Catholic Priest arrested for sexual assault of a child...

[cynatnite]

The Greene County Sheriff’s Department arrested Father Bill Casey Monday after he admitted last week to sexually abusing a child. In court Monday morning, Casey waived extradition to McDowell County, North Carolina.

Last week, Warren Tucker alerted the Diocese of Knoxville about the abuse he suffered at the hands of Casey in Greene County, Kingsport and McDowell County, NC. After Tucker came forward, Casey, admitted to the Diocese that he did cross the line with a young boy during the late 1970s.

Casey last served as priest of Notre Dame Catholic Church in Greeneville. The current priest there, Father John Appiah, said his parish is in shock. “Wow, it was a surprise, a shock, like wow…and then people ask the question do you believe it? And I say, well I don’t know,“ said Appiah.

Tennessee’s Statute of Limitations prevents authorities here from pressing charges against Casey, but law enforcement in North Carolina have charged him with committing a crime against nature. Casey could serve a maximum of 10 years in prison if convicted of that charge.

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/father_bill_casey_arrested_monday_former_greeneville_parish_in_shock/44819/

[tekisui]

1. Dang, someone unrecced a pedophile's arrest.

[pnwmom]

2. A crime against nature? That charge used to be awfully broad,

including consensual gay sex. I'm surprised it's still on the books. I wonder why they didn't charge him with child molestation?

[happyslug]

3. Because the Incident was in the 1970s and the Statute of Limitation had run

Most states have a two year statute of limitations on such crimes and thus can NOT bring a charge.

There is another problem, is they any evidence to support this confession? i.e. is the victim willing to testify or at least make a statement that the event occurred? If not the law has a problem, you can NOT convict a person on that person's confession alone. You must have some other evidence, may be not enough to convict him without the confession but some evidence that a crime did take place. This rule is designed to make sure someone is NOT confession to a crime he or she did NOT do, but do to fear, force or mental problems confesses to the crime anyway.

Anyway, the big problem is probably the Statue of Limitations, which the Crime against nature may not have in that state (for no one has used that law in decades so no one ever made it subject to a Statute of limitation for no one thought it was constitutionally valid (i.e. not worth repealing, but also not worth updating or making any other changes to it).

[CoffeeCat]

5. Thanks for explaining that...

I had no idea that the police could not convict based on a victim coming forward plus a confession of the perpetrator. I did not know that. Even if the perp says, "Yes, I did do those crimes" they
still could not convict?

Fascinating stuff.

[metapunditedgy]

4. The irony is thick here, because folks who claim the Bible outlaws homosexuality

often do so on the basis that it is called an "abomination," or a crime against nature.