Conquer Club

Why aren't priests in jail?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby bedub1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:32 pm

<Removed>
Last edited by bedub1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby Timminz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:38 pm

User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:15 pm

God works in mysterious ways.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby bedub1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:55 pm

<Removed>
Last edited by bedub1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Postby 2dimes on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:00 pm

I think there must not be enough fire arms in L.A.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby tzor on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:04 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:16 pm

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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re:

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:19 pm

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


I wanna get this, can you help me out. :oops:
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Postby 2dimes on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:22 pm

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~
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re:

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:27 pm

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~


I think that last part he wrote, is in the top ten stupidest things ever written in these forums, and thats only because I can only imagine what others wrote. Since this seems serious, Id nominate it for number one, without seeing a worse one recently.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby tzor on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:28 pm

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).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Postby 2dimes on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:36 pm

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. :oops:

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!
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:37 pm

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).


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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re:

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:40 pm

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. :oops:

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!


Ok I get it now. Its not a joke. Its a statement that you want to shoot them.

I asked because I assumed it was one of your one liners. I never considered it at face value.

I dont have kids, but I will say this, Im not sure you are wrong.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Postby 2dimes on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:57 pm

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.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re:

Postby AAFitz on Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:53 pm

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.


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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Cuz lawyers.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby tzor on Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:52 pm

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.


That's not what I said. I suggested that the general culture at the time there was a general tendency not to air dirty laundry least someone massively sues them for everything they got. Given that culture it is harder to prove cases of deliberate cover up. This isn't about guilt; this is about conviction in a court of law.

The Catholic solution wasn't unique, by the way. In the New York City school system any teacher who has an allegation thrown at them wasn't referred immediately to the cops but was "relocated" to a place called the "rubber room." They still got paid but they did no teaching and had no practical way to prove their innocence. Unlike the ad hoc decisions of the bishops, there was specific written policy on the rubber room.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Postby 2dimes on Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:04 am

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.

I wasn't banging the pole of my sign on the floor or ground in support of the death penalty. I'm also hard pressed to come out against it in this case but agree there can be no doubt.

If I caught something going down I'm not sure what I'd do. I suspect someone is getting a beating for sure.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12622
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:05 pm

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.


All he's saying with that list of (probably accurate) "reasons" is that people didn't pursue the crime when it would have been easier to prove it had occurred. The evidence is gone so you're stuck with "presumed innocent."

Even with all those documents where the head guy was concealing and moving priests - who'd admitted to someone, somewhere, what they were doing - "legally" the head guy saying, "x said this to someone," is hearsay, and any defense attorney would have that testimony stricken from the record. If they said it to him or any priest "in confession," that testimony is also legally protected (confessionals treated like client-attorney privilege.) That means, insufficient evidence exists to convict those pedof*cks.

So, in order to convict the pedof*cks for their acts, the legal system pretty much needs their confessions to law enforcement officials; and those convictions are pretty much needed in order to convict the others of conspiracy to shield criminals from prosecution. (You have to prove X is a criminal in order to prove Y tried to conceal it.)
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:00 pm

A few thoughts:

(1) I don't know the answer, but there may be a statute of limitations with respect to criminal prosecution of pedophilia.
(2) What stahrgazer said is correct - a lot of the admissions are hearsay and thus would be inadmissable.
(3) I think in the Los Angeles situation (and in a recent situation in Philadelphia), the Church leaders (at least in the US) are beginning to understand the concerns of laypeople and are responding, albeit slowly.
(4) I wonder whether, if the US church was pressured enough, they would start requiring the abusive priests, as part of their worldly contrition, to admit guilt to the property civil authorities and serve time. I think it's a good idea, but I haven't heard any movement on it.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:18 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:27 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:47 pm

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?

I am not sure that they will all remain free. In some cases, the guily people are now dead. In many cases, the statute of limitations has run out, unfortunately. In other cases, the evidence needed either is missing or has not been fully gathered, prosecuters are waiting to be sure they can actually get something to stick.

I actually thought I read about at least a couple of cases being brought to court, but I may be mistaken.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Why aren't priests in jail?

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:00 pm

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.


It varies state to state, but based on this, the plaintiff in California has 8 years from the age of majority to sue the perpetrator; or 3 years from discovering there was a psychological effect, even after the age of majority, to sue the perpetrator; and 1 year after discovering there was a cover-up to sue the one(s) who covered it up.

The cases brought to court may be some of these civil lawsuits, since in most cases the statute of limitations to prosecute criminally has, indeed, run out. Even though California extended the legal prosecution time, that extension of the Statute of Limitations (SoL) only applies to crimes committed after the SoL was changed. Since most of these cases took place decades ago, the SoL did run out so all that's left is civil suits (although the state may be trying to figure out a way to retroactively prosecute the conspirators.)
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Next

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users