3 ms·
It's easy to hate on those accused of heinous crimes (both the person and their employer) but what about the concept of a fair trial? Imagine you were accused
by tropo 7y ago
It's easy to hate on those accused of heinous crimes (both the person and their employer) but what about the concept of a fair trial?
Imagine you were accused of doing something decades ago. Do you have an alibi for December 17, 1955? (adjust if you are younger, or imagine being accused of today's crime in 2077) You will have lost receipts, calendars, and ticket stubs. The people you were with, who could have served as witnesses, are long dead. You'll go up against a jury that hears a tragic story about some helpless child you supposedly harmed. Good luck with that.
It's especially bad that changes in statue of limitations don't just apply going forward. It really feels like ex-post-facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. Cases from about 70 years back are pushing Scouting BSA into Chapter 11.
- justizin 7y agoIf you're a member of the Catholic Church and that child was a member of your congregation and you definitely had contact with them during that time this isn't going to boil down to dinner receipts.
- milsorgen 7y agoThat is a very shortsighted viewpoint.
- save_ferris 7y agoI completely agree with the concept of a fair trial, but the church isn’t a person, nor should they be shielding predators from facing trial. The church is simply acting to prevent further legal exposure to what has to be the largest child sex abuse scandal in history. They’re not interested in protecting the innocent. If they were, they’d be much more transparent and cooperative with authorities than they have been.