CT bishops fighting bill that would repeal statute of limitations on child sex crimes

[iris27]

I have no words.

From CNN

A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

[HelenWheels]

1. What a group of sick men

Anyone that supports lifting the statute of limitation is worse than a pedophile, what is wrong with these men that they want this to continue and go unpunished. If the Pope doesn't take action and tell these men to turn in their collars it is only more proof that this Pope also needs to step down or be arrested if he attempts to enter this country. It's bad enough he (Pope) never apologized for being a Nazi youth but to continue to cover for the pedophiles he helped in the past and present is beyond sick, it's criminal.

[roguevalley]

10. As disciples of Christ, they are walking in His footsteps. Oh wait ...

I have no words either and this is living proof that they don't serve God nor Christ.

[struggle4progress]

2. There's already no statute of limitations in CT for Class A felonies, which include

sex with young persons, aggravated sexual assault on minors, and similar serious sex crimes

For the remaining cases, time to majority plus thirty years more seems an entirely adequate time for someone to feel aggrieved and file suit

[EvolveOrConvolve]

5. I also disagree with the change in the law

But I think the point of the OP was that the Catholic church is opposing the change. That's what's outrageous to me.

[skepticscott]

6. Unless you were subjected to the same thing as a child by a priest

how exactly would you know what an "entirely adequate time" for someone to come to terms with that and feel like they can speak out would be? Please tell us precisely what experience your opinion is based on.

[trotsky]

13. The aftereffects of sexual abuse last a lifetime.

I am astonished that anyone could blithely claim that "adequate" time has passed for the crime to be swept under the rug.

But then, believers say lots of things that astonish me with their insensitivity and willingness to defend their corrupt churches and leaders.

[struggle4progress]

14. I've at least looked up the Connecticut law, which is rather more

than you can be bothered to do

"...Connecticut has no statute of limitations for ... Class A felonies ..." http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/JFR/H/2007HB-07085-R00JUD-JFR.htm

... CLASS A FELONIES ...
• Sexual assault in first degree of certain younger victims ....
• Aggravated sexual assault of person under age 16 ...
• Employing a minor in an obscene performance ...
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0192.htm

If you need statutory references, look at Conn Gen Stat 53a-70, 53a-70a, and 54-193, for example. Years to majority plus thirty more years ought to be more than enough time in the remaining cases to determine whether to prosecute

[skepticscott]

17. Thanks, I got that the first time you posted it. Big deal.

What I also didn't do was to throw out unsupported opinions about how the victims of molestation should respond:

"time to majority plus thirty years more seems an entirely adequate time for someone to feel aggrieved and file suit" "Seems"? Is there something in the law you so studiously looked up that tells you this?

"Years to majority plus thirty more years ought to be more than enough time in the remaining cases to determine whether to prosecute" Well, if the victim hasn't come forward to file a complaint, how exactly can that decision be made?

[struggle4progress]

19. oh yeah lots of careful research and thoughtful argumentation in this thread

:rofl:

[skepticscott]

21. And, as usual,

lots of ducking and dodging of simple, direct questions by people who just can't admit that they said something unjustified. And of course, the use of laughing smileys to simulate a superior intellectual position.

[iris27]

15. "feel aggrieved"?

Wow. That comes across as remarkably insensitive and callous to those who are familiar with the shame and silencing that typically accompanies sexual abuse.

[struggle4progress]

16. "Sexual abuse" is a vague term that covers a multitude of activities,

ranging from the horrific to the insulting and intrusive to the fairly minor. There is already no statute of limitations for a large range of such abuses in Connecticut. Like "grief" and "grievance," which can both be substantial, being "aggrieved" can be substantial

Surely you have more interesting and substantive things to say, than to play word games

[iris27]

22. Call it "word games" if you like, but words are all we have to communicate with here,

and they have meaning. With the words you chose, I was/am astonished at your apparent lack of compassion. Tell me, please, what exactly would you consider to be "fairly minor" sexual abuse? As someone who has abuse survivors in her family, I am finding it difficult to pick my jaw up off the floor after reading that.

Your words in the initial post, as I understood them -- and apparently as others did as well -- were dismissive and seemed to imply that a victim of sexual abuse would not be living with their trauma from the instant it happened. "Time for someone to feel aggrieved" implies that this is something that would slowly occur over years...the unspoken implication being that charges made at such a late date are not genuine.

Moreover, "grievance" and "aggrieved", to most, don't carry the same emotional feel as "grief". They tend to be used in relation to People's-Court-esque minor disputes...feuds between neighbors and the like. Again, this is coming across to others here as though you are belittling and being dismissive of those who haven't experienced enough abuse to be "really" abused in your mind.

I really couldn't care less whether you judge my opinions interesting or substantive.

[old mark]

3. It's all about the money.

I was born and educated in the catholic church, and hated the time I had to spend with it after age 11 or so.
I am sorry it took such widespread criminal acts by the clergy to bring their true face to public attention, but this is the real church - money, political power and privelege - and I HOPE more and more people begin to understand the reality of it.

This is what the church truly is about - the rest is marketing and window dressing.


mark

[Angry Dragon]

4. If they did nothing wrong

then they should have no fear. They preach that their god will punish the ones that harm others, do they now say that they are above god??

[rhett o rick]

11. IMO they have always thought they were above god. nm

[struggle4progress]

20. This may be about filing thousands of ultimately unwinnable suits in the hopes

that they will be settled out of court because they would be too expensive to defend

[darkstar3]

27. Oh, that's right, I must've forgotten that "massive conspiracy" angle...

:crazy:

[JerseygirlCT]

7. The sense I'm getting

(from listening to people talk, and reading the papers) is that the RCC bishops here are not meeting with a whole lot of "amens" from the folks in the pews about this, as they seemed to expect.

Which is very good, of course.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Recommended, and check out my poll based off of this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8172871

[MadMaddie]

9. Hmmm so he is admitting that they are harboring criminals and

are guilty of crimes?

[NobleCynic]

12. How would a this proposed change interact with the "grandfather clause" principle?

Which of the following would result:

1. There is no statute of limitations on these crimes committed after the date of the law's change.
2. This applies to all such crimes, no matter how long ago they were committed.
3. Or would this apply to all such crimes that would still fall under current statute of limitations forward?

Anyone know this one, or is it up in the air waiting for a legal challenge?

[FrankieBoyle]

18. Obviously they oppose

Obviously they oppose the right thing, it will inevitably incriminate more of them. I’m not in the least bit surprised that the Catholic Church is doing the wrong thing again, they are making a bit of a habit of it.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

23. I'm getting tired of saying this, but

the Catholic Church has hit an astounding new low. They just keep digging. Every time I think they've done their worst, they just come out with something worse.

[olegramps]

24. What can you expect from dishonorable men?

[brendan120678]

25. And of course, the right-wing is supporting...

the Church in this issue.

Here's the editorial from today's edition of my local right-wing rag:

Bill drips with anti-church bias

All too often, legislatures react to unusual or even bizarre incidents with laws that disturb the orderly flow of society in the long term. Such is the case with the movement to eliminate the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse in some circumstances.

Lawmakers began considering this unconventional move after a homeowner found a concealed, unspeakable cache of child pornography in the former home of George Reardon, a St. Francis Hospital doctor who died in 1998. Reardon, who left the hospital in 1993 amid allegations of child sexual abuse, posed young patients for hundreds of still photos and films beginning in the 1950s.

Under current law, victims can file civil cases for 30 years past their 18th birthday. This protects individuals and institutions from frivolous litigation intended to frighten or embarrass them into quiet settlements, while ensuring the rights of people who may have been traumatized into long silence. What sets the Reardon case apart is the unexpected emergence of solid evidence of what he did to specific children more than 30 years since they turned 18.

The law is written quite narrowly to fit the Reardon case. Plaintiffs whose claims arise from incidents outside the statute of limitations could not institute new cases; they only could attach their names to existing claims, such as the ones that have been filed against St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center. Lawmakers believe this restriction would block most if not all frivolous claims.

For three main reasons, this bill is tainted and should be rejected:

Statutes of limitation exist for a reason. Physical evidence deteriorates or disappears; memories fade; witnesses die; lawyers and their clients lie when the opportunity arises to shake down a deep-pocketed defendant.

The legislature's Judiciary Committee is fatally tainted by past shenanigans by Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven. They have shown an intense and abiding animus against the Roman Catholic Church, which stands to lose the most from this measure. Bishops Henry J. Mansell of Hartford, William E. Lori of Bridgeport and Michael R. Cote of Norwich observed in a letter published as a paid advertisement in The Hartford Courant: "Most often, these claims would be driven by a small number of trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases. ... While this legislation is aimed directly at (St. Francis Hospital), it also targets the Catholic Church across the state and the other churches and charitable agencies, and has potentially disastrous fallout for all of us."

The law sends the wrong message to victims. They should be encouraged to seek help and justice immediately, not only for their own physical and mental well-being, but to protect others from sexual predators. The longer the statute of limitations, the longer some victims will put off the day of reckoning, thereby extending their own torment and effectively giving predators license to seek out new victims.

Of course, this is not to say Reardon's victims who filed too late cannot and should not receive some compensation for their suffering. There's nothing to stop the qualified accusers and their lawyers from voluntarily distributing a portion of their settlements or awards to victims who missed the statute of limitations.

[Walk away]

26. Who is paying for the lawyers? Would that be the good Catholics....

who are blameless even though they financially support the church?