Green, who is Catholic, said her motivation in supporting the bill was never to target the Catholic Church.
Sure you didn't Gwen. Green, who is a CINO, was deftly filleted and exposed for the mental eunuch she is by Dan Caplis on 630 KHOW.
Posted on 01/24/2008 5:53:26 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Colorado's Catholic Church leaders are planning to again fight a bill that would give victims more time to sue predators who sexually abused them as children.
A measure by state Rep. Gwyn Green, D-Golden, would lift the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits for children who suffer sexual abuse from now on. Any past victims for whom the statute of limitations has expired would have a two-year window - starting in July - to file a civil lawsuit against their alleged abusers or any institution that knowingly allowed the abuse.
Ted Thompson, executive director for the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children, called on Colorado lawmakers to unanimously pass the bill.
"This issue is black and white," Thompson said. "When it comes to the sexual abuse of a child, a statute of limitation only limits the victims. You limit the person who suffered the abuse and give a get-out-of-jail- free card to the guy who did the abuse."
Under Colorado's current statute of limitations, Coloradans who suffer abuse have six years after they turn 18 to sue their abusers. Children's advocates say that is not enough time because many victims blame themselves and often hide their abuse for years before reporting it or considering criminal or civil action against their abuser.
In 2006, Green sponsored a bill that would have allowed victims unlimited time to file future lawsuits against private institutions if those institutions tried to cover up sexual abuse. The Catholic Church felt it was being unfairly singled out.
The bill eventually was amended to include public schools and governments. Those groups then joined in opposing the measure. The sponsors let their bill die rather than see it weakened.
This year's measure, House Bill 1011, never mentions the Catholic
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
A statute of limitations is one of the features of both our criminal and civil legal systems. Should they really be easily overturned?
And if so, shouldn’t what’s good for the goose be good for the gander? Why not remove the statute of limitations for individuals and public institutions to be sued? Laws should not be aimed at one specific target.
Sounds like this is really from the trial lawyers. Pretty hard to mount a defensive when Lenny Loafers claims he was abused 40 years ago by a now-deceased pastor/teacher/etc. Here’s your $1M Lenny, don’t forget to give your lawyer his cut!
Green, who is Catholic, said her motivation in supporting the bill was never to target the Catholic Church.
Sure you didn't Gwen. Green, who is a CINO, was deftly filleted and exposed for the mental eunuch she is by Dan Caplis on 630 KHOW.
The bill eventually was amended to include public schools and governments. Those groups then joined in opposing the measure. The sponsors let their bill die rather than see it weakened.
The whole truth is always more interesting ...
Statutes of limitations exist for the protection of the innocent.
I would say that abused children are innocent. How do Statue of Limitations protect them?
Unless that one specific "target" has demonstrated a history of covering up any, shall we call them "issues?"
Statutes of limitations exist explicitly to protect them.
How many innocent folks do you want to destroy with false accusations?
dat’s funny!
there’s the catholic church on the side of justice.
"It's fer da CHILLLLrun ...."
Standard leftist excuse for any sort of legal idiocy.
You're no doubt referring to the public education system or did you simply neglect to take them into consideration?
“I would say that abused children are innocent. How do Statue of Limitations protect them?”
Ask anyone accused by someone with “Recovered Memories” decades later and see how that works.
It was in vogue therapeutically for several years leading to false charges, ruined lived and for some, the exoneration came way too late.
Statutes of limitations exist explicitly to protect them.
How many innocent folks do you want to destroy with false accusations?
*******************
Exactly right. Imagine being accused, but innocent. Then imagine trying to mount a defence against a charge for an alleged crime that is years and years old.
Imagine trying to recall where you were on a specific date for purposes of establishing an alibi, and then try to imagine where the person who can confirm it may be now, if they are even alive. There are very good reasons for these statutes, which involve protecting the wrongfully accused.
People who are falsely accused of abuse are innocent, too.
Even if they're Catholic priests.
We have 15 years after the 18th birthday in Mass, not even the Commie Pinko Legislature here could do away with the Statue of Limitations.
I could maybe see lengthening it to more than six years (think what you were like at 24) after the 18th birthday, but, no limitations is absurd and an abuse of the Legal system.
They’ll write anyone a check here in Boston with absolutely no proof and against the advice of lawyers, imagine all the false accusations this would bring if Mike the Heroine head could wait for his favorite Priest to die then accuse him a month after the funeral.
I know of one case here in Boston where that happened. The guy was in a Coma from 1986-2004 when he died and got accused a month later.
They don't, but the more time that has passed from the moment the crime is alleged to have occurred the harder it is to find objective evidence that supports the claim or disproves it. I remember the hysteria around the McMartin case and rush to judgment. The same error can occur if charges can be filed way after the fact.
No doubt.
***the harder it is to find objective evidence that supports the claim or disproves it***
But the interesting thing is that the employer was complicit in the whole matter being discussed. This was not necessarily a sudden revelation, but a well orchestrated cover-up.
Zeal is good.
Fanaticism is reprehensible.
These folks who want to eliminate the legitimate protection of the innocent provided by the "statute of limitations" are fanatics.
God help you, when the fanatics come after you.
I think that's where the law should be changed. Those that were complicit in covering up a crime of sexual abuse should suffer the same penalty as the abuser. However, if you extend the statue of limitations you can have people making accusations from 20+ years ago. How can you prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.