title:  Oregon Won’t Prosecute Baby’s Abuser Because He’s Too Young To Testify
text: An anguished Oregon couple took to social media this week in hopes of getting justice for their one-year-old son, Jacob, who was beaten by a babysitter two months ago.Pictures posted to Facebook show scrapes, cuts, a black eye and deep bruises which were left on the baby s face and arms during the vicious assault.Image credit: Joshua Marbury via FacebookWe can t even imagine the amount of trauma he must have experienced, all at the hands of an adult who was supposed to protect and care for him.Image credit: Joshua Marbury via FacebookJacob s parents, Alicia Quinney and Joshua Marbury spoke to Oregon Live on Friday. The first thing I saw was a black eye,  Quinney said.  I thought maybe marker got on his face or something. When he turned over, his whole right side of his face   black and blue. Quinney told Oregon Live that she knew right away that the babysitter had hurt him.She took Jacob to the hospital. Police met her there and opened an investigation into the assault.But prosecutors informed Jacob s parents that no charges will be filed against the person who did this to their son.As Oregon Live reports:Washington County Deputy District Attorney Dustin Staten emailed Quinney a link to a story published by The Oregonian/OregonLive detailing the challenges the law poses for prosecutors. The headline: Even pets are better protected than young kids under Oregon abuse laws, prosecutors say. To convict a suspected child abuser of felony assault or criminal mistreatment, the article explained, prosecutors must prove that the victim suffered a  physical injury  under Oregon law. That means proving the child experienced  substantial pain. The article explains that:Appellate rulings have made that hard to prove if victims can t talk about the extent of their suffering. Prosecutors say children younger than 5 often aren t able to articulate  substantial pain.  The same can be true for older children with developmental disabilities or those who don t want to speak out against their abusers.In essence the law leaves vulnerable young children like Jacob completely unprotected.Quinney took to Facebook to express her outrage over the state s completely irrational and irresponsible law, writing:After TWO months of waiting we only find out that charges are dropped BECAUSE my one year old cannot tell you verbally he was abused and my son did not show he was in pain OR that this person  intentionally  did this. I am SO furious that I m not using profanity HOPING something is done and this goes viral.Quinney goes on to say that Portland authorities have a verbal confession. As Raw Story reports here, they also have multiple statements from medical professionals who showed Quinney how the bruises on her baby were  handprints. Even with all of that, the law still makes it almost impossible to  prove  the case.Animals can t talk, yet animal abuse is prosecuted in the state of Oregon. How is it possible that a helpless infant has fewer protections under the law than an animal?Quinney points out in her post: A dead body cant tell you who killed them. Yet a baby isn t held to the same standard because he can t talk? Well neither can a dead body. THAT S BLASPHEMY. You waited 2 months if not longer to tell us this? Something needs to be done. NOBODY can just hit a child and more to just get away with it because the child cant verbally tell you. There s no doubt that Oregonians need to change these outrageous laws. The law should protect the most vulnerable among us. Instead, in Oregon, the law excludes the most vulnerable from protection. That s not acceptable.Featured image via Joshua Marbury on Facebook