Church Spent $2 Million to Block Child Rape Laws?

[Rau]

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?

And there is going to be (already is) an expectation of compensation to be payable more readily than on the basis of a “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. And it is likely that, with its reputation is this area so sullied, any reasonable defence of the charge is itself likely to bring further (unjust) condemnation upon the Church.

 

[Rau]

But we read in another thread:
Originally Posted by Viki63
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…

We may read it, but do we accept it? A mild case of dementia produces similar behaviour - more recent times appear foggier than the past. It’s not because recall of long past events improves!

One’s personal testimony - no matter how seemingly lucid - would not normally be sufficient to prove a fact beyond reasonable doubt. A confession, or evidence independent of the victim is ordinarily necessary. Proving rape typically requires physical evidence, or a witness, etc. The longer the time that has passed since the events, the more unlikely it is that such corroborating evidence can be found.

 

[pnewton]

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?

Not all crimes have the same available evidence. I would be all for removing statutes of limitation if at the same time objective criteria were added to protect the innocent accused, like requiring physical evidence for prosecution and mandating summary dismissal of civil suits based on accusations alone, with the accuser paying all court costs and both sides of attorneys.

Tort reform is based on discouraging lawsuits that should never go forward. lawyers do not need another means of making money off something which should never see one minute in court.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

It isn’t just the officials that are the problem. It is the grand juries and juries. There is a strong tendency for jurors to take the state’s side. I think something like in 90% of all federal criminal cases the defendant pleads guilty. No doubt many truly are guilty, but many of these are likely due to the chance of winning against the Feds being so low. This isn’t because they always have the best case.

I’m not a legal historian but based on conversations with someone who is very knowledgeable about the history of US law there have been many changes over time that give an advantage to the prosecution. One of these being the very existence of professional prosecutors.

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.

If I understand history right at one time it was fairly expensive to bring a civil case. To provide greater recourse to the courts they have essentially made it very inexpensive to sue. Not surprisingly there are more lawsuits including baseless ones.

 

[Theo520]

I wish large punitive damages were give to charity or something instead of the lawyers and plaintiffs. Plaintiffs should be able to recover their damages plus x% and lawyer fees. The current system has the lawyers overselling punitive damages which go into their pockets.

 

[1990Domer]

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.

The legislation only applies to select groups with many secular organizations–like public schools–being exempt. How is that fair?

 

[Rau]

The legislation only applies to select groups with many secular organizations–like public schools–being exempt. How is that fair?

What reasons are given to exempt some groups?

 

[mikekle]

It isn’t just the officials that are the problem. It is the grand juries and juries. There is a strong tendency for jurors to take the state’s side. I think something like in 90% of all federal criminal cases the defendant pleads guilty. No doubt many truly are guilty, but many of these are likely due to the chance of winning against the Feds being so low. This isn’t because they always have the best case.

I’m not a legal historian but based on conversations with someone who is very knowledgeable about the history of US law there have been many changes over time that give an advantage to the prosecution. One of these being the very existence of professional prosecutors.

.

Oh yes, I agree, its very rare to see someone charged and then found innocent by a jury, most jurors do side with prosecutors and will believe everything they and law enforcement tell them.

This is one reason why I think there needs to be a totally neutral law enforcement agency and court system, WAY too much potential for corruption the way it is now.

 

[Rau]

Oh yes, I agree, its very rare to see someone charged and then found innocent by a jury, most jurors do side with prosecutors and will believe everything they and law enforcement tell them.

This is one reason why I think there needs to be a totally neutral law enforcement agency and court system, WAY too much potential for corruption the way it is now.

While there may be truth in that, stasistically speaking, I believe it is likely that most persons charged of serious (criminal) offences did indeed commit them. If the investigative arms of the law reach wrong conclusions, or corrupt conclusions, more than half the time, that would be a catastrophe.

Regardless, juries must aim to call it as they see it (to the requisite standard) and try not to be influenced by the belief that the prosecution is more often right than wrong.

 

[Viki63]

I wrote: “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…”

We may read it, but do we accept it? A mild case of dementia produces similar behaviour - more recent times appear foggier than the past. It’s not because recall of long past events improves!

One’s personal testimony - no matter how seemingly lucid - would not normally be sufficient to prove a fact beyond reasonable doubt. A confession, or evidence independent of the victim is ordinarily necessary. Proving rape typically requires physical evidence, or a witness, etc. The longer the time that has passed since the events, the more unlikely it is that such corroborating evidence can be found.

But I wasn’t talking about recalling criminal events. I think we should leave comments in the thread they were written in.

Some people do forget events like rape, or perhaps bury the memories. There are stories of women who witnessed murder as children, and remembered it as adults. Or children who are abused, and only recall it when they grow up.

.

 

[Rau]

I wrote: “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…”

Viki63:

But I wasn’t talking about recalling criminal events. I think we should leave comments in the thread they were written in.

Well, this is a little involved as we have me quoting TomD quoting you from another thread. Nevertheless, your statement was accurately copied, and the question at hand here, and in the other thread on which you provided an opinion, was essentially the same - viz. the reliability of testimony given many years later.

I can’t say why TomD felt it useful to note (in post #11) that 2 posters (ProdglArchitect & you) expressed different views on the quality of recall of early events with age, but I did want to point out that the fact that you expressed that view can’t be taken to be persuasive evidence of a general trend to improved recall of events as they become more temporally distant. This is part of the reason we have statutes of limitations.

 

[po18guy]

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.

Are we going to allow politically motivated anti-Catholic prosecutors to indict/imprison aged Priests who, 50 years later, may be 1) innocent, 2) senile or 3) suffering from Alzheimer’s?

There arose a dangerous philosophy seemingly in the 1990s. It matters not the plausibility or even the truth of the allegation, only the seriousness. (“She turned me into a newt!”)

The Church has a moral obligation to oppose unjust laws.

 

[Reepicheep]

I thought that in America a person was innocent until proven guilty? Or is that a myth?

“Innocent until proven guilty” applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil suits.

Also that legal principle is of no use at all in protecting the reputation of the accused, only their right to a fair legal hearing.

 

[Reepicheep]

But we read in another thread:

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.

At best this is very selective. At worst it is simply false.

 

[Reepicheep]

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.

Unless the plaintiff is determined to push through the case, in which case he will find some lawyer wiling to take it on.
Further being innocent is not going to make the case any less expensive for the defendant.

If the plaintiff’s motive is hatred of the defendant, forcing the defendant to spend money may be their entire motive-- and there are plenty of people who hate the Church that way.

 

[Reepicheep]

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?

Then anybody at all may be accused of anything at all no matter how much time has gone by?
How do you defend yourself form the claim that you murdered someone 60 or 70y ears ago, when there are no longer any living witnesses to the fact that you were in the next county when the supposed victim died, and no witnesses to the fact that nobody ever thought the death was even suspicious, till someone who wasn’t born till forty years later decides it was?

 

[Rau]

Then anybody at all may be accused or anything at all no matter how much time has gone by?
How do you defend yourself form the claim that you murdered someone 60 or 70years ago, when there are no longer any living witnesses to the fact that you were in the next county when the supposed victim died, and no witnesses to the fact that nobody ever thought the death was even suspicious, till someone who wasn’t born till forty years later decides it was?

You’ve not followed the context properly. Statutes of limitations are sensible. Great variability makes no sense.

 

[Reepicheep]

You’ve not followed the context properly. Statutes of limitations are sensible. Great variability makes no sense.

I was responding to your words: (underlining is mine)

Maybe there should be no limitation on all serious crimes?

 

[Randy_Carson]

In our system, we would rather let a guilty person go free than to convict, jail and execute an innocent person.

Consequently, the accused tends to get the benefit of the doubt as well as the statutes of limitations.