Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the latter part of the 20th century, legal doctrines made it almost impossible to successfully prosecute in criminal court a case involving child sexual abuse (CSA), whether the complaint was timely or delayed. Many English-speaking countries have abrogated most formal legal barriers to prosecuting CSA cases, and courts are faced with the singular challenge of adjudicating sexual offenses against children that are reported to have happened years or decades earlier. We conducted analyses of 4,237 criminal complaints of CSA heard in Canadian criminal courts. There were several differences between timely and delayed prosecutions that led us to conclude that delayed prosecutions of CSA are common and due, in part, to the nature of the offense. Offense duration was associated with longer delays to prosecution. When the accused had access to the child through his position in the community, length of delay to prosecution was very long, particularly for male complainants. More research is needed on delayed CSA prosecutions, particularly given an apparent trend for jurisdictions to abolish barriers to criminal prosecutions of CSA that occurred years or decades earlier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".