Church Spent $2 Million to Block Child Rape Laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did the article mean removing the statute of limitation to NO statue of limitations so anyone at any time no matter how long ago could file a lawsuit? I could have misunderstood.
If that’s the case I can certainly understand fighting against it.

Mary.
 
MaryT777 said:
Did the article mean removing the statute of limitation to NO statue of limitations so anyone at any time no matter how long ago could file a lawsuit? I could have misunderstood.
If that’s the case I can certainly understand fighting against it.

Mary.
Click to expand...
I can’t understand it.
 
Tomdstone said:
I can’t understand it.
Click to expand...
Somebody claims, out of the blue, that you committed an offense fifty years ago. How well are you going to do at disproving it? There is a reason we have such a thing as the Stature of Limitations.
 
MaryT777 said:
Did the article mean removing the statute of limitation to NO statue of limitations so anyone at any time no matter how long ago could file a lawsuit? I could have misunderstood.
If that’s the case I can certainly understand fighting against it.
Click to expand...
That’s the way I read it but I’m looking for more details.

It looks to me like the Church is fighting to keep the statute of limitations in place because of the potential financial costs should the Church have to pay out civil damages for long-ago cases of molestation.

What I don’t like is the sensational headline that might have one believe that the Church supports child rape. :mad:
 
Reepicheep said:
Somebody claims, out of the blue, that you committed an offense fifty years ago. How well are you going to do at disproving it? There is a reason we have such a thing as the Stature of Limitations.
Click to expand...
I thought that in America a person was innocent until proven guilty? Or is that a myth?
 
Tomdstone said:
I thought that in America a person was innocent until proven guilty? Or is that a myth?
Click to expand...
Legally, yes. Socially, not so much. For example, if Mrs Smith tells her neighbor’s that Mr Jones touched her daughter inappropriately, would the neighbor’s continue to allow their children to go to Mr Jones’s on their own?
 
St_Francis said:
Legally, yes. Socially, not so much. For example, if Mrs Smith tells her neighbor’s that Mr Jones touched her daughter inappropriately, would the neighbor’s continue to allow their children to go to Mr Jones’s on their own?
Click to expand...
Not really even legally if you think about it. Look at how most people are treated during the time when they are arrested for something and when they go to their court hearing…they are most certainly presumed guilty and treated as such by officials.
 
Tomdstone said:
I thought that in America a person was innocent until proven guilty? Or is that a myth?
Click to expand...
It’s pretty much a myth now. No matter what the actual court decides, the court of public opinion will pretty much presume the worst case and assume it’s correct regardless of things like evidence, facts, etc.

The reason we fought to prevent this change in the law is that the statute of limitation exists for a reason. As time progresses evidence degrades, eye witness accounts falter, memories become fuzzy, and a whole host of other things happen that can prevent the truth from being presented accurately. Short of video evidence, there’s really no way to “prove” something from twenty+ years ago, let alone the fifty+ years ago the prosecutor was hoping to bring to court with this change.

To put it simply, it would open the Church up to innumerable false claims. The evidence wouldn’t be considered because there really is no evidence to consider, only personal testimony, which can easily be faked. While I’m sure there are some people who, on account of the statute of limitation, will not get the justice they deserve in this lifetime, the risks of opening up the Church, or any organization, to claims like these based solely on personal testimony is far too great. We’ve already seen a number of false claims made in an attempt to get at the Church’s purse strings, and those were made within the statue. I can’t imagine the number of false claims that would start happening if they extended the statute.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
As time progresses evidence degrades, eye witness accounts falter, memories become fuzzy, and a whole host of other things happen that can prevent the truth from being presented accurately. Short of video evidence, there’s really no way to “prove” something from twenty+ years ago, let alone the fifty+ years ago the prosecutor was hoping to bring to court with this change.
Click to expand...
But we read in another thread:
Viki63 said:
As far as remembering past events, remember that the older one gets, the more clear earlier memories are, which is why the elderly often reminisce about their childhood or youth. The earlier memories become clearer than the more recent ones…
I remember events from 65 years ago, when I was six.
.
Click to expand...
 
Reepicheep said:
Somebody claims, out of the blue, that you committed an offense fifty years ago. How well are you going to do at disproving it? There is a reason we have such a thing as the Stature of Limitations.
Click to expand...
If it happened 50 years ago, the plaintiff would probably have a hard time making his case, and any lawyer worth his salt is going to tell him “You’re wasting your time here because it it highly unlikely you would ever win, and even if you did it’s unlikely you’d actually see a settlement.” So then it becomes a moot point.
 
Tomdstone said:
But we read in another thread:
Click to expand...
“Clearer” does not necessarily mean accurate.

Even if they are both clearer and accurate, it does not change the fact that the entire prosecution would be based on personal, unverifiable, testimony. While I’m sure there are valid cases, that is far too open to abuse of the system.
 
Does anyone know:
  1. if child abuse victims in public schools can sue the public agency (city/county/state government) for large monetary amounts? (comparable to how the diocese can be sued for the criminal offense of one of its employees)
  2. if there is a limit on the amount a government agency could be sued for
  3. if, in the Child Abuse Acts that were opposed by the Church, the regulations contained therein were to be applied equally in all child abuse cases
    (I recall hearing one bishop say he was opposed to the law in his state because it didn’t apply to everyone. He said he would not be opposing it if it did apply across the board to all cases.)
I sometimes wonder why it seems that only the cases involving Catholics seem to get awarded such huge damage amounts.
 
Tomdstone said:
But we read in another thread:
Click to expand...
One might not remember what color their first bicycle was, but they should remember being raped, I would think. If they do not remember until later, at the very least, their memory should be legally unreliable. The Catholic Church has done more than any other organization to protect children. This piece of propaganda camouflaged as news misses the balance that must exist between protection and justice. Statute of limitations are a necessary part of the justice system, particularly when the only remaining evidence is oral testimony. No one should ever be convicted based on victim statements alone without physical evidence. Even civil claims should not be awarded without some sort of physical evidence. Without this, juries are only determining who might be the better liar, not who did what.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
If it happened 50 years ago, the plaintiff would probably have a hard time making his case, and any lawyer worth his salt is going to tell him “You’re wasting your time here because it it highly unlikely you would ever win, and even if you did it’s unlikely you’d actually see a settlement.” So then it becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...
Except this is not the case. There is a lawyer in my state where all he does is these cases and a large percentage of them the actual perpetrator and/or the leaders in charge at the time are dead. Yet, the Church gets dragged through these cases and often ends up settling, because the cost of defending each and every case is very expensive and the Church is trying to actually compensate real victims, but in doing so many people just trying to get a buck find it is easy to just make an accusation.

The diocese here had to go into bankruptcy because it was settling out all the claims after the state lifted the statute of limitations. All that did was restrict the compensation that could go to real victims. The final date to file a claim as a creditor (someone with abuse claim) has passed and the bankruptcy approved, and now this attorney is claiming the diocese is hiding assets. He was also trolling the radio and tv for “victims” before the bankruptcy was approved.

So I think the key phrase of your post was “worth his salt.” There is a reason that lawyers have the unsavory reputation that they have, even though the majority are good hard working people.*

*Disclaimer: I am a lawyer. 🤷
 
Several years ago in Colorado, the Church spent quite a lot fighting a similar bill, mostly since it applied only to private organizations.

The Churches view was that was hypocrisy, in that the government seemed to be only concerned with ‘Justice’ for the children when it was not the government’s fault.

The CO legislature opened it up to remove the Statue of Limitations on ALL such suits.

The Church dropped it’s objections, and the municipal governments and the teacher’s unions started their objections, and the bill was killed.
 
Tomdstone said:
I can’t understand it.
Click to expand...
If there is logic in having “statutes of limitations” for criminal prosecutions, then how does the nature of the crime render that logic inapplicable for that specific crime? If the statue of limitations is, say 10 years, on a range of serious crimes, why would we make it, say, 50 years on another?

Maybe there should be no limitation on all serious crimes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top