The Catholic Church is fighting to block bills that would extend the statute of limitations...

[trotsky]

(headline cont'd) ...for reporting sex abuse

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-as-pope-visit-nears-us-sex-victims-say-church-remains-obstacle-to-justice-2015-9

BOSTON (Reuters) - Mark Rozzi says he was 13, a young altar boy, when a priest at his eastern Pennsylvania parish sexually assaulted him in a shower.

It took Rozzi, who says the priest spent a year grooming him with trips to McDonald's and secretly shared beers, a quarter century to talk about the experience publicly. By then it was too late for any legal action.

Now a 44-year-old Pennsylvania state representative, Rozzi is a driving force behind one of about a dozen bills making their way through legislatures in states including New York and New Jersey that aim to give child sex assault victims more time to sue their attackers.

...

"When I was 13 years old and I was standing in the shower getting raped with my best friend outside the door, do you think I knew what a statute of limitations was?" Rozzi said.

[MADem]

1. A federal law to cure all the patchwork differences would help.

As many as 100,000 U.S. children may have been the victims of clerical sex abuse, insurance experts said in a paper presented at a Vatican conference in 2012. Some 4,300 members of the Catholic clergy were accused of sexual assault, of which at least 300 have been convicted, according to Bishop Accountability, a private group that has tracked the scandal.

U.S. statutes of limitations for criminal and civil cases vary widely from state to state, making for a patchwork system determining victims' rights to seek redress in the courts.

Six U.S. states, including Connecticut and Delaware, have extended their statutes of limitation for child sex abuse.

A victim of child sex abuse in Delaware, for example, no longer faces any deadline to launch a civil suit against an alleged abuser, and one in Connecticut has until age 48, with no limit if the person is convicted of first-degree sexual assault. Pennsylvania law gives a victim only until age 30 to take legal action.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-as-pope-visit-nears-us-sex-victims-say-church-remains-obstacle-to-justice-2015-9#ixzz3lLcD9S2R

[cleanhippie]

3. The Laity demanding daylight and justice and refusing to put money in the coffers

would work much, much better.

But as long as there are those that wish to deflect and defend...

[MADem]

4. Realistically, that would take a unity of opposition that would be difficult to be achieved.

Were there that kind of unity in the pews, this issue would have been addressed years ago.

I think the focus should be on justice for the abused, though, and if it takes federal law to make it happen, Congress should get off their asses.

[cleanhippie]

6. Agreed. Apathy seems to be the only thing unifying them right now.

If it weren't for the constant stand, sit, kneel ritual that takes place there, I'd accuse them all of sitting on their hands, but I know it's not true, for they are clasped instead in prayer, accomplishing nothing.

[MADem]

7. I went to a funeral recently in an Old Nun's Home, they didn't do a lot of standing or kneeling.

They sat in very comfortable armchairs.

I don't know if it was because the place was full of old people, or if they're getting more comfortable in their perspective. I'm not a subject matter expert on that faith.

They could probably bring a lot of people back in the place if they installed barcoloungers.

[cleanhippie]

15. Considering the median age of most active Catholics...

Barcaloungers are exactly what the doctor ordered.

This horrific institution may die of old age, or at least the old age of the laity. The latest data show not only a decline in church attendance and those that self-identify at Catholics, but younger people attending and self-identifying is paltry at best, and new membership by young people wiling to give their time and money to an organization so adamantly opposed to equal rights for all will continue to slow to a trickle.
all of which is really good news.

And just as predictable as is the trend of the catholic laity, so is the butt-hurt sure to be demonstrated by RCC apologists. Don't believe me? See below.

[rug]

16. I'll be happy to consider it when you post the link to the data.

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)

In the meantime I'll ignore the rest of your predicable post.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Here you go.

I suppose the members might be different, but someone's gotta turn on the lights, right?
http://www.georgetown.edu/news/average-priest-age-now-nearly-20-years-older.html

[rug]

26. Thanks. That I've seen.

Anecdotally, though, I suspect "the median age of most active Catholics" is considerably different. It takes a lot more commitment to be an active priest than it does to be an active Catholic. And immigration has had a big impact on the median age of U.S. Catholics.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I've seen PEW post numbers that suggested that might be happening but

it's usually clouded by the inclusion of other religions in the mix. I haven't seen one that is just Catholics, age demographic, membership status, period and nothing more.

[bvf]

2. Naturally. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

5. God told them to do that.

[struggle4progress]

8. One purpose of a statute of limitations is to provide a fair opportunity for defense

How easy is it to defend against a claim that you did something many decades ago?

[rug]

9. He's not saying.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. Did you go to Upstairs Hollywood Law School, too?

Last I checked, the burden to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" lies on the prosecution, not the defense.

[struggle4progress]

12. That is true, in theory, for criminal suits -- though "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not always

match jury verdicts in practice, so far as I can tell. For civil suits, a lesser standard such as "preponderance of evidence" will hold, in which case the defendant will need to provide a defense; and as some states have already abolished the statute of limitations for civil suits relating to child sexual abuse, my objection does not seem groundless to me

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. Do your objections ever seem groundless to you?

As you are now rolling out the same tired arguments deployed by MRA's to discredit rape victims, I'd have to say your capacity for critical self-reflection leaves something to be desired.

[struggle4progress]

20. Well, let's see: the OP is about extending SOLs to give adults further leeway to sue others;

your view was that defendants are protected by the "beyond reasonable doubt standard" -- and I noted that a weaker standard applies to such civil suits

Res ipsa loquitur

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Like I said: MRA-caliber bullshit.

Rapes, by and large, go unreported because the intensely personal nature of the crime, and the high standard of evidence placed upon the victim. Rape is often a crime between familiars, committed far from the prying eyes of witnesses and carefully enough as to leave little evidence. The passage of time does not make the crime easier to prove or more difficult to defend. It does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Providing evidence of a crime likely witnessed only by the perpetrator and the victim some thirty years after the fact is not easy, be the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence".

But no. Never mind all of that. Never mind that the Church pressuring victims into silence is, at least partly, why many have waited so long to prosecute these crimes. We have to make sure the Church is protected in the unlikely event somebody lies about being raped by a priest.

Yeah, fuck that. I humbly submit that the Church is against extending the SOL not because they afraid that some of the claims against them are false, but because they know that many of the claims against them are true.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Yep. Under reported and under prosecuted. I don't think extending the SOL amounts to an unreasonable

burden.

This isn't even really a 'catholic' issue. This is people in positions of authority/power over children in general. But you don't see the Teachers Union stepping up to oppose this do you? Despite having similar offender rates.

[struggle4progress]

30. Egads! Someone has supported statutes of limitation!

And even worse, has pointed out that children are a hundred times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a family member than by a Catholic priest!

To arms! to arms! We cannot allow such views to be aired without attacking the speaker! We must portray such views as anti-feminist propaganda! Anyone who disagrees with us must favor the sexual abuse of children!

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. p = m/v

Someone has supported statutes of limitation!

Yes, yes, yes. The Church has no vested interest in this issue. They're just "supporting statutes of limitation". A worthy cause oft hoisted up by champions of social justice the world over.

And even worse, has pointed out that children are a hundred times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a family member than by a Catholic priest!

So true! And, totally unlike any family members of note - or other organizations with similar or higher rates of child abuse, like teacher's unions and the Boy Scouts - the Church is going the extra mile and standing up for good, old-fashioned American justice, by defending antiquated laws that totally don't stand to affect them in any significant way if revised.

To arms! to arms! We cannot allow such views to be aired without attacking the speaker! We must portray such views as anti-feminist propaganda!

Oh, the humanity! The Catholic Church, with its billions of dollars and once-respectable social standing, is treated so unfairly. If only those plebeians and their meddling lawyers would just leave them alone! Worse yet is how we treat people who roll out pseudo-skeptical, victim-blaming arguments of the "Men's Rights" movement to explain why SOL restrictions should not be revised to stay in keeping with our understanding of crime. Poor you!



Yeah, right. Nothing to see here at all. Just the Catholic Church "standing up" for statute of limitations because, you know, you can't trust people when they say they were raped by a priest thirty years ago. People lie about that shit all the time. This is totally not the most fucking deplorable exercise in cynicism I have seen all fucking year. And your contributions here have totally not been the most repugnant, vile display I have ever seen posted to this group.

[rug]

14. And the burden of asserting the Statute of Limitations is on the Defendant.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Yeah, that's why they're fighting it

And those dioceses that had judgments against them actually did go bankrupt and it wasn't just a money shuffle to avoid paying money to the people that those priests raped. Yeah, that's the ticket.

What the church did to enable these rapists was horrifying. The lengths they are going to in order to not have to pay for it and to continue to protect them is fucking reprehensible.

Defending them and their fight to not make the SOL longer? Not something I'd expect to see on a progressive site.

[struggle4progress]

13. Your assumption that all such suits are justified seems to me a species of bigotry

[Goblinmonger]

17. My assumption is that the court can decide which have merit.

This action is an attempt to make it so that those that didn't realize the impact of the crime when it was happening or just plain buried the crime so they didn't have to deal with it have more time to bring charges against their rapists.

But, sure, the church is fighting this because they think that too many people are just going to go around saying a priest molested them as a child when that didn't happen. It's not because they are assholes that want to protect their money instead of paying the victims of the rapist priests that they knowingly put in those parishes after moving them out of prior parishes where they know they molested people. No, that can't be it. It isn't about money and accepting blame. The church is fighting for integrity in the US court system. Do you actually believe that, FFS?

Nice try, though, attempting to make me a bigot for thinking that the church can fuck off in its attempt to not lengthen the SOL in this case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. You're way out of line with that insult

I suggest you self-delete.

No, Goblinmonger wasn't assuming "that all such suits are justified"; he was pointing out justice can be better served by allowing them, because some will be justified, and a court can decide that. If a statute of limitations says they can't be tried at all, then none can be tested.

But you've just reached for the name-calling, rather than thinking about this situation. Disgusting.

[struggle4progress]

22. Let's look at some numbers in the context of this discussion.

There were about 11000 allegations involving sexual assault of children by US priests for the period 1950-2002

Overall, there were about 63000 cases of child sexual abuse reported in the US for 2012 alone, the majority of these involving family members

You might want to stare hard at those numbers for a while

No data suggests that the Catholic church is an especially dangerous setting for children, in comparison to other organizations

This thread nevertheless somehow focusses on Catholic response to statute of limitation issues

In my #8 upthread, I pointed out a standard argument for statutes of limitation; in his response #11 to that post, GM fumes: Defending them and their fight to not make the SOL longer? Not something I'd expect to see on a progressive site

Take another look at the numbers I just posted

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. The thread "somehow focusses on Catholic response to statute of limitation issues"

because that's what the Reuters article is about. If you want to point out other major organisations that are trying to block the bills, then that might be germane to the discussion. You bring up abuse by family members; are you saying that some pro-family group is trying to block the bills too? If not, your numbers have nothing to do with the tactics and reprehensible morals of the RC church. Here's what the expert on the subject says, which chimes with what Goblinmonger said:

"It is the bishops who have blocked any kind of meaningful reform," said Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York who studies statutes of limitations.

"The bishops and the pope have a lot of explaining to do as to why it would be in their mission to keep all of these victims from seeking justice."

And as the article points out, "the U.S. church has already been dealt a heavy financial blow by settlement payments and other costs totaling around $3 billion, which has forced it to sell off assets and cut costs." The churches' self-interest in preventing cases coming to court is obvious. They're afraid that if some states extend their SoLs to what other states use, they'll lose cash. And cash matters more to them than justice, as their actions show.

Instead of some reasonable reply to Goblinmonger, you just threw an accusation of bigotry against him, like the turd in the punch bowl. I'm guessing you ran out of ideas on how to defend the church, so you just resorted to being offensive. Hey, why don't you write to Mark Rozzi, and tell him that he's a bigot for trying to get people longer to bring charges? He, after all, is the one doing what you object to. Go on, tell the abuse victim he's a bigot.

Your post was designed to poison the thread.

[Lordquinton]

29. Why did you leave out important data?

Go and search for data about the % of rape accusations that are false reports, and then see if your tune stays the same.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Because The Catholic Church is the one identifiable entity fighting the reforms.

Duh. Didn't you read the fucking article?

[Goblinmonger]

33. How do the numbers you posted impact what I said?

Does it make the reason why the RCC is doing this different?

I don't remember arguing that the RCC is an especially dangerous setting for children. I don't remember arguing that there are more cases of sexual abuse in the RCC than in other organization.

I'm a teacher. Do some teachers abuse children? Yes. Is the rate of abuse about the same as in the RCC? I believe so, but I may be wrong. Does the teaching profession do the same thing the RCC did with abusers? No. What the RCC has done is reprehensible and now they are doing even more reprehensible things.

And for you to pass off what they are doing is actually about jurisprudence and not saving their own ass is laughable at best.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Congratulations!

You've played the religious bigot card on the pederasty square. That is a quadruple bonus score!

You must be so proud.