Why the laws need changing...

[TklDuo-Ann]

*MODS - I didn't put this in P & R because it's more a discussion of a legal issue than the politics or religious implications of it.

http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060919/NEWS01/609190319/1006

The above article is from my hometown newspaper. It kinda bugged me reading about it. So, I thought I'd use this thread to vent a bit. It concerns the case of a priest who is accused of abusing several children in his parish. Under current laws, those children have until 2 years after their 18th birthday to come forward and file suit. As a result, civil cases against this priest have been dismissed. The same would be true if it were a criminal case.

Now, there are several things aobut this case that can be discussed here. We can discuss the fact that I happen to know this guy. We can discuss the fact that I sadly don't have much doubt about the charges. We can discuss the fact that the Catholic Church (and other churches and institutions) has fucked up the handling of these issues for years. We can even discuss the fact that I'm among the many who were shafted after coming forward about past abuse. But, that isn't what I want to discuss here.

What I want to discuss is the laws that allow these guys to go free time and again. Legislation has passed in many areas that changes the statute of limitations to be two years after the time of discovery. What this means is that, for those like myself who never remembered the abuse until years later, we have two years from the time that memory arises...whatever age we happen to be at the time. That gives us time for it to surface, time to accept that it's real, time to seek help for the turmoil that it will surface. Even if the memory were to surface early enough to beat the age limit the current law demands, few would have the ability to come forward at that point. This is why the law needs to be changed.

So, what's your opinion?

Ann

 

[storyteller]

Ann, I agree with you. I find it incomprehensible that so many people of "the cloth" and other "authority" positions get away with any sort of abuse because their position or the law protects them. Abuse of all sorts, especially child abuse, has become such a hot topic that hopefully legislation everywhere will catch up with the perpetrators. Otherwise, many of those who seem to be getting away with it are very likely going to end up as murder victims. I won't be shedding any tears for them, but their murders don't address the real problem.

 

[steph]

I agree Ann, the law needs changing. Your article was a major reason why this formerly practicing Italian Roman Catholic walked away from the church. The Catholic religion, rich as it may be, has completely lost touch with modern society. These days, I only set foot in church for weddings and funerals. I'm fed up with the lot of them.

XOXO

 

[TKpervert]

Yep, it's big news here on the left coast too. The Catholic Church has some serious problems, and I don't think they have the smarts to handle it.

Wait til word comes out that they've hired a PR agency (Liar Liar and Cheatum) to help re-build their image. Cat's out of the bag.

 

[NYvice]

While it is true...

While it is true that NY often lags behind in changing its laws (as most states currently have laws evens surpassing the 2 years Ann mentioned after the victim "realizes" what has happened to him or her, the incessant degradation of the Catholic faith needs to stop as well.

Make no mistake, I don't deny the egregious nature of the offenses, nor the tendency in the past for clergymen and high ranking members of the church covering up such crimes and hiding behind Cannon Law. In fact, these acts of evil toward children make me want to throw up.

However, people need to stop painting the entire church and the faith behind it the same color as those criminally responsible for the acts. The number of priests and clergy who do NOT participate in abuse FAR outnumbers the admittedly many cases that have and continue to occur.

There is (as of May 2006) some indication of a change to the tendency to cover up: Pope Benedict XVI, who had vowed to sweep "filth" from the church, took firm action against Father Marcial Maciel, facing accusations since the 1940s, and continues to hunt down these snakes in the grass.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the sexual abuse of children to be mortally sinful: covering up abuse is hiding both a breach of secular law and what in the eyes of the Church is mortal sin.

The abuse is wrong, the cover-ups are wrong, and the time for change is now...but it also has to be said that it cannot and will not happen overnight...its too large a body to try to sweep it all away in one stroke of the broom of justice. It should also be noted that Roman Catholic priests aren't the only religious leaders participating in this type of crime--its happens in all faiths...you just dont hear about it because it won't sell newspapers or get primetime ratings.

And Steph--You don't have to walk away from the church because of a few bad apples or because you don't believe in every single doctrine the church puts out...there's a lot of things I dont agree with either...but when it comes down to it, faith is between you and God. If you ever heard my pastor preach, you'd regret not going to mass every week--he's spectacular (truly blessed with the Holy Spirit).

 

[TKpervert]

If you ever heard my pastor preach, you'd regret not going to mass every week--he's spectacular (truly blessed with the Holy Spirit).

All pastors of all faiths offer powerful presentations weekly to their followers.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that pastors of all religions have become digital parrots of a higher authority, not God mind you, but Church Headquarters with their cameras focused on the donation plate as it passes among the faithfull at Sunday services.

Digital memos of course will urge better performance from the slackers ...

 

[TKpervert]

Hmmm, might be guilty of a hijack here... sorry TklDuo-Ann.
But I sure enjoyed my chance to BLAB !!!!

* re-enters bunker, reclaims lurking posture *
.
.
.

 

[NYvice]

All pastors of all faiths offer powerful presentations weekly to their followers.

Not true...plenty of priests lack the spirit--they have great intentions, but I find in some the true grace of God and the ability to speak from the heart and without much preparation--whereas others just do their routine since its their "job"...the guys I'm talking about know this is their CALLING...they dont just run through the motions. 😎

It wouldn't surprise me to find that pastors of all religions have become digital parrots of a higher authority, not God mind you, but Church Headquarters with their cameras focused on the donation plate as it passes among the faithfull at Sunday services.

Digital memos of course will urge better performance from the slackers ...

I'm probably just tired, but I think I missed your point...are you alluding to the cliche'd "preach for the buck" idea? If so, I feel bad that you all have had such ill-motivated priests...all it seems to take these days is one bad experience to give people a reason to leave the church.

 

[TKpervert]

No offense meant here NYvice or any others, but I find these clowns in funny robes to be charlatans pimping for cash to expand the realm. That includes the Pope.

God (and yes He is there) does indeed exist, but He exists in the mind of man and in the beauty of the Earth and in the miracle of the universe, and does not need us to remind Him of anything.

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

Thanks for the responses, gang. But, most of you missed the fact that I wanted to discuss the LAW, not the Church. While a lot of valid points were made, can we please stick to the intent of the thread? 😉

Ann

 

[NYvice]

No offense meant here NYvice or any others, but I find these clowns in funny robes to be charlatans pimping for cash to expand the realm. That includes the Pope.

God (and yes He is there) does indeed exist, but He exists in the mind of man and in the beauty of the Earth and in the miracle of the universe, and does not need us to remind Him of anything.

For respect of Ann's thread, I'm leaving this here...but before I do...I find the first part of your comment pretty ignorant (I didnt say you were ignorant do not mistake it--but the comment itself is ridiculously lacking). As for the second part, we don't practice to remind Him of anything...we practice as a sign of respect and devotion to Him, and to remind ourselves what it's all about. I also am not naive regarding the fact that money can be an issue. As with any organization (if that's what you would call it), the church needs money to continue to thrive. However, people don't give because they are duped into it by preachers...they give partly as a sacrifice to God and partly as a sign of their dedication to seeing the continued growth of the faith in the world. No, this is not the Roman conquest...simply our wanting to spread the Good Word, which teaches tolerance, peace, love, and forgiveness. If that ain't a good thing, I don't know what is. And Pervert, don't think Catholics pay so much attention to the men in the robes in Rome...they are leaders of the church, but we dont pray to THEM...we pray to God.


Edit: Sorry again Ann...I just hate sitting still while people trash the church.

 

[lk70]

Some people are good public speakers and some ain't.


Here's what I don't quite understand about the article. It said, at least twice, "New York law limits plaintiffs seeking monetary damages for alleged childhood abuse to filing damage claims no longer than two years after they turn 18."

It's the "monetary" thing that's bugging me here.

one- if they weren't seeking monetary damages, could the case continue?

two- I think monetary might be the key here. There needs to be some protection against bandwagon type claims. It got trendy to sue tobacco companies for awhile. It's not inconceivable, is it, that some might look to profit from long ago alleged abuse, especially since so many seem to be more than ready to hate the Catholic church?

And then remembering past traumatic events is a really tricky thing. A lot of years and experiences, fantasies and dreams, and even tv show and movies have intervened from point A to point B.

And, by way of being a cynic - how much money would it take for it to be "all better?"

 

[Haltickling]

I'm not an expert on American law, but a "term of limitation" for crimes which have life-long negative effects on the victims seems very wrong to me.

One explanation might be the history of that law. It might have been written at a time when psychology hadn't been aware of the now-known fact that victims of childhood abuse often repress this memory for decades. I know of a woman whose childhood abuse by her father was discovered accidentally during a hypnotherapy session at the age of 34! If that's the case, the law needs to be updated.

But of course, lk70's observation about the monetary aspect sounds quite likely, too. Does US law make a difference between penal law and private law (i.e. deciding on damage regulation)? Here in Germany, the victim doesn't even have to file a case of abuse himself/herself, it's done by the "public prosecutor" (similar to your DA). The term of limitation for child abuse is 30 years, and the term of limitation for monetary damages only starts with the court's verdict on the criminal case. A different court will then decide on the monetary damages.

 

[NYvice]

Does US law make a difference between penal law and private law (i.e. deciding on damage regulation)? Here in Germany, the victim doesn't even have to file a case of abuse himself/herself, it's done by the "public prosecutor" (similar to your DA). The term of limitation for child abuse is 30 years, and the term of limitation for monetary damages only starts with the court's verdict on the criminal case. A different court will then decide on the monetary damages.

In the US we have a criminal law and civil law...both having different standards and statutes of limitation. In the case of child sexual abuse, as of 1997, 28 states had adopted an extension of the time limitation based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects for civil actions (seeking monetary damages), with the rest extending the SOL (statute of limitations) for a period after the victim has reached the age of majority (18). Regarding criminal actions, these very same states have almost all suspended the time limit for which child sexual abuse cases can be brought. New York, since that is the state being questioned in this thread, has resisted legislative changes in both the criminal and civil arenas in many areas, not just in sex abuse cases...they tend to keep antiquated laws a lot longer than most states.

 

[Haltickling]

Thanks for the explanation, NYvice. In this case, I agree fully with Ann that the laws on the time limit should be changed, like in those 28 states you mentioned. It simply makes more sense.

 

[MrMacphisto]

While I agree that the situation at the beginning of this thread is definitely disturbing, I wanted to mention that there is such a thing as False Memory Syndrome. It would seem that maybe this limitation on pressing charges is a half-assed attempt at dealing with this kind of thing.

I'm not suggesting that most of these cases are a result of FMS, but I wouldn't doubt it if a significant minority is.

 

[LindyHopper]

...It might have been written at a time when psychology hadn't been aware of the now-known fact that victims of childhood abuse often repress this memory for decades. I know of a woman whose childhood abuse by her father was discovered accidentally during a hypnotherapy session at the age of 34!

I don't know if you're a psychologist, Hal, but I am, and I would like to take this opportunity to clear up what "psychology knows" about recovered memories.

Memory research indicates that memory is exceedingly fallible - less like the truth of a videotape, and more like milk dropped into a glass of water. The more time has passed, the more the "truth" of the memory blurs, and blends in with ideas that are not part of what the individual originally experienced. Memories are shaped by mental rehearsal, mood, expectatations, and suggestions. In the end, under even the best of circumstances, they are a mere approximation of what actually happened.

Elizabeth Loftus is the most well-known of psychologists who have demonstrated how shockingly easy it is to get someone to remember something that never happened. Her research on experimentally implanting false memories of childhood traumas has shown that participants can transform a vivid secondhand account of, say, being lost in a grocery store, into a memory that feels as real as any other, to the point where these participants are incredulous when informed that the memory wasn't real at all. In other studies, a third of participants became convinced that they had drowned as a child, and about half were led to falsely recall an awful experience, such as an animal attack.

Therapy techniques involving hypnosis, drugs, and "guided imagery" are especially dangerous for creating false memories. They put people into a state where they are particularly receptive to suggestion, where a well-meaning therapist can, through a series of leading questions (Can you see his face? Is it your father?) guide the subject's construction of a vivid, detailed memory of something that never occurred. We need to be particularly suspicious of memories retrieved under these circumstances, and of memories for events occurring before the age of 3 (because people do not reliably recall anything that happened during those years).

I'm not saying that repression of threatening memories never occurs. However, it is clear that the most common response to a traumatic experience (such as witnessing a murder, living in a concentration camp, or surviving a natural disaster or terrorist attack), is the opposite of repression. Such people are typically victim to vivid, persistent, intrusive, haunting memories. How many victims of 911 do you figure have "forgotten" that it happened?

I deeply apologize to everyone I will inevitably offend with this post. I know that if you yourself have a recovered memory of childhood abuse, an explanation of false memory implantation is the last thing you want to hear, and that I could only be adding to the pain you have already experienced. But the research evidence is what it is, and I feel very strongly that innocent people don't deserve to be traumatized by memories of abuse that never happened, or to have their lives ruined by a false accusation.

To get back to the specific topic of this thread, I agree with giving children two years after turning 18 to file charges of childhood abuse. I understand that there are many factors making it difficult for a child to level such an accusation. However, I am firmly against any legislation that promotes using uncorroborated recovered memories as evidence for anything. There's just too great a chance that this "evidence" isn't true at all.

 

[Haltickling]

I'm no psychologist, Lindy, and I won't deny the existence of the False Memory Syndrome or the fallibility of memory.

However, I don't think that you can compare a public catastrophe like 9/11 with a very private catastrophe like sexual abuse during childhood. Repressing memories about the latter is quite often the only way for a kid to survive and remain halfway sane. Then, maybe in their 20s, they meet a loving partner, but their sexual life won't work at all. They consult a therapist who finds out about sexual abuse during childhood. Should this victim be denied justice, only because he/she found this out too late?

Of course, the court would have to find at least SOME corroborating evidence, which is admittedly extremely difficult after a decade or more. Anyway, in most cases, the victim wouldn't even sue because the newly found memory hurts too much. But he/she should at least have this possibility to get over it, don't you think so?

 

[lk70]

Should this victim be denied justice, only because he/she found this out too late?

Of course, the court would have to find at least SOME corroborating evidence, which is admittedly extremely difficult after a decade or more. Anyway, in most cases, the victim wouldn't even sue because the newly found memory hurts too much. But he/she should at least have this possibility to get over it, don't you think so?

Do we think it's not possible for someone to "get over it" unless they get some money from the person who attacked them? Is that justice?

I wonder if we focus way too much on punishing others rather than healing ourselves.

 

[Haltickling]

Do we think it's not possible for someone to "get over it" unless they get some money from the person who attacked them? Is that justice?

I wonder if we focus way too much on punishing others rather than healing ourselves.

Just a few thoughts on that: I don't think that any monetary compensation helps getting over childhood abuse. But to get some help with healing, it takes a long, rather expensive therapy. Should the victim pay for this?

Part of the healing process requires the ability to finalize with the traumatic event. IMO, the abuser getting away with his crime because of a legal gap is counterproductive. Punishment per se is not a priority, but if this helps to get the victim over the trauma, it's necessary.

Last but not least, the predator should not be given the opportunity to molest other kids, if only for the sake of child protection. He/she is a danger to society. I'm against death penalty, but at the very least, the abuser should undergo a thorough therapy.

 

[LindyHopper]

I don't think that you can compare a public catastrophe like 9/11 with a very private catastrophe like sexual abuse during childhood. Repressing memories about the latter is quite often the only way for a kid to survive and remain halfway sane.

I disagree, on the basis of evidence from former children, now adults, whose memories of abuse have been corroborated by other sources (such as physical evidence, other family members, or Child Protective Services). Most of them have, and have always had, very clear recollections of their abuse. On the other hand, there are all these people coming up with such memories, seemingly out of nowhere, and there is generally no corroborating evidence to be found. I understand that absence of proof is not proof of absence, but this set of data certainly seems suggestive of the idea that repression is not common.

Then, maybe in their 20s, they meet a loving partner, but their sexual life won't work at all. They consult a therapist who finds out about sexual abuse during childhood. Should this victim be denied justice, only because he/she found this out too late?

This is, I think, an extremely dangerous way of thinking. All too often, a person enters therapy because they are depressed, or are experiencing some kind of sexual dysfunction, or for any of a host of reasons. The therapist tells the client, "People who have been abused often have these symptoms, so you were probably abused. Let's see if you, aided by hypnosis or drugs, can recover this memory." And then begins the process of the well-meaning therapist, through a series of leading questions, aiding the client in the construction of a memory from scratch.

The problem is, people experience depression, or sexual dysfunction, or what have you, for many reasons. It is not "usually" abuse. Turning to that as a probable answer, and "helping" a client "uncover" such memories, is, to my way of thinking, criminally irresponsible. It tears apart the "victim's" life, and his or her family, over something that never happened. It misses the real root of the person's problems, and instead of healing them, causes infinitely more pain.

Of course, the court would have to find at least SOME corroborating evidence, which is admittedly extremely difficult after a decade or more. Anyway, in most cases, the victim wouldn't even sue because the newly found memory hurts too much. But he/she should at least have this possibility to get over it, don't you think so?

Agreeing with lk70 here - how does a lawsuit help the person "get over it?" And you're right - most people don't sue... perhaps because they have no real evidence and probably wouldn't win? And whether or not there is corroborating evidence (as you pointed out, probably not), the life of the accused is basically ruined, over what might be nothing. How is that "justice?"

 

[Haltickling]

In this case, we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't prove my point, and you can't prove yours, so they're just opposing opinions.

 

[TicklishLurker]

There should not only be NO statue of limitations on rape or molestation, there should be a death penalty for pedophiles and rapists. They'll just do it again. There's no cure for them. Death is the only way to deal with them.

 

[Icycle]

In this case, we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't prove my point, and you can't prove yours, so they're just opposing opinions.

This isn't just a matter of two people with opposing opinions. LindyHopper is a trained psychologist with an informed opinion on a topic directly related to psychology.

Social scientists typically won't use the word "prove". Instead they will talk about how well the observed facts support a hypothesis. In this case, LindyHopper presented evidence to support the hypothesis that recovered memories are not accurate recollections of past occurences. This evidence included survivors of traumatic stituations with normal memories of the events that are corroborated by other evidence, and scientific experiments that demonstrate the ability to implant false memories.

You can choose not to believe the evidence that LindyHopper presents, but it is very inaccurate to characterize your disagreement with her has a simple matter of differing opinions.

 

[storyteller]

NYvice may need to jump in here...

Ik70 posed a question about money equating with justice. In Civil Law, money is absolutely part of the justice because THAT IS THE PENALTY the law allows. Civil and criminal cases can be filed separately or simultaneously. Sometimes the verdict in one type of case influences the verdict in the other OR influences whether the other type of case will be filed at all. Sometimes, criminal charges cannot be filed but a suit can be brought in civil court. If that's the only justice the law allows and you're a victim, you go with what you can. Like anything else, there are those who abuse the system for personal gain, and there are those who are legitimately seeking justice in the venues available to them.