Re: Catholic Church reverses course on bill to eliminate statute of limitations on sex abuse of minors

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

> > Many of the victims who came forward talked about later abusing drugs 
> > or attempting suicide until they got help. “A just system would let 
> > the victims come forward when they can. If they are not ready, they 
> > simply cannot. Abuse is a long-term disability and the burden of proof 
> > still sits with the victim,” Andrew Willis, CEO of the Stop Abuse 
> > Campaign testified.<
>
> No, that is not a just system.  That is one that assumes any claim of 
> abuse is true.  Of course the burden of proof is upon the victim - how 
> else should it be?

I agree that the burden of proof is, and must be, on the victim.  But to 
*accept* that burden can take a long, long time.  Hence the suggestion 
that crimes of this sort no longer have statutes of limitations.

I say this, BTW, as one whose bishop recently had to step aside because of 
abuse allegations -- which are only allegations at this point -- that go 
back to the 1980s.

> In the same way that justice requires the accuser, (or one acting on the 
> accuser's behalf in the context of crime), bear the burden of proof, 
> justice also requires a statute of limitations.

How so?

> The above mentality perpetuates victimhood for those that really 
> suffered abuse and ruins the lives of those falsely accused of abuse.

Well, sure, if my bishop has been falsely accused, then he has been 
falsely accused and life has been made infinitely more difficult for both 
him and his archdiocese.  So if it were impossible to press charges, now, 
for something that allegedly happened in the 1980s, perhaps life would be 
a bit easier for everyone now.  Then again, perhaps not.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot