A recent ruling from the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona pertained to the criminal case of Jerry Charles Holle, whose eleven year-old step-granddaughter told a friend, and then the police, that Holle had inappropriately touched and kissed her, has charged Holle with sexual abuse of a minor under age fifteen, sexual conduct with a minor, and child molestation.

Holle argued that the allegations against him are “blown out of proportion” and that he had always engaged in sexually normal behavior. Holle’s two daughters testified that he never sexually assaulted them or any other children and other relatives likewise testified about Holle’s sexual normalcy.

Under Arizona law, the definition of "sexual contact" applicable to the charges brought against Holle was "any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact."

Holle was sentenced to a ten-year prison term for molestation and a five-year term of probation for sexual abuse.

Holle successfully appealed his conviction, arguing that if proof of sexual motivation was not required for charges of child molestation and sexual abuse, "it would mean that parents and other caregivers commit those crimes whenever they change an infant’s diaper and bathe or otherwise clean a child’s genitals" and "pediatricians and other medical providers would likewise violate those laws."

It is theoretically possible for a person in Arizona could be prosecuted and convicted on a child molestation charge simply for innocently changing or bathing a baby. Is that really likely to ever happen? Maybe not, but as some critics would argue, that such a thing could even be possible is enough to warrant concern.

Simply being accused of such a crime is sufficient to irreparably tarnish one's reputation, and acquittal after a lengthy and expensive trial is more likely to reinforce the stigma than erase it.

By Premji