OFFENDERS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY REALLY DID. EVEN IF YOU GET INFO ON WHAT HE DID -OFFENDERS MINIMIZE DISTORT, BLAME OTHERS, RATIONALIZE AND LIE. HERE ARE SOME OF THE WAYS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE VICTIM SAID HAPPENED AND WHAT HE SAYS IS THE DENIAL.
IF HE DOES NOT DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT THE VICTIM SAID, RUN- HE IS NOT AN HONEST PERSON.
COMPLETE DENIAL
Call on his Reputation (Complete denial) the offender will claim and have others claim for that he is a “good man” and could not have committed sexual abuse. He and others will say he is a pillar of the community, a devoted family man, military veteran, taxpaying citizen, and a church leader, has had no prior allegations of sexual deviance, and has had no prior arrests. The reality is that all those things have nothing to do with whether a person is an offender. Persons have offended and had those positive qualities. Community reputation is an immaterial issue offenders will bring up in an attempt to obscure the relevant facts of the abuse. Offenders may say- “I’m simply not that kind of person, I am a respected , successful man, and it’s impossible that I could commit an offense like your describing”, “Are you trying to say a man with my reputation could do something like this?, do you don’t know who I am?, I’m going to bring in the character letters to show you, ” “Do you know what I have done for this community, the children that I have saved, and you want me to sit here and admit to this hurtful…sickness?”
Others “retaliated” by claiming abuse (Complete denial) This type of denial is where the offender may try to discredit the victim by calling the victim a liar or vindictive. He states the charges against him are some persons or group of person’s method of getting back at him. Offenders may say- “ I was only being a responsible parent who was enforcing discipline, and now she says this to hurt me, she was looking to strike back, and now she did, apparently she’s fooling you too”, “The police are out to get me, they couldn’t get my brother during his years of stuff , so they made this up about me, I guess you don’t know how the police are,” “The victim hates me, because I choose her girlfriend instead of her, and this is payback, you don’t know these young girls are today, but I guess that better for you, look at the position I’m in, just for turning a girl down”, “The Victim's mother did this to get even, because her and my uncle had a problem way back, this is crazy I know, but you don’t know how this town works”
I'm too good to people. (Complete denial) In this case offenders will portray themselves as too helpful for their own good, and that they never committed any offense. Offenders may say- “I’m in trouble because they saw me coming, they should be here as they are the criminals”, “I’m just too darn friendly sometimes, and these people from the city took advantage of me”, “you ever heard no good deed goes unpunished?”, “I got involved with the wrong people, I never touched anyone, but I guess you’ll believe this nonsense too”
Incompetence by others(Complete denial) For this the offender will claim police, prosecution, public “pretender”, lawyer or some professional involved is incompetent and caused this “injustice”. Offenders may say- “These stupid police have the wrong person, but you know they are clueless and they can’t admit a mistake” , “This is all my so called lawyers fault, he was totally unprepared, this case had nothing, he didn’t do his job, and now you want me to say I’m guilty?, no, I don’t think so” , “You may not know as much as I do about what going on right now, I know how bad this DA wants arrests, she just pushes these through because it helps her win the election, I’m a victim of this political system”
Racial Prejudice by others-(Complete denial) for this denial the offender will attack the motives of police, victim, victim’s mother, witness, ECT as racist. The offender will claim that others are acting out of racial prejudice and they cannot be trusted. The offender in this situation is not only wrong about these others motives, he is also projecting his own hatred of whites, blacks, Hispanics ECT onto others. If listened for very carefully, you may hear him put responsibility for his and others antisocial behavior (not just sexual) onto what members of other groups may have done. Offenders may say- “That cop was black and the prostitute was black, the prostitute said I raped her, the black cop had to take her word, you know how those people are”, “I’m Hispanic, of course the family is going to push her to say I raped her, they’re rich white people, they can’t have their daughter with me, they won’t stand for that, you know this”, “ I’m here because the system is incapable of giving a black man a real trial”, “ I can understand how as a white person you are in denial about the racial issues going on in our country, that’s OK its not your fault, you only know what you are taught, I know where your at now”, “The problem is this is just like my trial, The decision already been made before it even started, I’m innocent but I just keep getting screwed on this case, now you want me to admit something I didn’t do just because of some racist cops”
Homophobic prejudice by others-(Complete denial) for this denial the offender will attack the motives of police act as motivated by homophobia and they cannot be trusted. Offenders may say- “I’m gay, so of course their going to do what they have to in order to get me in jail, I guess your naïve to entrapment, you should learn about what cops really do, I can’t believe you don’t know this stuff already”, “those cops hate gays so much they spend our tax money trying to figure out how to put us in jail, their too stupid to go after real crimes, so they make this stuff up”.
Appeal Process Denial(a form of complete denial) An offender will incorrectly think he can deny his offense until his appeal process is complete, thinking that despite taking a plea or being convicted he is not guilty until he says he is guilty or runs out of appeals. This type of denial is especially control seeking (like an offense!). Offenders may say- “because I have appeal in the courts this is an open case again, and I can’t talk about it until after my appeal”, “This is all BS, when my appeal comes back you’ll see, but relax until then, we can wait.”
I plead guilty, but I’m not guilty (Complete denial) In this denial offenders take back their admission of the offense to attempt to avoid responsibility Offenders may say “I gave a plea of no contest to avoid civil liability” “I plead guilty because I did not want to put my family through the trauma of testifying” “I plead guilty because I had no money to defend myself”
Attack the victim’s sexuality -this time publicly- (complete denial) for this denial the offender may bring out victims past sexual behaviors or make them up. Sexual history is brought up to imply that she should not be seen as a reliable woman because she had X partners, or that what he did was not so damaging as his victim was not a “good” person and what he took was not so valuable. What the offender is playing off is the fact that many in society share his misperception, and offenders may try to raise support from similar thinking persons. The offender and his supporter’s opinion of a “bad female” is a female who chooses not to limit her sexual behavior to what the offender and supporters feel is a reasonable number of sexual partners. The offender and supporters of course never ask themselves why they would be in a position to set the standards that others must live by, particularly persons who are hurting no one. In reality the victim being a nun or a prostitute does not in any way raise or diminished the damage caused by sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is not a form of sexuality for the victim; it is a form of abuse. Whether the victim had 100,000 sexual partners or none is always irrelevant, except through the eyes of offenders, those who dislike women, and especially those who have issues with women’s sexual freedom. These groups of course overlap and they usually share paternalistic, misogynistic, and religiously conservative opinions. Persons who feel this way also include males with more liberal social views but concerned of their own sexual abilities and consciously or innocuously hate the modern woman’s ability to evaluate a man’s sexual performance. Interestingly some females can have a real hatred of women who are more promiscuous than they are. These more “traditional” women may create the distortion that these “highly sexualized” women are not playing by the rules and are a threat to their marriage, relationship or family. More “traditional” women will go so far as to feel these sexually promiscuous women are responsible for their husbands or sons sexual offenses. Offenders (and others) may say- “Why don’t you find out how many boy’s she has been with, then you’ll understand this case, right now you’re missing the point”, “She a harlot, and she ruined another one of this communities son’s, but you don’t seem to care, ”, “ She was younger than him, but so experienced, and the law does not account for these situations, It’s just another injustice we have to deal with”, “I don’t understand the reaction, she’s been giving it away all over town , and the court is calling this rape”
Physical limitations imply inability (a form of complete denial) to use these denial offenders will bring up their sexual dysfunction, age, diabetes or other issues that are related to their inability to achieve or maintain erections. Of course an erection or even a penis is not necessary for sexual abuse to occur. Offenders may say- “I had prostate surgery so it's physically impossible for me to have molested her, which you do not seem to understand” “At my age its impossible for me to get a erection, so how can this whole thing have gone this far”, “I can’t even get it up, now you want to say I’m a molester, maybe you need to go back to school young man”
PARTIAL DENIAL OF THIER OFFENSE
Deny some of the behaviors but admit some - (Partial denial) the offender in this instance will admit some of his actions in order to gain credibility in his denials of others. Offenders may say-“I just touched her once or twice and she didn't mind, don’t believe that bullshit in that report, I’m going to sue them good”, “I did not show her my penis, I only asked her if she wanted to see it, the rest of that is nonsense” “I was touching myself in front of her, I admit that, but I kept it in my pants, she’s a liar, but she was put up to lying”
Denial of true extent of abuse, but admit some abuse (Partial denial) these offenders may admit to some of the offences but assert they did not offend as intrusively as they actually did. Offenders may say-“I only touched her, stop saying I put my finger in her, you were not there you can’t say I did that”, “Listen, for the last time, I admit I rubbed his penis, I have nothing to hide, I’m being honest, I did not sodomize him”, “I admit I did take off her clothes and have her masturbate me, but I did not put anything inside her, do you understand now, I never did that, they just said I did”.
Minimize frequency of the acts -( Partial denial) The offender will misstate of how many times the abuse occurred, giving a number of offences less then what occurred. The offender may become angry when the victims account is recognized as reality. This is common with offenders who offend the same victim over a long period of time. Offenders may say “three, maybe even four times, more than that , no way, I swear” “It only happened one time, that’s it” , “I don’t know why that kid made that number up, probably the DA got to him, that DA does that to guys”
Denial harm to victim - (Partial denial) mainly this distortion is about the extent of harm. Offenders will deny the true extent of harm while they are admitting they caused harm. In this denial the offender may admit the offense but deny the victim was harmed as much as would be reasonably assumed. From the offender's perspective, if the victim is not that harmed then what he did is not that serious. Offenders universally have difficulty seeing the offense and the aftermath from their victims' perspective. After the offense is committed, offenders often exhibit self-serving and distorted perceptions of their victims' behavior, especially if the victim is a family member or if they see the victim in court or in the community. The victims external functioning (in pain, but going through the motions of court proceedings, attending school or work, etc) is distorted by the offender into “see she’s doing alright, but I’m in trouble”. This denial is connected to the “Victim Stance”- Where the offender feels he is a victim. The victim stance occurs when an offender is unwilling to see all of his consequences as created by he and he alone, is unwilling to see the accurate amount of damage he caused others, is unwilling to see that the victim is completely innocent, and is unwilling to recognize the justice systems response to his actions as fair and justified. When some or all of these occur he inverts reality and feels he is the injured party. With the “Victim Stance” the offender will minimize the hurt to the victim and focus on the impact to the offender. In treatment offenders are quick to bring up how they were hurt by offense (how they will have probation, lawyer costs, time and cost of treatment) but will not mention how the victim was hurt. When the victim is brought up by the therapist the offenders will often describe how the victim “will get over it with some help from a therapist” but Offenders are never quet as optimistic about how the offender “will get over” his legal , economic, and family consequences. This difference is created by the disorder telling offenders that their victims are not as hurt by the sexual abuse as society portrays. The offender’s description of how destructive sexual abuse in general is can never be used as any indication that they have an understanding of what damage they personally have done. This is because offenders are always more accurate at recognizing the damage caused by other offences committed by other offenders than they are at seeing the damage done by their own offense. The more unlike their offense the more accurate the offender is at judging the harm done. Offenders may say-She has a boyfriend now so what occurred could not have been that harmful. Friends or family tell me victim was not harmed, so what’s the big deal. “She running around doing who knows what, but that was not caused by me, when will people see my side, what about what I lost?”
Denial of sexual motives of the abuse-(Partial denial) the offender may admit some parts of the offense but deny that there were any sexual intentions on his part. Offenders may say “I was just being helpful, teaching her about sex” “It was just a wrestling match”, “I was only rubbing the victims leg, she had fell”, “I did not mean to touch her there, we were playing and my hand went there by accident, in no way was it sexual, the mom overreacted, I guess she’s about a molester getting to her kid, people need to relax” , “I did see in her window, but I did not mean to, I know her brother and wanted to know if he wanted to smoke a joint, I’m not a peeper”, “I was just urinating and was not flashing anyone, I thought I was alone”, “ Sorry you had to get involved, I’m sure there’s some real offenders you could be seeing instead of wasting your time with this mess, its so simple, I did not mean for her to see me, I just choose the wrong places to urinate,”
Denial of grooming of victim or planning of offense-(Partial denial) The offender tries to convince himself or others the abuse was spontaneous and without any preparation of victim, or planning of behaviors. This is because the offender feels he will be seen as worse if he planed his offense. Offenders may say “”It just happened”, “I did not plan any of this!” “I acted on the spur of the moment. One minute I was working and the next thing I know I’m doing this”
Denial of deviant arousal, fantasizing, sexualization of victim, denial of having a disorder - (Partial denial) this offender admits the abuse but denies any fantasy or planning of the abuse. The abuse will be described as if it just came out of the blue with no warning signs to the offender. This offender is trying to conceal his deviant fantasy life and deviant sexual preferences out of both embarrassment and protection of the fantasy/behavior that he values. Admitting the behavior is one step closer to eliminating it and offenders with deviant issues greatly overvalue their deviancy and will strongly resisting giving them up. They will resist admitting what is absolutely obvious to everyone else. Offenders may say “Before I did it, I never thought of her that way ”, “I do not have sexual fantasies about minors, ever” , “I did not think about flashing prior to actually doing it”, “I don't have any interest in rape or aggressive sex” , “I am not into child pornography, it was just a thing I did one day”
Blaming offense on his own sexual abuse rather than deviant desires and planning (Partial denial) Here the offender tries to assert that responsibility partly lies on the person who abused offender many years ago, and tries to move the discussion away from his sexual and power motives to cloudy motivations about “recreating what happened to him” Offenders may say “Maybe it was because of what happened to me as a kid”, “I've been having sex with anyone I could sinse I was molested”
Denial of need for sex offender treatment - (Partial denial) this denial is related to the denial of possibility of future offending. In order to justify the offender not making the effort and sacrifices related to not re-offending such as attending sex offender treatment and making some changes in lifestyle the offender will present himself as “over” the issue. Offenders may say “I molested her, but I am not really a sex offender, now I’m on a list, this is just too much”, “I can guarantee you I will never do it again, I’m so different now, but how would you know?”, “I gave up alcohol like that, it was nothing, you don’t know me, so you have to assume I need help, I guess I’m stuck here even though I don’t need it””
Denial of a need for treatment-they have been “saved”, the offender claims the issue is over as Jesus or some other deity has saved him. The offender may even arrange for himself to see some religious leader for “counseling”. This “counseling” by religious leaders can often be extremely dangerous to the community as Christian, Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists all perceive women as deserving less power than males. Even if the Imam , Rabbi or Pastoral Counselor sees the offender as responsible for his offense the underlying belief system insists that males are superior to women and minors. Although they are usually not aware of it, this opinion is already held by offenders, and is implicit in the offenses they committed. This belief system is obvious in the male offender’s want of sex/power being more important than the female or minors well being. Offenders may say “I know you do not understand the power faith has given me, so I’ll pray for you”, “You and this clinic have nothing I will ever need, I have Jesus”, “and I understand you want to help me, but my faith has already done more than this place could ever help”
ABOVE IS COPYRIGHTED BY THIS AUTHOR