Connecticut bishops are asking parishioners to fight a proposed state sex abuse bill (not The Onion)

[Tuvok Obama]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1

Connecticut bishops fight sex abuse bill
From Jamie Guzzardo, CNN
April 11, 2010 10:30 p.m. EDT

Hartford, Connecticut (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.

more at link...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1

[pnwmom]

1. Why isn't 30 years after the 18th birthday long enough?

How does one defend against charges that old?

[Bluebear]

3. "No I didn't do it" or "Yes, I did it"?

[pnwmom]

14. But why isn't 30 years long enough? n/t

[Clintonista2]

17. Because sometimes sexual abuse victims are too ashamed to come forward

until much later in life. A better question would be why are you suggesting that after 30 years molestors should be home free?

[pnwmom]

20. What is the statute of limitations on prosecuting other serious crimes,

other than murder? I don't think there are others that have an unlimited number of years in which to bring charges.

[Tuvok Obama]

4. It was the phrase "at risk" that caught my attention

As usual, the attitude of Catholic leaders is in favor of protecting the institution. I don't see why the molestation and rape of children is not treated as an emergency, and has not been treated as such for many decades.

Perhaps if the church (i.e., the church's finances) were "at risk" because of all the pedophiles in its employ who keep getting transferred (instead of turned in to the authorities for arrest and imprisonment), then the church might try a little harder to protect its own children.

With all the scandals from past decades and especially what's come out in the past few weeks, I'm baffled that Catholic children are not considered by the church to be "at risk" for molestation and rape.

To answer your question, one defends against charges that are that old by ceasing to perpetuate new ones -- in other words, by turning in pedophiles instead of covering for them. In the meantime, I hope the Catholic church hemorrhages money.

[aquart]

10. But a Church of celibates can't have children.

They can only use other people's children. Not the same emotional pull at all.

[NYC Liberal]

6. The same way one makes the charges.

With evidence.

[rug]

13. There are statutes of limitations precisely because exculpatory evidence vanishes.

That said, it is for the defense bar to oppose this bill, not a diocese.

[Cleobulus]

21. No, and its frankly disgusting that you even raise that up as an issue...

defend the corruption and criminality if you feel you must, but don't pretend to be a decent human being afterward.

[struggle4progress]

23. Huh? Reasonable statutes of limitations serve multiple purposes. They

recognize that very charges about events long passed are difficult to clarify; they recognize that ancient offenses usually do not concern society as immediately as recent ones; they recognize that offenders may change after many years; and they recognize thyat there is a value in moving on

If I plant my fist in your face and break your nose, you have a real grievance, and if you act on it within a reasonable time, you have some good chance of satisfaction. However, if you are silent for a decade and then discover yourself aggrieved by it, the natural reaction will be that you had a chance to act when the insult was fresh, and there will be reasonable question about your failure to do so. There is little upside socially to encouraging people to brood over ancient wrongs against them until they at length finally become angry enough to act. The resources of the justice system are best set at work on reasonably current events, against offenders who plausibly present a current threat to good order. And of course, there is simply no way for most people to respond to a claim that "Forty years ago, I met the defendant in a bar, and he broke my nose, and I am suing him now that I have found him"

[Cleobulus]

24. Did you just compare sexual assault on minors with someone being punched?

Oh My Fucking God! :puke:

[struggle4progress]

26. Oh, criminey. Give it a frickin rest. I bet an honest poll of DUers

would show almost all of us had met various creeps growing up. I probably met a dozen, if I do a careful count: the weirdo in the restroom who wanted to watch me pee as an eight year old, the guy who used to hang out on the playground and tried to look up the girls' skirts ... there's quite a list. Most kids aren't stupid, and when I grew up we looked out after each other: I just saw the creep on the playground and so on

They're a small minority, but there's no shortage of folk who are sexually inappropriate with minors. Do they deserve to serve time? Well, of course, I think so. Still, lots of different things fall under the general rubric of "sexual abuse." The peepers and the fondlers and their ilk are sad emotionally immature people; it's natural to find their behavior frightening and grossly unacceptable, but I frankly doubt that everyone is scarred for life by the various creepy shitheads they meet, since I expect that almost everyone has met them

You do realize that punching somebody in the face can cause permanent brain damage, don't you?

[Cleobulus]

28. Holy fucking shit, you are unbelievable...

what part of "Assault" did you NOT understand?

[struggle4progress]

31. At least I've posted some rational comments, information, and links in the thread

Have a lovely day :hi:

[Cleobulus]

32. Rational my ass, you seem to think victims of sexual abuse should just "get over it"...

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

[Clintonista2]

29. You're a nasty piece of work

Struggle4progress to molestation victims:

"Get over it"

[struggle4progress]

30. "...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 other cases to determine whether to prosecute

[DeSwiss]

33. A more cogent question is....

...why on earth would Catholic bishops want to impede the service of justice.

- Oh. Right.

"Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

[Better Today]

2. If all Church institutions, all parishes, are at risk, is that an admission that

every church institution in every parish has sexual abuse issues to be put at risk?

[maglatinavi]

5. sex abuse

B T... tell me about it!!!:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Cleobulus]

25. I think that should be grounds for opening up an investigation on what these Bishops...

know about sexual abuse in their parishes.

[Sherman A1]

7. Could be interesting legal precedent in this one should it pass

certainly worth watching. As for the thoughts of the Church on this matter, well.. they have a right to speak out on an issue that may very well affect them. Of course they also had a "right" (and, in my opinion a strong moral obligation) to do everything humanly possible about the abuse along the way. One suspects that they elected not to do so.

This will be worth watching.

[Sherman A1]

8. Dupe posting

I think things got hung up in internet land.

[BlooInBloo]

9. It makes perfect sense for any child rape institution to fight that.

[thotzRthingz]

11. I have mixed feelings about this:

On the one hand:

This is not the 1860s or 1960s or even the 1990s ... TODAY (being in the year 2010) with all the sex-crap & frank-openness with which our society (including our children) are bombarded nearly 24-hours each and every day... via the Internet, Radio, TV, Music, Videos, etc. I think that 30 years past one's being 18 years of age... should be enough time to "respond" to any attacker/incident.

OTOH:

Well... I think we're all pretty much disgusted with child-molesters... they deserve whatever the law (old or new) will allow, and then some!

[Lyric]

12. I think the bill is reasonable. It can take decades to recover from abuse.

Maybe more than three. There are some legitimate victims who cannot bring themselves to publicly face the shame and horror of what happened to them until 30+ years have gone by. I think it would be horrible to see someone come forward with a terrible story (or even actual evidence, like photographs) and have to tell them "NO, we can't prosecute because it was 31 years ago. Sorry."

The bill asks for stronger evidence if you're making an older claim, but that's fair. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that situations like the one I just described above do NOT happen; it ensures that if older allegations are leveled and come with EVIDENCE, we are not legally bound to ignore them.

[olegramps]

15. There should be no statue of limitations for sex abuse of a minor, just as for murder.

The sole reason for these abuse enablers for opposing the bill is to protect their assets and asses. Maybe they have something in their past they fear could led to a jail cell.

[AngryOldDem]

16. I'd take it a step further.

Barring eliminating the statute of limitations altogether, make clergy mandatory reporters of abuse, like teachers, doctors, and anyone else who deals with kids and knows of/suspects abuse.

The bishops and other clergy will fight this tooth and nail, which is telling, in and of itself.

I hope this comes to a vote and does not find itself back languishing in some state committee, as similar bills have done in other states.

[struggle4progress]

19. Clergy are already mandatory reporters of child abuse under Connecticut law:

http://www.211ct.org/InformationLibrary/Documents/Child%20Abuse%20-%20Mandatory%20Reporting%20fj.asp

[Lucian]

18. The only reason they're trying to stop it is because they have something to hide.

I hope to the FSM that this is the start of the downfall of the Catholic church. The world will be better off without it.

[struggle4progress]

22. The current 30 year statute of limitations is longer than most

statutes of limitation in Connecticut. If you sexually abuse someone, and there's DNA evidence, and the abuse is reported within five years, there's still only a twenty year window for prosecution in Connecticut; otherwise, the statute allows for five years. If you injure somebody in an armed robbery in Connecticut, there's still only a five year window to prosecute,. Thirty years ought to be way more than enough time to sort everything out

[Dorian Gray]

27. They tried to do this in NYC

but were limiting it to private institutions. (Meaning public schools and other government run institutions would not be subject to the non-statute of limitations.) It was struck down because of the disparity.

A law like that could work if it was a universal law. I have no problem with revoking statue of limitations for sex crimes.