Keep in mind:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) says that only 10% of predators are ever exposed. The window targets the other 90%. The majority of child victims aren’t able to understand or report their abuse before they are well into adulthood. By that time the statutes of limitation have expired for the vast majority of victims. The window will allow many victims to expose their perpetrator, those who enabled him or her and give the victims justice that has been denied.

The opposition may claim that the victims should have come forward sooner. But mental health professionals acknowledge that child victims couldn’t have done so. The archaic and restrictive statutes of limitation enable and even empower predators because the more trauma caused to the victim the less likely the victim will be able to speak up, hence the more likely that he or she will get away with the crime.

An average predator commits over 300 acts of abuse on over 100 victims. The vast majority are never caught because victims can’t tell. By extending the statute of limitations the victims will have the necessary time they need in order to heal enough to be able to speak up. When they do, the predators will be identified and exposed causing employers and neighbors to be put on notice to keep children away from the dangerous perpetrators.

Here’s the bottom line: The window is the single most effective mechanism to protect children today. It will allow predators to be exposed by victims who have not had the opportunity to expose their perpetrators up until now. The impact will be that New York will become one of the safest states for the protection of children.

You may hear the opposition say: This bill unfairly targets the Catholic church.
This simply is not true. Please read the bill. It targets all predators, not just Catholic priest predators.

You may hear the opposition say: Why make institutions pay today for something that happened decades ago?
Because wrong-doing has consequences. And if there are no consequences, wrongdoing continues.

You may hear the opposition say: Catholics today shouldn’t have to pay for past mistakes.
But the truth is that they already have, long ago. For decades Catholics have unknowingly paid for defense lawyers and public relations firms and secret settlements and, most of all, for tons of insurance policies to cover abuse. They have also paid with the innocence of their young sons and daughters who were victimized.

You may hear the opposition say: Other interest groups will want some kind of retroactive window.
Look at California which has had the one-year window since 2003. It hasn’t happened there.

You may hear: Catholic officials boast about the numbers of volunteers and employees who have had background checks and been educated about child sexual abuse.
But that is merely good business. Every institution that serves children does this and most started doing so decades ago.

You may hear the opposition question: How can a dead accused molester defend himself?
He doesn't have to. The burden is on the victim to prove the case.

You may hear the opposition question: Why should the church have to pay for an accuser who died long ago?
Many victims are still suffering even if their perpetrator is dead. If the institution enabled the predator to abuse dozens of children it should be held accountable for its wrongdoing. The victims still need help and the enablers should be exposed and held accountable.

You may hear the opposition say: Focus on the individual predators, not the employers.
Because police go after BOTH the low-level street corner dealer AND the big supplier or king pin both the individuals and their enablers need to be held accountable. Pursuing those who hire and shield predators will deter others from similar recklessness.

You may hear the opposition question: How will non-profits be able to get insurance?
Again, look at California. No one has offered a shred of evidence suggesting that non-profits in California have experienced any financial burden as a result.

You may hear the opposition say: This will break the church.
Again, there is no evidence that it has in California or anywhere else. None. Challenge church officials to come clean with their finances, evaluated by a third party, to prove their financial claims. They won’t do it.

You may hear the opposition say: The church will be forced to cut back on their social and charitable services.
But please remember that almost 90% of the funding for those services comes from the government and taxpayers.

You may hear the opposition propose: Let’s set up civil registry like Ohio did.
The Ohio Attorney General there has publicly called it “a sham.” Two years after that Ohio bill passed, there’s not one molester on that list. Kids there are no safer.