Catholic League: PA Rep. Wants New Lawsuits Against Church So He Can Cash In

[phands]

Bill Donohue is a piece of weapons stupid filth...

Last week, the Pennsylvania House passed a bill that would help victims of child sexual abuse. Senate Bill 261 would eliminate the statute of limitations in such cases, extend the deadline (by 20 years) for people to file civil cases against their abusers, and create a brand new two-year window for older victims of such abuse to sue their abusers.


It’s that last bit that created all kinds of chaos — and pushback from the Catholic Church. They don’t want more lawsuits against them, certainly not from victims who were timed out of suing them because the abuse happened several decades ago. The legislation is also on shaky ground in the GOP-led State Senate because it treats sex abuse cases different for private and public institutions — lawsuits against private groups (like the Church) require a lower burden of proof and there’s no cap on damages. It could theoretically bankrupt the Church… and, for some reason, there are people who think that’s a bad thing.


That’s why the Church and its defenders are doing everything they can to derail this bill. The Church has to walk a fine line between showing compassion for victims and rejecting a bill they think unfairly singles them out. But people like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League who have never been known for compassion are just flinging whatever bullshit they can find in order to discredit the legislation.


Donohue’s latest argument?


It involves State Rep. Mark Rozzi, who inserted the amendment about the two-year window for older abuse victims and has said this legislation is personal for him because he, too, was a victim of abuse at the hands of a priest. Therefore, says Donohue, Rozzi isn’t really in a position to back this bill because it’s really all about making money for him.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...ew-lawsuits-against-church-so-he-can-cash-in/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm against that clause being in the bill.

This isn't because I want child rapists going unpunished, but because there's a standard legal principle that you get charged as the law is at the time of the offense. I don't like the idea of the government being able to retroactively change laws in order to go after people they currently cannot.

 

[phands]

I'm against that clause being in the bill.

This isn't because I want child rapists going unpunished, but because there's a standard legal principle that you get charged as the law is at the time of the offense. I don't like the idea of the government being able to retroactively change laws in order to go after people they currently cannot.

I would normally agree, but in these cases, the abuse was so long-lived and so pervasive, and so institutionally unpunished that I'm fine with changing the statute of limitations. And many states have several crimes with no SoL, some of which are much less serious than these.

 

[Sarpedon]

One could argue that changing the statute of limitations is not the same as retroactively making something illegal, then punishing people for having done it.

In fact, its not at all like that.

Child molestation has never been legal. Whether the courts can entertain charges on old crimes is a different matter entirely.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

One could argue that changing the statute of limitations is not the same as retroactively making something illegal, then punishing people for having done it.

In fact, its not at all like that.

Child molestation has never been legal. Whether the courts can entertain charges on old crimes is a different matter entirely.

I disagree that it's a different issue. If the law at the time of the offense is that you can't be charged five years after the fact in order to get an old offender then changing that isn't materially different than if the punishment has a maximum of five years in prison but you want to send him away for life because the sentencing rules changed in between his committing the crime and his getting caught for it. It's called the ex post facto clause and is designed to stop this kind of retroactive sentencing and bases the punishment on what the rules were when the offence occurred.

The fact that it would be really, really nice to throw away limitations which will let some child rapists get away doesn't compensate for setting a precedent which allows the government to change the rules at their whim when they run out of legal options against someone they're pissed off at in the moment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was taught that part of the reason for a statute of limitations is the idea that the perpetrator has to live with guilt, with fear of exposure and prosecution, and that's a form of punishment all its own.
What we're realizing now is just how much covering up there was, how little fear of punishment they lived with. How common it was to cover up and coerce silence, to marginalize complaints, and to protect fellows just becacuse they were fellows.

So any given limitation clearly had no impact as a deterrent, so I don't see any great change from altering the limits.

I mean, other than a bunch of really old kiddy diddlers and their enablers SUDDENLY having their crimes weigh greatly on their minds, with a very real chance of punishment and dying in prison. Their next confessions might be entertaining...

 

[Sarpedon]

My point is that it's NOT the same as ex post facto law, as it does not make anything a crime after the fact. The Statute of Limitations can be seen as an administrative tool, one that can be modified. Frankly, intimidating victims into remaining silent until the statute runs out is a more worrysome abuse of power than changing the Statute. The Statute is probably a tool used by powerful criminals than anything useful to the average person accused of a crime. It's one of the shitty technicalities they wrote into the laws so they can do what they like with no consequences.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My point is that it's NOT the same as ex post facto law, as it does not make anything a crime after the fact. The Statute of Limitations can be seen as an administrative tool, one that can be modified. Frankly, intimidating victims into remaining silent until the statute runs out is a more worrysome abuse of power than changing the Statute. The Statute is probably a tool used by powerful criminals than anything useful to the average person accused of a crime. It's one of the shitty technicalities they wrote into the laws so they can do what they like with no consequences.

And my point is that I disagree with you about your point. Regardless of the aspect of the law in question, I don't like the government having the power to retroactively change what they're able to do in order to pursue a vendetta. The fact that it's a noble cause in one instance doesn't alter the fact that its setting a precedent to allow them to do the same thing in other instances.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My point is that it's NOT the same as ex post facto law, as it does not make anything a crime after the fact. The Statute of Limitations can be seen as an administrative tool, one that can be modified. Frankly, intimidating victims into remaining silent until the statute runs out is a more worrysome abuse of power than changing the Statute. The Statute is probably a tool used by powerful criminals than anything useful to the average person accused of a crime. It's one of the shitty technicalities they wrote into the laws so they can do what they like with no consequences.

And my point is that I disagree with you about your point. Regardless of the aspect of the law in question, I don't like the government having the power to retroactively change what they're able to do in order to pursue a vendetta. The fact that it's a noble cause in one instance doesn't alter the fact that its setting a precedent to allow them to do the same thing in other instances.

If you were personally affected you might feel otherwise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you were personally affected you might feel otherwise.

That really doesn't sound like Tom.
However, I don't really think this is retroactively doing anything. It's going to affect prosecution going forward, but it's not like anyone previously convicted will have their sentence vacated, or that someone previously exonerated will face double jeopardy.

We change laws all the time. Blue laws that aren't being enforced get changed, laws that were written without considering certain situations get updated... But none of that is a retroactive change.

 

[Sarpedon]

And my point is that the vast majority of 'instances' seem to favor the rich and powerful over those who are not. A powerful person can suppress reporting for years. Poor, powerless people can't.

the Ex-post facto clause protects innocent people from having their behavior suddenly criminalized. The Statute of Limitations protects only the guilty. Not the accused, only the guilty.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My point is that it's NOT the same as ex post facto law, as it does not make anything a crime after the fact. The Statute of Limitations can be seen as an administrative tool, one that can be modified. Frankly, intimidating victims into remaining silent until the statute runs out is a more worrysome abuse of power than changing the Statute. The Statute is probably a tool used by powerful criminals than anything useful to the average person accused of a crime. It's one of the shitty technicalities they wrote into the laws so they can do what they like with no consequences.

And my point is that I disagree with you about your point. Regardless of the aspect of the law in question, I don't like the government having the power to retroactively change what they're able to do in order to pursue a vendetta. The fact that it's a noble cause in one instance doesn't alter the fact that its setting a precedent to allow them to do the same thing in other instances.

If you were personally affected you might feel otherwise.

Thank you for confirming the exact point I was trying to make. This is why emotional decisions shouldn't factor into the legal process.

It feels really fucking good to find a way to put more child rapists behind bars and anyone who's been victimized by a child rapist should feel even better about it. That's all the more reason to be exceptionally careful about opening the door to allowing the government to take this sort of step because once they have the ability and the precedent is set, they will find a way to do it again and perhaps not in such a benign way.

It's like how it was great after 9/11 that the intelligence services finally got their handcuffs taken off so they could go after the damn terrorists who killed so many Americans and ... oh wait, now you're using those tools to engage in domestic surveillance of people who aren't involved in terrorism? I had assumed that you wouldn't abuse these expanded powers we'd given you during an emotionally charged time when other situations they could be applied to came up. It's so unexpected that you did that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you were personally affected you might feel otherwise.

Thank you for confirming the exact point I was trying to make. This is why emotional decisions shouldn't factor into the legal process.

It feels really fucking good to find a way to put more child rapists behind bars and anyone who's been victimized by a child rapist should feel even better about it. That's all the more reason to be exceptionally careful about opening the door to allowing the government to take this sort of step because once they have the ability and the precedent is set, they will find a way to do it again and perhaps not in such a benign way.

It's like how it was great after 9/11 that the intelligence services finally got their handcuffs taken off so they could go after the damn terrorists who killed so many Americans and ... oh wait, now you're using those tools to engage in domestic surveillance of people who aren't involved in terrorism? I had assumed that you wouldn't abuse these expanded powers we'd given you during an emotionally charged time when other situations they could be applied to came up. It's so unexpected that you did that.

We are "the" government. We are the "they" you are talking about.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I really don’t get the tendency to use feigned obliviousness as a debating style. It doesn’t come across as clever as people think it does.

And stop abusing the Patriot Act to personally spy on your fellow citizens. Da fuck is wrong with you, dude?

 

[Amyrich]

Pardon my ignorance, but why even have a statute of limitations on charges against crimes like sexual abuse and molestation? CLEARLY, there is a pattern even with the victims. Many seem to be silenced, and it takes years for them to process their trauma and get secure enough even to REPORT it. Shouldn't the psychological patterns of trauma also be considered for crimes like these?

 

[phands]

Pardon my ignorance, but why even have a statute of limitations on charges against crimes like sexual abuse and molestation? CLEARLY, there is a pattern even with the victims. Many seem to be silenced, and it takes years for them to process their trauma and get secure enough even to REPORT it. Shouldn't the psychological patterns of trauma also be considered for crimes like these?

Given that abuse as a child lasts a lifetime, there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on those crimes. Same argument for rape, and probably many other crimes.