Conquer Club

tzor wrote:Because in this country, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The 122 priests are "accused" not found "guilty." Big difference.

Why aren't the superiors "in jail?" Because it is hard, many years after the fact, to prove that people did this with deliberate malice of forethought, especially in a time and a culture where people were not aware of the scope of the problem or wrongly believed that these were personal failings that could be somehow "cured" with the right treatment and were generally afraid that publicity could seriously harm the church's reputation and as a result, their financial assets.

2dimes wrote:I think there must not be enough fire arms in L.A.

to prove that people did this with deliberate malice of forethought, especially in a time and a culture where people were not aware of the scope of the problem or wrongly believed that these were personal failings that could be somehow "cured" with the right treatment and were generally afraid that publicity could seriously harm the church's reputation and as a result, their financial assets.

2dimes wrote:

to prove that people did this with deliberate malice of forethought, especially in a time and a culture where people were not aware of the scope of the problem or wrongly believed that these were personal failings that could be somehow "cured" with the right treatment and were generally afraid that publicity could seriously harm the church's reputation and as a result, their financial assets.

I... I... I ca... ca... I can't.. ~rage~

AAFitz wrote:So its ok to cover up a crime, if publicity might hurt reputation, or cost money? You're pretty much insinuating that somehow matters, at the very least.

AAFitz wrote:

2dimes wrote:I think there must not be enough fire arms in L.A.

I wanna get this, can you help me out.

tzor wrote:

AAFitz wrote:So its ok to cover up a crime, if publicity might hurt reputation, or cost money? You're pretty much insinuating that somehow matters, at the very least.

No it's not (Benghazi) it most certainly is not. It's just harder to prove a cover up especially when one simply dismisses the initial allegations and the victim doesn't actively pursue the allegations in a court of law. If someone from Microsoft molested you do you go to the cops or to Bill Gates?

There are a whole number of procedures that are now in place throughout the nation and a whole lot of attitudes that have changed as well. But you can't retrofit them back into the past (at least not yet).

2dimes wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

2dimes wrote:I think there must not be enough fire arms in L.A.

I wanna get this, can you help me out.

I'm not over protective of my kids like people I've met. I know guys that lose it if someone makes a joke about their daughters.

I have to get out of the thread because I'm going to start getting irrational. I just think there is or were some priests in need of being shot.

It's little kids man, unacceptable!

2dimes wrote:Well, there was some comedic intent because, I think L.A. has a fairly high firearm per area ratio if I wrote that sort of right.

I don't care who's little kid is involved, I don't think one of those guys would like it if I walked in. I have felt that way back when I planned not to have children. I can only imagine the reaction would be swifter if it was one of mine.

AAFitz wrote:That doesn't in any way explain the part where you suggest publicity, reputation, or financial cost matter in any way, or more precisely are factors to be considered when deciding guilt.

AAFitz wrote:One of the main, if not the main problem with the death penalty is the error factor. If the state rips an innocent guy off the street and kills him, it is murder, and it puts everyone at risk, but its stupid for me to post that here, so I think it would be a mistake to continue that discussion.

I add it only because if you asked me to honestly say, should we just put people convicted of multiple or repeated charges of pedo to death, Im not sure Id say yes, but Im not sure Id vote against it either...again, assuming no possibility of mistake.

AAFitz wrote:

tzor wrote:Because in this country, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The 122 priests are "accused" not found "guilty." Big difference.

Why aren't the superiors "in jail?" Because it is hard, many years after the fact, to prove that people did this with deliberate malice of forethought, especially in a time and a culture where people were not aware of the scope of the problem or wrongly believed that these were personal failings that could be somehow "cured" with the right treatment and were generally afraid that publicity could seriously harm the church's reputation and as a result, their financial assets.

So its ok to cover up a crime, if publicity might hurt reputation, or cost money? You're pretty much insinuating that somehow matters, at the very least.

I agree with the presumed innocent, but the reasons, especially selfish ones, are irrelevant to why a crime was covered up, for the most part. At most, it would affect sentencing.

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, California is one of 28 states that have adopted an extension of the statute of limitations based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects. While nearly every state has a basic suspension of the statute of limitations while someone is a minor, many states have recently adopted these new "discovery" extensions specifically designed for cases of sexual child abuse. The discovery rule allows for civil lawsuits to go forward when they are "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.

This rule was designed to counter the problem of prosecuting molesters who's victims had repressed the memories for decades, long after the statute of limitations expired. Now, upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim.

After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.

stahrgazer wrote:

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, California is one of 28 states that have adopted an extension of the statute of limitations based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects. While nearly every state has a basic suspension of the statute of limitations while someone is a minor, many states have recently adopted these new "discovery" extensions specifically designed for cases of sexual child abuse. The discovery rule allows for civil lawsuits to go forward when they are "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.

This rule was designed to counter the problem of prosecuting molesters who's victims had repressed the memories for decades, long after the statute of limitations expired. Now, upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim.

After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.

"Evidence" required in a civil suit is less stringent than "evidence" required in a formal prosecution.

bedub1 wrote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/cardinal-mahony-los-angeles-churches.html

122 priests accused of molesting children

No criminal charges have been filed against Mahony or anyone in the church hierarchy.

Why aren't 122 priests in jail? Why aren't their superiors in jail?

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, California is one of 28 states that have adopted an extension of the statute of limitations based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects. While nearly every state has a basic suspension of the statute of limitations while someone is a minor, many states have recently adopted these new "discovery" extensions specifically designed for cases of sexual child abuse. The discovery rule allows for civil lawsuits to go forward when they are "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.

This rule was designed to counter the problem of prosecuting molesters who's victims had repressed the memories for decades, long after the statute of limitations expired. Now, upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim.

After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.

"Evidence" required in a civil suit is less stringent than "evidence" required in a formal prosecution.

It is. One year also seems fairly short (believe it or not). I'm surprised it's not longer. I also wonder whether the plaintiff has the longer of one year from the date of discovery to sue the employer, three years from the date of recollection, or eight years from the age of majority.