1. How will the window expose sexual predators?
2. Is opening this type of “window” constitutional?
3. What is it that victims are seeking with this legislation?
4. It must be pretty easy to bring a claim, isn’t it?
5. Isn’t this unfair to agencies, institutions and organizations to be sued now for events that happened decades ago?
6. Will this bill lead to false allegations?
7. Will this bill open the floodgates so the court house will be swamped?
8. Is this bill targeting those who abused kids in the Catholic church?
9. Will this new law help protect kids today?
10. Won’t this be unfair to anyone who must defend themselves against these types of allegations?
11. The Catholic church has fixed is policies and procedures so is this type of legislation needed?
1. How will the window expose sexual predators?
The Department of Justice estimates that only about 10% of sexual predators are identified. This bill targets some of the other 90% who haven’t been identified. There is a generation of victims who are now adults and are now able to speak up and identify their perpetrators. The “window” in the bill allows capable victims to do just that. While being abused and for years after it ended, child victims couldn’t speak up. By the time they were able, the statutes of limitation prevented them from doing so. But many of their perpetrators are still working in positions where they interact with children. Many predators interact with unsuspecting neighbors who don’t know their history. This bill will allow adults who previously were time-barred from bringing a lawsuit and naming their perpetrators to do so now. This will greatly assist in protecting children today who receive services by organizations who employ these predators as well as the children who live near them. Top>
2. Is opening this type of “window” constitutional?
Yes. The US Supreme Court determined that lawmakers have the authority to create laws that have a retroactive effect. The only requirement is that they make their intentions clear (which this bill clearly does).
Years ago, once a statute of limitations had run, it was considered a “vested right” that could not be revived. But more recently, the Court has held that the “[Statute of Limitations] are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the voidable and unavoidable delay. They have come into the law not through the judicial process but through legislation. They represent a public policy about the privilege to litigate. Their shelter has never been regarded as what now is called a ‘fundamental’ right or what used to be called a ‘natural’ right of the individual. (Statutes of limitations) are subject to a relatively large degree of legislative control.” Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314 (1945). (emphasis added). Top>
3. What is it that victims are seeking with this legislation?
Victims seek more time. As victims of child sexual abuse they couldn’t come forward sooner. They are not asking to reduce the burden of proof necessary to prove our case and they are not asking to set aside the rules of evidence. They are not trying to change the New York judicial process for proving a case. They just need more time.Top>
4. It must be pretty easy to bring a claim, isn’t it?
No. This is a very difficult case to prove and the burden of proof is on the victim. They've must not only prove that we’ve been abused, prove that they have suffered damages as a result of the abuse but also that someone in authority knew the perpetrators were abusing before they got to them. they recognize that the burden is huge but they are asking that they be permitted to have the chance to bring their cases. they ’d like their cases to be judged on the merits not on the technicality of the archaic and arbitrary statutes of limitation. Mental health professionals acknowledge that child victims of sexual abuse usually can’t report until they are well into adulthood. they are asking to match the Code of New York law to reflect the understandings of mental health professionals and bring the law up to the mental health standards of 2008.Top>
5. Isn’t this unfair to agencies, institutions and organizations to be sued now for events that happened decades ago?
No. If the responsible organization did not have notice, (was not aware that the employee had previously molested a child, or had some type of information that would have raised concerns that he or she might abuse a child) the agency or organization cannot be held liable. The only time that an institution can be held liable is if they knew the predator had a history and did not take appropriate action. In other words the agency is not liable if they didn’t know about the abuse and had no way of knowing. A requirement for bringing the civil action is that the party had notice of the danger the predator posed. If they didn’t and couldn’t have had notice they are not liable.Top>
6. Will this bill lead to false allegations?
No. False allegations are extremely rare. Defense lawyer Patrick Schlitz represented more than 500 priests accused of abuse. He told the New York Times (8/21/02) that less than ten of those were ‘false allegations.’ That is less than 2%.
Please keep in mind that there were false claims for 9/11 funds and for Katrina Hurricane relief. But no one suggested not helping the genuine victims. The current law has the capacity and succeeds in weeding out false allegations. Top>
7. Will this bill open the floodgates so the court house will be swamped?
No. We’re talking about hand-fulls of cases, not hundreds. In CA where they had a similar “window,” this was not a problem.Top>
8. Is this bill targeting those who abused kids in the Catholic Church?
No, this law allows all child sex victims to expose all sexual predators. All institutions could and should do better to protect kids and prevent abuse. This window will give them the incentive to do so while also exposing sexual predators who have not yet been exposed and are still walking free.Top>
9. Will this new law help protect kids today?
Yes. It will allow the victims to expose their perpetrators and those who enabled them. Many victims are now able to do this but are prevented by the statutes of limitation. Many predators still live and work in New York but the employers and neighbors don’t know their histories. Top>
10. Won’t this be unfair to anyone who must defend themselves against these types of allegations?
No. Please remember the burden of proof is on the victim, not the perpetrator.
Defense lawyers sometimes cite problems with stale memories, lost evidence and dead witnesses. But all these factors work to the ADVANTAGE, not DISADVANTAGE, of the defense. This law does not lessen the burden of proof the victim must meet and it doesn’t relax any rules of evidence. The victim must be able to substantiate the case with all the necessary evidence. In fact, usually when one victim speaks out others come forward. Some often have documents or letters or pictures. Typically, if a serial predator faces civil or criminal action, others who were hurt come forward with similar allegations. . .that’s one way these cases are ‘proven’. It rarely, if ever, comes down to one person’s word against another’s.Top>
11. The Catholic Church has fixed its policies and procedures so is this type of legislation needed?
Yes, this bill is needed because it targets all molesters and anyone who hires them and then covers up their crimes.
Most of the bishops’ changes were merely sound business decisions that should have been put in place decades ago. Many changes are largely window dressing. Most of them (background checks on those who supervise/teach children and education regarding “safe touch”) involve Catholic lay people, who never committed abuse or covered up abuse. Further, most of the priest predators are still priests. They have been temporarily suspended from ministry in their particular diocese but few have been “defrocked.” The same rigid, secretive, all male church hierarchy and culture that caused the crisis are still very much in place.Top>
|
