|
The studies I have read indicate most abuse Victims do not accept that the abuse occurred and was NOT their fault till they are in they mid-20s. This has caused a lot of problems in that most states statute of Limitation start to run when the Victim turns 18 (and thus the time had run by the time the Victim is age 22, which is 4-8 years BEFORE the victim accept that he was the VICTIM).
Thus a four year statute of Limitation is often to short for such cases. On the other hand waiting for a possible 42 years AFTER the incident is to long. Sooner or later people have to accept that things occurred in the past AND LEAVE IT BE.
A secondary problem is Defendant often rely on Statute of Limitation to get rid of records that will NOT be needed do to any litigation being Estopped by the Statute of Limitation. Such reliance must be taken into consideration and in my opinion would have been good grounds for a Court to hold Latches should be invoked do to the Church Reliance on an old Statute of Limitation. Thus I do NOT believe the change is that significant from an actual legal point of view.
A good compromise would be a twelve year statute of Limitation, which would force people to file any legal action before they turn 30 (remember statute of Limitation do NOT start to one till one is at the age of majority, 18 in most states). The Defenses of Latches should still be invokable if it can be shown the Defendant defense was substantially weaken by the delay. Remember we have TWO rights to balance here, the first is the right of the Victim to seek to be made whole by the party who did him harm, and second the Right of the Defendant to be able to give a reasonable defense.
Maybe it is my background, one of the constant allegations in Custody cases is child abuse, but then compromised out for higher financial settlement by the side who made the allegations. Was the Allegation real or made to increase leverage in the Action? I have seen such allegation being made and then compromised out like it was a claim for a piece of furniture. Given this background some finality do to such allegations has to come sooner or later, the issue is when can the court says something occurred so long ago it is no longer relevant or actionable? And please remember we are talking about civil litigation not Criminal Litigation. Maryland apparently has no statute of Limitation on the CRIME of Child abuse, but has a four year statute of Limitation on any CIVIL liability for Child abuse.
Yes, false claims of Child abuse occurs all the time and have to be addressed. At the same time real child abuse has to handled by the Courts. Remember the issue in Most Civil Litigation is NOT the Church encouraging Child abuse but failing to take proper actions to prevent and to address child abuse. The Abuser is often in Jail or outside the power of the Church by the time most allegations of abuse get to court (The church either fired the Priest or otherwise discipline him or he quits the priesthood). The Issue in the court is how much is the CHURCH liable for its failures.
The Church Liabilities is related to its failure ot properly supervise its Priest. Those failures include moving Priests from one parish to another (which is actually a good policy when you have one accusation of abuse for if the abuse ends, you know the accusation was false, but if the abuse follows you know the accusation is true and never permit that priest to be around children after that second accusation, it is this final step the Church failed to do in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and is costing the Church Money, instead of restricting the priest the Bishop kept moving the Priest after each new accusation, as a said a good move if done after the first accusation, but a terrible one after that).
A Second error of the Bishops was losing up the old rules of the Church that made it easier to "convict" a Priest of abuse. For example Priests , prior to the 1970s, Any Priest who had someone in their private sections of the parish house would be treated as if they had sex with that person. This rule was viewed as a medieval rule and was abolished in most Diocese. The problem was the rule had been adopted do to the difficulty of finding evidence of sexual abuse. The Medieval Church thus said if a Priest had a person in his private quarters the Church will assume they had sex and the priest to be punished accordingly. This rule more than anything else kept Priests in line for Centuries (Minimized opportunities for abuse). With the Rule's abolishment any Priest could invite people up to their private quarters, most priest did nothing wrong, but a minority used the opportunity to abuse their victims.
A third problem was a constant one and one that exist in any organization, how do you disciple your Friends? It is easy to discipline one's enemies or people one hardy knows, but one friends? This problem of the Bishop had been addressed by set rules, if a Priest violated one of the Rules the Bishops had to discipline the Priest even if the Priest did no actual harm to anyone. Why such strict rules? Again, all the priest know of the rule and thus knew any violation of the Rule they had to explain and take the punishment. Any victims did not have to prove anything, abuse did not have to be proved, proof was the violation of the rule.
People tend to forget Sexual abuse is hard to prove. Often by the time a child tells his parents (if he or she tells them at all) it is days if not weeks later and all evidence is long gone. The situation becomes a he say, she say situation. Who do you believe? In any prosecution of any case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and if all the evidence is one person's word against another the victim does NOT carry his or her burden of Proof and the priest walks (Through if two or more victim testifies AND if it is after the first move of the Priest, then the burden is carried, but that takes time to do).
Child abuse is hard to prove, and subject to a lot of bad evidence. ont her other hand once proof beyond a reasonable doubt is clear on the Record the supervisor of the Abuser must take steps to prevent further harm. This later situation is where the Catholic Church is being hit by lawsuits, they had the evidence of abuse, but just kept moving the abuser around (They tend to be close friends of the Bishops as are most of the Priest in the Diocese). This is common in most organizations (Look at the problem of Police NOT testifying about the abuse they see they fellow officers do). Thus hard rules have to be adopted and if violated applied by the Bishop even if the Bishop thinks the rule is bad in any particular case. This is the big error by the Bishops and why they are paying, they often failed to follow they own rules. Violation of these Rules permitted the abusers to exist and survive in the Diocese. It is NOT the lack of "honesty, humility, and forgiveness" it is the simple failure to follow the Church's own rules. The Bishops and the Pope are still picking up the pieces of the failure of Bishops in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s to follow the Church's own rules. Today's Bishops and both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, have all acted honesty with humility, and have asked for forgiveness for both the Abuse and the Failure of the Church to address the Abuse. "Honesty, humility, and forgiveness" Are NOT the problem of the Church, it has plenty of all three, the problem is setting up a system that will prevent such abuse in the future and that system has to Force Bishops to discipline their Friends the same way as their enemies. Such a System was set up in the 1990s and the number of abuse cases dropped afterward (as the number of accusation INCREASED and were Addressed by the New System). Is the new System perfect? No, as my father use to say, there was only one perfect person who ever lived and we nailed him to a cross. The new system is much better than the system in place between 1960 and 1990 but is it as good as the system prior to 1960? In some ways yes, in other ways no (One of the huge checks on Priest prior to 1970s were the Nuns, they had no place else to go except to Church on Sunday so they were present when the Priest and the Alter boys were together. The Nuns were NOT under the authority of the Priest, they had their own hierarchy and thus could and did report any "problems", it was an informal check on the Priests but a Check none the less that does not exist today do to the huge drop in women becoming Nuns).
"Honesty, humility, and forgiveness" are a hallmark of the Catholic Church as is its Hierarchy. The problem is NOT the lack of "honesty, humility, and forgiveness" but the hierarchy having to address the problem of Abuse among itself. The Hierarchy has address the problem, the real issue today is will the Hierarchy keep up the system it has adopted or will you have a back slide. Only Time will tell.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
