I agree 100% on the media front. The fact that there are no repercussions, and people dont even attempt to be unbiased anymore. The idea is we can't afford to be complacent and unbiased anymore there's too much at stake - and that's the mentality applied to literally all media.
On the former - I think there does need to be something like that, but the person I mentioned before raised a legitimate issue with that and it's kinda hard to get around. When it comes to child abuse, at least, you don't want to deter people from reporting abuse. If instead of being able to anonymously report, people had to provide their personal info, a lot of those anonymous reports wouldn't happen. On the most basic level, people just don't want to be involved so they report anonymously. Add on top of that they might get in trouble if the accused manages to get out of it? Catch my drift?
That's not to say it would make such an arrangement impossible, but it is a very real hurdle.
I think we would all hope that, but it is sadly not the case. At her work, summer is regarded as the "slow season," and early September is the "busy season." Which is obviously when kids go back to school, and are back to being surrounded by mandated reporters. And to add to that, she's told me dozens of stories that go something like:
mom's boyfriend beats or kids
relative calls CYS
mom still "loves" boyfriend, denies anything happening. Everyone at her agency knows she's lying, but they can't prove anything
case is closed until something egregious happens
In that situation, the relative would be liable. Which would discourage people in those situations from reporting, and it's a very common situation. Worse if in point 3 if for whatever reason the agency believes the mom.
This is a very specific example, but the concepts can be applied more broadly. So you think, alright well, we'll just make it so that you have to prove the false report was made intentionally with malice, but that still leaves the threat of legal action looming over the heads of any would-be legitimate reporters, possibly swaying them not to.
Something absolutely needs to change... just not sure how.
I agree 100% on the media front. The fact that there are no repercussions, and people dont even attempt to be unbiased anymore. The idea is we can't afford to be complacent and unbiased anymore there's too much at stake - and that's the mentality applied to literally all media.
On the former - I think there does need to be something like that, but the person I mentioned before raised a legitimate issue with that and it's kinda hard to get around. When it comes to child abuse, at least, you don't want to deter people from reporting abuse. If instead of being able to anonymously report, people had to provide their personal info, a lot of those anonymous reports wouldn't happen. On the most basic level, people just don't want to be involved so they report anonymously. Add on top of that they might get in trouble if the accused manages to get out of it? Catch my drift?
That's not to say it would make such an arrangement impossible, but it is a very real hurdle.
I think we would all hope that, but it is sadly not the case. At her work, summer is regarded as the "slow season," and early September is the "busy season." Which is obviously when kids go back to school, and are back to being surrounded by mandated reporters. And to add to that, she's told me dozens of stories that go something like:
In that situation, the relative would be liable. Which would discourage people in those situations from reporting, and it's a very common situation. Worse if in point 3 if for whatever reason the agency believes the mom.
This is a very specific example, but the concepts can be applied more broadly. So you think, alright well, we'll just make it so that you have to prove the false report was made intentionally with malice, but that still leaves the threat of legal action looming over the heads of any would-be legitimate reporters, possibly swaying them not to.
Something absolutely needs to change... just not sure how.