What is really interesting is that in the 1980's it was beleived that children did not lie. Subsequently a large number of people but mostly men were gaoled.

Some of these children now adults are saying the abuse never happened. Of course feminists have an answer for this, such as saying that as an adult the memories of the abuse have been suspressed.

There was also a creation of the "supressed memory syndrome" which now had been totally debunked, although there may be a few die hards clinging to the flotsam.

In NZ a female Dr measured the hymens of girls and if the opening was greater than a certain amount it was deemed enough proof that sexual abuse took place. Even when the girls denied that such events ever happened.

When abuse advocates usually start beating the drum about educating the judges, it means bypassing the judical process and indocrinating judges to find a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.

Joseph Stalin did this in Russia. It is called a 'show trial' and during the burning times people tired as witches were also denied justice.

To prejudice judges with socalled 'education' follows the education of the inquistors during the burning times. Proof guilt was always sort.

Above, we have the same JamesH who wrote a few days ago that "women are truly are the worlds most expensive commodities."
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4895#55209)

To Barbara Biggs (author):
Please keep up your good work in addressing deficiencies in the legal system which allows child abusers to escape justice

I find it incredible the claims that the law fails the victims.

"Sadly, these deficiencies are clearly manifested in cases of rape and sexual abuse." Turnrightthenleft.

A number of men after being convicted to things such as rape decades ago are now being found innocent because of DNA. Another such case a man spent three years in gaol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405385&in_page_id=1770

It is true the law fails when a guilty man walks free. The law also fails when an innocent man is gaoled. Claims that the judicary are biased in favour of the accused is nonsense and a manipulative statement to make. Sure our legal system may be flawed and our legal system is suppose to be based on the presumption of innocence, not of guilt.

Interestingly in this country sexual abuse of children by women is not reported. There is a video available titled "When Girls Do It." from Canada.

Great article
Maybe the lawyers , psychologists , and judges of the Kangaroo Court could just for one second think of the huge damage to children that parental alienation syndrome causes.People who use children as weapons of war makes it hard for non -custodial parents to see it as a court of justice

It is curious that whenever the detractors of parental alienation, syndrome or not, get up on their soap boxes to complain about it, they refer only to cases involving male sexual abuse of children using such horrendous examples to demonize anyone who should begin to defend the existence of the phenomenon and effectively kill intelligent debate.

However, there are strong and clear examples of parental alienation which do not involve child abuse of any form by the target parent who, to boot, is female. Here is a perfect example: http://www.amazon.com/They-Are-My-Children-Too/dp/1891620150/sr=8-1/qid=1158964327/ref=sr_1_1/002-7171186-9853610?ie=UTF8&s=books
. Parental alienation is real, and it is child abuse. Those who argue against it in the name of stopping child abuse should be ashamed of themselves.

JamesH - I can't deny there are mistakes made, and I tend to think the flaws in our system not only let off the guilty, but sometimes jail the innocent.

I do tend to prefer the legal models used in countries such as germany and japan, where the judge is more than merely an umpire for the prosecution and defence. In this model, the judge oversees an investigation, and no evidence is inadmissible.
In our system, evidence is often excluded because it may either prejudice the jury, or has been obtained through improper means.
What's more, the criminal history of the accused is not taken into account until sentencing - once the jury has already made a verdict.

Fair enough if a jury knew that the accused had raped ten people already, they would probably pay less attention to the evidence.

It is in these situations that having a judge decide after conducting an investigation can be an advantage.

I won't deny some men have been hard done by in our system in sexual abuse cases. Though I'd say it's a tiny proportion compared to the number of women who've been similarly mistreated.

Similarly, I can't deny that some women have been guilty of sexual abuse. But again, it's a small proportion when compared to the number of men committing these offences.