Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment: Prosecution following expulsion

Abstract

IN THE DEBATE over the relative efficacies of pretrial and postadjudication diversion of intrafamilial child sexual abuse offenders (see e.g., American Bar Association, 1982; Bulkley, 1982; Burgess, Holmstrom, & McCausland, 1978; Fisse, 1984; Giarretto, 1976; MacFarlane & Bulkley, 1982), concern is expressed regarding whether the state will be successful in prosecuting defendants who fail to comply with the diversion agreement. The American Bar Association’s National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection surveyed prosecuting attorneys throughout the United States regarding prosecutorial practices and policies as they relate to child sexual abuse cases (American Bar Association, 198 1). Two-thirds of the responding jurisdictions report they do not utilize pretrial diversion. One of the reasons cited for nonutilization was concern over the state’s inability to go forward with prosecution in cases where the offender is terminated from treatment for noncompliance with the terms of diversion. One respondent reasoned that an offender failing in a program is probably trying to convince the victim and nonoffending spouse that he is being treated harshly or unfairly. If he successfully gains their sympathy, the child and nonoffending spouse may refuse to testify against him in subsequent criminal justice proceedings. Even without effort on the part of the offender, potential witnesses may become aligned with the abuser-ironically, because of the ability of the treatment program to bring the family closer. The possible effect again is the loss of witness testimony in efforts to resume prosecution. Also, as with any criminal case, a delay in prosecution (such as that effected by a diversion