, after silently bearing so much for so long.Few places are lonelier than the heart of a survivor living with sexual abuse, or having been the victim of a sexual attack, who feels he or she can't reveal it. The struggle is titanic, and usually the decision is made to simply bear the abuse and move on. Again, this is changing, but slowly. And survivors who decide to remain silent are blameless for it and should never be judged. But when a trigger finally does compel a survivor to speak out, the mere fact of a delay in the interim should not cast doubt on it.

Three Prayers for Happy Valley

It’s well past midnight and the verdict on Jerry Sandusky is in. Following it closely for weeks has affected me in old ways that seem remarkably new again. So with fatigue and vodka-loosened fingers, I write.St. Mary’s is a beautiful, 200 year-old stone church on a quaint block in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, the tobacco and slave port city I came of age in as a trial lawyer. It stands on Royal Street, about a five minute walk from the red brick courthouse where I first prosecuted child abuse cases.I prayed to her, at that church, after every child abuse case I litigated successfully. After, not before. And for the cases I won, not those I lost.There is no feeling like winning a trial; any lawyer will tell you that. But in criminal trials, especially special victims cases, the misery that’s been endured by literally everyone in earshot of the proceedings does and should mute whatever joy there is in “winning.”I was good at what I did, and I won some. I also lost some. But when I lost, as long as I felt I’d been true, protective and faithful to the victims, and forthright and honest with the defense and the court, I was okay. It was painful sometimes; deeply so. But when I knew I had done my job right, for my office, my community and the lives I touched in the process, I felt fine.The victories, believe it or not, were harder. In them, I had gotten what I wanted, and I spoke for the government. I can honestly and happily say I never prosecuted a person I was not satisfied was guilty.Regardless, it was after the victories that I felt most in need of whatever prayer might yield.  So after I won, there were three that I offered.The first was for the fact that, indeed, I was correct about the guilt of the person I had just hammered home to a jury with every skill I could bring forth. No prosecutor with a conscience fears anything the way he or she fears convicting an innocent person.The second was for the survivors I had worked with, their families, and their futures. Lives are broken by crime and they are not put back together by criminal litigation. Another great sadness for me was the moment I realized there was nothing more I could do for them. I graciously accepted their thanks. I thanked them for their courage. I was assisted by wonderful victim-witness staff in both offices I worked. They picked up the ball where I had to leave it, and began the much harder work of repairing the lives I had merely brushed.The third was for the guy I’d just worked to convict. And I prosecuted some truly frightening and utterly evil people. But if there is a God who makes a difference, and if I was going to call myself Christian in any way, then denying prayers to those souls made little sense to me. I wanted them in jail and I was happy I’d helped put them there. But in Virginia especially- and shamefully- I fed defendants convicted of sex crimes into a correctional system that virtually guaranteed they’d be brutalized and mistreated. It’s considered poetic justice. It’s considered just desserts. It’s also not legal and therefore, to someone in my line of work, it’s anathema.  Incarceration should be monastic and unpleasant. It shouldn’t involve the horrors it’s known for because of our unwillingness or inability to put our money where our mouths are with regard to the most important thing we do as a society- put people in cages.I don’t know where the prayers went. I suppose the exercise is intended as much for the effort as it is for the request anyway. In any event, I sent them up, returned to my feet, and walked back to what was next. But a piece of me stayed behind, every time. So it is with everyone involved- everyone- in Happy Valley.In the name of the father. And the son. And the holy spirit.Amen.

The Histrionic Personality Disorder Defense: Here's How it Succeeds

It just might work.After a week of devastating testimony- graphic, compelling accounts from eight victims, plus eye-witness observations regarding two others, it seems the prosecution team has proven its case. McGattigan and team prepared their witnesses extremely well, and above all the victims themselves performed brilliantly and bravely, holding up well under cross-examination.But a courtroom is a closed universe, and Joseph Amendola has not earned his reputation as a trial lawyer without being dogged, creative, and resourceful. In my view, he’s conceived of a defense that might find purchase: Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD).The personality disorders (known as Axis II disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM) are probably best described as ways of navigating the world- over the lifespan- that create objectively and recognizably negative consequences for the sufferer. I lack a psychology background, but I dealt with Axis II disorders when prosecuting civil management cases in New York and seeking to steer convicted offenders into mental health treatment.The disorder Sandusky’s team claims he has is one that involves symptoms that dovetail well with what he cannot deny. He has to explain the letters he wrote, described by victims as creepy, clingy and desperate. He can’t deny close quarters showering with boys or excessive hands-on touching of them either; these things are well documented and Sandusky admits to some of them. The right defense expert could reasonably describe these acts as attributable to HPD.  It is usually but not exclusively diagnosed in women. It involves things like acting seductively in inappropriate situations, believing relationships to be more intimate then they actually are, having a desperate need for affection, and a failure to accept emotional separation.Psychologists consulted on the defense last week understandably fail to see its relevance to child sex abuse. But they’re thinking psychologically. Amendola and co-counsel Karl Rominger are thinking legally and strategically.So here it is: Build a defense around what could be a kernel of truth (that Sandusky is mentally ill in some way), useful to explain everything short of the criminal acts the victims recounted. The defense must still explain McQueary’s and the custodian’s observations, but let’s say for a moment they can can convince the jury that both observers were sincere but possibly mistaken.Then we’re left with the testimony of the victims, which Amendola told them is untrue. It seems difficult to believe that 8 men, one after the other in grueling succession, would fabricate such horrifying details. But what if the defense doesn’t ask the jury to disregard everything the victims said- just most of it? What if they offer evidence that Sandusky was deeply troubled, just not a sex offender? Then, doubt gets easier to plant. With evidence of HPD, the defense gives the jurors wiggle room with how to view victim testimony. They can go as far to as to say “look, in a way, these boys were mistreated by Jerry. He was ill, and he probably did unintentionally cause them some harm.”But then the kicker: “But ladies and gentlemen, tragically, this is what empowers them to now to collude with each other and grossly embellish the things Jerry did, with lies about how it become sexual.”This defense doesn’t require a complete repudiation of the victims as sympathetic figures- something very important after such heart-breaking testimony. First, Amendola has already hinted at their “troubled” nature as Second Mile kids to suggest why they are willing to lie about such a serious subject. Second, the defense can still frame the boys as “victims,” just not ones of sexual abuse.“Indeed, they are victims. They were first victims of life. Then of Jerry, because of a mental illness that led him to treat them too lovingly, too emotionally, too paternally. Now, they are victims of a system that has tempted them to lie, whether it be for financial gain, or simply to strike back at a man who perhaps did unwittingly hurt them. But make no mistake- he didn’t hurt them in the way you’ve heard. Jerry Sundusky is a victim as well. He was then, of an illness. He is now, of this prosecution.”It’s going to be interesting.

Clinging to My Religion: Why, For Now, I Remain a Catholic

I was confirmed a Roman Catholic in 1980, at the high school I would graduate from 5 years later (my parish’s church was still under construction). But spiritually, I re-confirmed at 28 because of how I experienced Catholicism in the Frontera, the border area southeast of Nogales, Arizona, in the months following law school graduation in 1995.For a variety of reasons, I wasn’t ready to sit for a bar exam. A boyhood friend knew I wanted to learn Spanish as part of my dream of being a prosecutor.  His wife had family in the tiny village of San Lazaro, about 35 miles (a three hour drive on execrable dirt roads) from the chaotic, dusty crossing at Nogales. Through Juanita, his angel of a wife, the family invited me to live with them. It was that simple. No time limit, no money required, not even a promise to help with chores or work, which of course I eagerly did anyway. But they took me in, sight unseen, gave me my own room in a four room house, and made me a part of their family. I immersed myself there for five months, stretching the limits of my ability to communicate on beautiful, high-desert evenings after dinner, sitting on the hoods of cars, passing around homemade tequila and Mexican cigarettes. When the sun sank and the stars came out, they explained the constellations to me, named there for the saints and not the gods. One forms, in their eyes, La Virgin, or the Virgin Mary; a gentle, sloping arc of stars forming a veiled, feminine head. As the earth turns, she arcs slowly sideways until “she goes to bed.” Se acosta.Not all of them practiced religion; men tended to go to misa far less than women and children, although I went most weekends when our priest could make it into town in a Dodge 4x4. I enjoyed the mass in the language better suited for it, but it was the way they lived, both cheerfully and charitably although they had precious little to give, that re-confirmed me. On el dia de los muertos,  the Mexican Day of the Dead, I loaded old women and children into my truck for a day at the local cemetery, lovingly decorating the graves of family and friends. They didn’t fear death; there was no reason to fear it.I was warned against picking up hitchhikers, but I did it constantly in the Suzuki Samurai I’d driven from Chapel Hill to this dry new place. Frontera Mexicans get around that way. I picked up mostly families, making their way to visit relatives or do business at a fiesta. I never had a negative experience.I also began to notice the dozens of tiny, beautiful structures set along the dirt tracks between the villages: Santitos. Usually encasing a small statue of La Virgin, the santito is a miniature house-like structure. People place them along roads for reasons I never fully understood. Raphael, the village patriarch who viewed me as his son, told me simply “they are there for the travelers on the road,” as if this was obvious.So I re-confirmed, because I found in Mexico a simple, joyous, childlike faith. A faith that kept these remarkable, generous people in awe of the immensity of God, but close enough to stain His garments with their tears. A faith unpolluted by geopolitics and financial gigantism. A faith yet unhardened by the abuse crisis that has, in the fair words of Maureen Dowd, made the Church cruel.That is the Church I re-confirmed in; the one I cling to. I cling because it has not been easy to hold on, no matter how strong a bond I still have to that simpler time and that happier, purer Love. A career in child abuse and the travel limitations of narcoterrorism now separate me from San Lazaro. I don’t know when I’ll see it again.What I see instead are Church leaders fighting to block efforts to extend the statute of limitations in child abuse cases in several states because of rank, financial interest. Justice, wholeness, peace of mind and vindication be damned for untold thousands who lost their innocence and so much more at the hands of an institution unwittingly but chronically in evil service to a small but remarkably damaging and prolific group of offenders. It’s just the latest kick to my spiritual gut, the latest miserable exhortation from the mouths of men who sound far more like the lawyer I am than the spiritual guides they are supposed to be.And yet, for now, I hold on. And I remember the quiet holiness of an old woman blessing me with a prayer and an enchilada. Of a child offering me the painted crucifix he would place on his Tata’s grave. Of crossing myself in unison with a group of browned, smiling men in sweat-stained clothes bouncing in a pickup, in tribute to the Lady praying for us as we passed.

Spanier's Humanity Adds to the Black Parade of Failure in Happy Valley

Were it not so tragic, it would be a riveting study in almost complete systemic failure. The Penn State tragedy- and yes, it should be called the Penn State tragedy- continues to reveal example after miserable example of professionals charged with maintaining safe environments and/or responding to danger within them, utterly failing to do the right thing. Almost every single time, and over 15 years.While many label Mike McQueary a particularly key failure for not physically intervening when he saw Sandusky raping a child, I don’t even count him. What McQueary saw constituted a traumatic event. While every decent person wishes he had done more for the boy being victimized, McQueary reacted the way far more of us would than we might admit or even suspect. Ultimately, he did what he needed to do and went directly to the top of the empire that is Penn State. That godlike figure did the bare minimum required of him and washed his hands of it. I never bought Paterno’s explanation that amounted to ‘I’m an old fashioned guy who couldn’t imagine the rape of a boy by a man.’ Paterno was anything but naive and navigated the very adult world of a multi-billion dollar industry for decades. He made the choice to punt what he was told to “superiors” who were anything but superior to him. Those two, AD Curley and VP Schultz, apparently sanitized what was actually said to them by McQueary, and further stocked a minefield for Happy Valley boys by imposing an unenforceable ban on Sandusky with regard to PSU facilities.Former Penn State President Graham Spanier signed off on this deal with the devil, and now, it appears, also agreed with Curley and Schultz that the “humane” thing to do with regard to Sandusky was to not alert authorities to what they knew. Whether this was blind and misplaced loyalty, a deeply cynical bargain to protect the Brand, or something in between, the decision of these sophisticated and highly educated men doomed far more than we’ll ever know.But even that cold and feckless response was bookended by stunning sets of failures, beginning (as far as we know) when Victim 6 returned home in 1998 and informed his mother that he’d been made to shower with Sandusky. When PSU police were alerted, a sting was set up and a detective actually listened to Sandusky acknowledging showering with the boy, not denying touching his genitals, and admitting it was wrong. Then, two psychologists interviewed the victim, one concluding that Sandusky’s behavior was classic grooming and the other (with some of the most dubious reasoning I’ve ever encountered) concluding the opposite. But somehow within the response and follow-up, the report crediting the child’s account never reached the case worker, and perhaps the DA as well.Around 2007 Victim 1 was stalked by Sandusky, this time at Central Mountain High School where Sandusky was a volunteer coach, apparently with the run of the place. Vice Principal Steve Turchetta, it appears, had his suspicions about Sandusky but they were never enough to keep Turchetta from dutifully, and without the knowledge of the boy’s mother, calling him out of class for private meetings with the coach. The  boy finally broke down and disclosed to Karen Probst, the school principal, who alerted his mother. According to her, Probst advised that she “think about" the gravity of the allegations before deciding whether to report them further.  This after listening to a broken, desperate boy disclose a nightmare. But I suppose there was brutal logic behind Probst’s subtle warning: Sandusky was untouchable. Victim 1 was merely the latest in a long line destined to discover how much.We know of 10 victims. With a career of study and professional experience, I’d bet a fortune there are far more. No system is perfect, and different systems with varying responsibilities made decisions with regard to Sandusky.  Regardless, within them it was the choices of professionals- not children or untrained bystanders- but educators, law enforcement and child protection professionals, that dropped the ball and thereby shielded Sandusky for years. Whether or not he is convicted now, it is those systems he thrived in that need to be put in his seat next.

For the Sandusky Prosecutors: Five Quick Tips

The lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, Senior Deputy AG Joseph E. McGettigan, probably doesn't need my help. He began his career at the Philadelphia DA's office around the time I turned 15, and he's done and seen it all. But if he's as good as his reputation, then he's probably the type who never treats the opinion of a fellow professional as beneath him.  The good ones, like the legendary Dan McCarthy I wrote about a few months ago, are never too egotistical to listen.My hope is that McGattigan's team stays focused on five basic tasks that often make the difference in child sex cases:1. Have a theme, and weave it through the entire case. This, they are doing well so far. A theme in a criminal case is a psychological anchor that you want the jury to be repeating- literally- in deliberations. It's a phrase, a quote (often from a victim) that captures in essence the wrongness of what was done. It needs to be woven into every aspect of the trial where it can be uttered; voir dire, opening, direct examinations, and closing argument.2. Craft direct examinations of the victims to recreate the reality of the crime. Crafting a direct means much more than writing out the questions and prepping based on them. It's taking victims through sensory detail- smells, sounds, physical sensations- that drives home the reality so that jurors won't gloss over it or accept defense arguments that it was concocted.  This works only when victims are treated with dignity, support and compassion. Thankfully, it's also the right thing to do.3. Appeal to common sense and fight myths.  The defense's strategy is to appeal to oft-cited but baseless myths. They'll suggest Mike McQueary didn't see a child being raped because he didn't intervene. But the idea that even most of us would intervene in a situation like that is preposterous. It's tempting to say "I would have beaten Sandusky and saved the boy," but the fact is none of us know how we'll react until we face a traumatic event. Ask any combat veteran.They'll suggest the kids McQueary and the custodian before him saw being raped don't exist because they haven't come forward. Nonsense- very few child victims ever report, and if the children in question are aware of the case and haven't come forward, it's for common sense reasons. They'll suggest the victims are lying for a civil payoff or because they are "troubled." Garbage. "Troubled" is why Sandusky targeted them through Second Mile- they were less likely to report or be believed.  The idea that its typical for individuals to falsify allegations and endure the the process of criminal litigation for money or spite is baseless.  It almost never happens, least of all in male on male cases. Finally, to suggest that three high ranking officials at PSU would never have acted as they did when facing allegations that threaten the football program is laughable.4. Corroboration.  This is not a "he said-she said" case; indeed, any good sex crimes prosecutor knows there is no such thing. As a mentor Victor Vieth taught me years ago, there is always corroboration if investigators and prosecutors are willing to think creatively and then dig for it. Witness' memories- when the witnesses are handled correctly- are goldmines of information that can be independently verified. In any event, victims are carrying enough of a burden during the litigation process. No case should rest solely on the testimony of a victim; this is unnecessary and the sign of a sloppy, lazy prosecution.5. Point. While I wish I could say I learned this on the job, I read it in Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent long before I had a law degree. In it, Turow's protagonist describes a whiskey-breathing, grizzled vet of an ADA who suggested it to him. I never failed to implement it. Point at the defendant when you make your opening statement and your closing argument. Point at him, look him in the eye, and approach as far as the judge will allow. "If you don't have the courage to point, you can't expect them to have the courage to convict."Godspeed, Mr. McGattigan and team.

"That's My Boy?" Sandler, Covert: What Were You Thinking?

Allen Covert is an old friend of Adam Sandler’s, appears in many of his movies (I loved him in “The Wedding Singer”) and co-produces “That’s My Boy,” Sandler’s latest. Covert is also an outspoken conservative and “family values” promoter. So how he or Sandler thought this was a great idea makes zero sense to me.Sandler plays a rape victim whose rapist became pregnant with a son he now reconnects with, first for cynical and later sentimental reasons. It’s that twist, of course, Sandler’s tender shtick, that supposedly excuses this abominable idea.  And I’m sure most will see a harmless plot driven by a snarky, devil-may-care 13 year-old who impregnates his sexy teacher.It isn’t. It’s child rape.But the victim is a boy and the abuser an attractive, white woman, so who cares? Bring up the crimes of Mary Kay Letourneau or Debra LaFave, and you’ll likely get eye-rolling, then air quotes around the word “crimes.”  Their victims, many believe, are really the luckiest boys on earth, fast-tracked James Bond’s with the world on a string. The 80’s saw a few awful movies with similar themes. But to my memory, the boys were around 16. Sandler’s character is 13. Older boys can and do suffer just as much from rape by women. But younger ones almost always fare far worse.Vili Fualaau, a victim I wouldn’t name except that he’s living his life story publicly, was 13 when he was first raped by Letourneau, a relentless predator who never stopped hunting him. He is now a 26 year-old high school dropout, convicted of DUI, and a survivor of a suicide attempt. The only success he seems to have found is in capitalizing on his victimization (with Letourneau) at promoted events in bars for a few bucks.The victim of LaFave, according to the testimony of his sister, remains in psychiatric care still devastated from the rape he endured. LaFave was released years early from probation by a judge who joked with her while compromising both the punishment and treatment she earned when she destroyed the boy she victimized.What we call “compliant” victims of child sexual abuse are remarkably common, especially in adolescence. The older the child, the more society blames the child for at least knowing the score, if not outright luring or asking for the abuse. Predators know and rely on this. Female “tweens” and teens are certainly judged, shunned and blamed for their own victimization by adult males, as almost all adult victims are. But a boy, unless the perpetrator is a male, must celebrate his abuse, and at the expense of far more than just looking like some mysteriously disgruntled lottery winner.Sandler’s character as a boy is shown smirking and proudly high-fiving classmates when his rapist appears in court pregnant. The message sent to boys are who are similarly victimized is clear: You’d better react the same way, or you’re not a man.  You’re a loser, and the affections of a “real woman” were wasted on you. But alas, in reality when guilt, shame, fear and confusion surface due to a clearly pathological relationship, the boy is utterly alone. No one- absolutely no one- will understand if he dares voice any disturbance. Instead they’ll smirk. They’ll joke about how it should have been them. They’ll wonder aloud what else isn’t quite right with him. And so on.I am highly unpopular, generally, with men’s rights groups familiar with me. But this is one area where I find some common ground with them. Adolescent female victims of men are commonly mistreated and unfairly blamed when they report. But boys victimized by women had better not report at all. Or else. But if the abuse is discovered and the woman prosecuted, she is usually under-punished if at all.The fact that Sandler’s adult character is a failure could presumably be called instructive, and act in defense of trivializing something tragic and evil. But that’s a sorry argument. Clear enough from the trailer is that the character, while a loveable loser, is still happy-go-lucky and serendipitous, not alone, desperate and suffering. Child rape as humor promotes nothing redeeming, despite the Sandler soft-touch. It’s garishly misplaced as such.