|
 |
REVIEWS
From Publishers Weekly:
Wall Street Journal
editorialist Rabinowitz has collected her stories on false accusations
of sex crimes into one harrowing account of failed justice. Though
readers may be familiar with the court cases she details, which took
place in the 80s and 90s, coming upon them all together is nonetheless
chilling. Rabinowitz devotes the most attention to the Amiraults, a
woman and her two grown children who ran a successful preschool in
Malden, Mass., and who were all sent to jail on charges of child sex
abuse. No scientific or physical evidence linked them to the crimes;
rather, the courts relied on the testimony of children who appeared on
the stand after lengthy coaching sessions in which counselors had used
anatomically correct dolls and leading questions to encourage them to
accuse their teachers. At times the author's careful documentation begs
for interpretation. Why, for instance, did the public buy the
increasingly bizarre accusations of teachers tying naked children to
trees in the schoolyard, or of anal penetration with knives that left
no physical mark? Rabinowitz leaves such speculation to others. But she
presents her cases expertly-so well that her stories helped reverse the
convictions of five people, which in turn helped her win the 2001
Pulitzer Prize for commentary. She writes clearly and for the most part
resists melodrama, letting the facts speak eloquently for themselves. |
Excerpts from a
review by Greg Goebel ("regular person") at Amazon:
The
cases raised against the accused were almost beyond belief, and the
fact that juries actually convicted them was even harder to believe.
"Expert
witnesses" claimed that if children said "NO" when they were asked if
they had been abused, it was a sign they had and that they had to be
(sometimes relentlessly)
pushed and prodded until they said "YES". Of course, once they had said
"YES", then it was obviously the indisputable truth. Of course, child
behavior such as bed-wetting, fussiness over certain foods, and sulky
periods were obvious signs of abuse.
It
comes as a shock, a useful one, to realize that the law is just as
subject to the influence of incompetence as any other human activity,
and that accusations played up in the newspapers should be taken
with a grain of salt.
This
does also lead to the discouraging realization that the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty" is not natural to people, and in fact
many people don't understand that it is, at least in principle, the law
of the land. The silver lining is that, in spite of the pressures
against it, "innocent until proven guilty" was actually established and
survived, as a fundamental legal principle. Sense seems to outweigh
stupidity over the long run for the simple reason that stupidity
doesn't work.
|